Jump to content

Do we have enough to get Joey Votto?


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Let's say you are willing to go after Votto and you are willing to put Britton and Machado on the table.

It would be tough for anyone to beat that offer.

But, putting that offer aside for a moment, Votto is only signed for 2 more years and he is signed for 9.5M next year and 17M the following year.

If you were to trade for him, you have to get him to sign a 5-6 year extension OR rip up his current contract and give him a 7-8 year deal along the lines of what AGon got.

The problem with that is, you could probably just get Fielder for another 20-50 million for the same time period and keep Machado and Britton.

Now, Votto is a much better player than Fielder but still, are you willing to say that Votto is that much better than Fielder that you are giving up Britton and Machado?

And the problem with that is Votto has said he's not willing to sign such a long term deal. So plan goes caput before it starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence why I roll my eyes when people rely so much on WAR. As someone that ties into scouting as much as you do I'm surprised to see you saying some of this. You are saying it's no problem at all to get that kind of production out of a SS? Do you see the problem with this? You giving me those WAR is exactly what I mean, you KNOW those players are worth more than that, but because some statistic tells you this is their value you just take that and say ok??

Too much reliance on statistics. Statistics didn't win Billy Beane anything. They got Paul DePodesta fired.

I try to utilize every means of evaluation possible. In general I believe that scouting becomes more essential in evaluation as the level of talent/variance in competition/age and experience level decreases. At the highest level, I'm completely comfortable using statistical analysis to assess worth, as long as the most reliable statistics are being used.

WAR is far from being perfect. That's been discussed ad nauseum on this board. But the idea of position value is pretty straight forward in my opinion. It seeks to quantify that exact intuition you had - that getting offensive production out of first base is much easier than getting it out of shortstop. But running wild with that notion with no quantification is ground for hyperbole. We need to get a good notion of just how much easier it is to find production at 1B than it is to find it at SS. And, at least comparing average wOBAs, the average offensive shortstop will produce 18-20 fewer runs than the average first baseman. This will change from year to year but I am very comfortable using that number as a baseline. I think you're exactly right that a good offensive shortstop trumps an equally good or slightly better offensive first baseman. But I also think you're underrating just how good of a hitter Votto is.

Re: your other post, I said I'd easily swap them in terms of talent. I've yet to weigh in on whether this is a good move in terms of efficiency or long-term value. I just think it's a long shot that Machado becomes as valuable year in and year out as Votto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Machado > Votto.
I wouldn't. There is risk, sure, but it's easier to find Votto like numbers at 1B or DH than it is to find it at SS or 3B. Machado and Bundy have the potential to be mega-stars, and it's not worth trading a good chance at one of those for a good solid player. Just my philosophy though.
I try to utilize every means of evaluation possible. In general I believe that scouting becomes more essential in evaluation as the level of talent/variance in competition/age and experience level decreases. At the highest level, I'm completely comfortable using statistical analysis to assess worth, as long as the most reliable statistics are being used.

WAR is far from being perfect. That's been discussed ad nauseum on this board. But the idea of position value is pretty straight forward in my opinion. It seeks to quantify that exact intuition you had - that getting offensive production out of first base is much easier than getting it out of shortstop. But running wild with that notion with no quantification is ground for hyperbole. We need to get a good notion of just how much easier it is to find production at 1B than it is to find it at SS. And, at least comparing average wOBAs, the average offensive shortstop will produce 18-20 fewer runs than the average first baseman. This will change from year to year but I am very comfortable using that number as a baseline. I think you're exactly right that a good offensive shortstop trumps an equally good or slightly better offensive first baseman. But I also think you're underrating just how good of a hitter Votto is.

Re: your other post, I said I'd easily swap them in terms of talent. I've yet to weigh in on whether this is a good move in terms of efficiency or long-term value. I just think it's a long shot that Machado becomes as valuable year in and year out as Votto.

Nothing in the first stages of this conversation seemed to have anything to do w/ contract years and cost. The comparison through the first page seemed to be about talent/value. And, in that context, RVA is exactly right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that the convo steered into a comparison of Machado's potential output vs Votto's output. The biggest factor in comparing the two, I'd think, is obviously the fact that Votto is in the Major Leagues and Machado is in HiA.

The variance in possible outcomes for Machado is great -- which is really what affects his trade value.

And I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Machado > Votto at Machado's age. I have my own valuation of Machado based on my opinion from a scouting perspective. But anecdotally I'd certainly concede that many evaluators view him as a top 10 prospect in baseball, the best SS in the minors, a future star and impact player. I'm fairly certain Votto was never even considered the top prospect in his organization. If Votto was able to make adjustments towards the end of his development to push him from projected solid to above-average regular to one of the top hitters in the game, I have no reason to think it isn't possible for Machado to be every bit the superstar that some (maybe hyperbolically) state he will be.

It's the risk involved in variance in potential outcomes due to remaining developmental time that skews the scales here, not some lopsided talent valuations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that the convo steered into a comparison of Machado's potential output vs Votto's output. The biggest factor in comparing the two, I'd think, is obviously the fact that Votto is in the Major Leagues and Machado is in HiA.

The variance in possible outcomes for Machado is great -- which is really what affects his trade value.

If Votto was able to make adjustments towards the end of his development to push him from projected solid to above-average regular to one of the top hitters in the game, I have no reason to think it isn't possible for Machado to be every bit the superstar that some (maybe hyperbolically) state he will be.

It's the risk involved in variance in potential outcomes due to remaining developmental time that skews the scales here, not some lopsided talent valuations.

I don't know if this is addressing me, but I put a slash between talent and valuation. And that's because "talent" for me equals a distribution of likely outcomes and a sense of floor and (more importantly) ceiling. While "valuation" takes into account the probability of those outcomes. Valuation translates into actual MLB or trade value. To the extent we're talking about Machado's "value" it's an attempt to forecast what we expect at the MLB level and then factor in the risk/probabilities.

Along the same lines, the fact of Votto's outlying boost in production can't really affect our valuation of Machado. Many things could happen. Votto's 5% outcome isn't any indicator for Machado, as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you are willing to go after Votto and you are willing to put Britton and Machado on the table.

It would be tough for anyone to beat that offer.

But, putting that offer aside for a moment, Votto is only signed for 2 more years and he is signed for 9.5M next year and 17M the following year.

If you were to trade for him, you have to get him to sign a 5-6 year extension OR rip up his current contract and give him a 7-8 year deal along the lines of what AGon got.

The problem with that is, you could probably just get Fielder for another 20-50 million for the same time period and keep Machado and Britton.

Now, Votto is a much better player than Fielder but still, are you willing to say that Votto is that much better than Fielder that you are giving up Britton and Machado?

I think Machado is a given, but you wonder if you could somehow keep Britton, and allow the Reds to take Schoop and Arrieta for example.

Votto is likely a 6-7+ fWAR player moving forward while Fielder is more like a 5 fWAR player and Votto is more likely to keep up his production past his 32nd birthday.

The extension is obviously key, but that's why you don't stop at Votto and make sure you add the pieces to win around him so he'll want to extend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Machado is a given, but you wonder if you could somehow keep Britton, and allow the Reds to take Schoop and Arrieta for example.

Votto is likely a 6-7+ fWAR player moving forward while Fielder is more like a 5 fWAR player and Votto is more likely to keep up his production past his 32nd birthday.

The extension is obviously key, but that's why you don't stop at Votto and make sure you add the pieces to win around him so he'll want to extend.

You can't trade that package without an extension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is addressing me, but I put a slash between talent and valuation. And that's because "talent" for me equals a distribution of likely outcomes and a sense of floor and (more importantly) ceiling. While "valuation" takes into account the probability of those outcomes. Valuation translates into actual MLB or trade value. To the extent we're talking about Machado's "value" it's an attempt to forecast what we expect at the MLB level and then factor in the risk/probabilities.

Along the same lines, the fact of Votto's outlying boost in production can't really affect our valuation of Machado. Many things could happen. Votto's 5% outcome isn't any indicator for Machado, as far as I can tell.

Was addressed at the whole convo. Votto's 5% outcome is, of course, not an indicator for Machado. But it is most certainly a reminder of the variance involved in projecting prospects. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find many evaluators who viewed Votto as a better prospect at age 19 then they view Machado.

I'd trade Machado for Votto in a general sense. But given where Baltimore is as an organization it isn't a trade that would make much sense. I highly doubt Votto would stay in Baltimore and the Orioles aren't competing in 2012, for sure. I don't move Machado for a chance at the playoffs in 2013 if other things break right.

I'd move Machado for Votto if he were signed to 4 or more years -- but that would require much more than just Machado.

I understand your value/talent appraisal -- was just surprised that between two brains like yours and RVA's that no one bothered to actually write it out long hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was addressed at the whole convo. Votto's 5% outcome is, of course, not an indicator for Machado. But it is most certainly a reminder of the variance involved in projecting prospects. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find many evaluators who viewed Votto as a better prospect at age 19 then they view Machado.

I'd trade Machado for Votto in a general sense. But given where Baltimore is as an organization it isn't a trade that would make much sense. I highly doubt Votto would stay in Baltimore and the Orioles aren't competing in 2012, for sure. I don't move Machado for a chance at the playoffs in 2013 if other things break right.

I'd move Machado for Votto if he were signed to 4 or more years -- but that would require much more than just Machado.

I understand your value/talent appraisal -- was just surprised that between two brains like yours and RVA's that no one bothered to actually write it out long hand.

I blame the 85 hr work week and the working weekend. I should have been clearer, but I'd wager that both RVA and I would agree w/ pretty much everything you write.

I think, perhaps, that we got blinded by the positional adjustment argument and the characterization of of Votto as "good" and Machado as a potential "superstar." Obviously, the latter is true, but it's a question of calculating potential. The former is way off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame the 85 hr work week and the working weekend. I should have been clearer, but I'd wager that both RVA and I would agree w/ pretty much everything you write.

I think, perhaps, that we got blinded by the positional adjustment argument and the characterization of of Votto as "good" and Machado as a potential "superstar." Obviously, the latter is true, but it's a question of calculating potential. The former is way off.

Haha. I am very happy my 80 hr weeks are few and far between at this point (and usually involve lots of time at home when I am billing like that).

Agree -- Votto is clearly a superstar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trade that package without an extension.

This discussion shouldn't even be happening (not that y'all aren't free to have it). You can't trade the farm for a 1B who, in the best case, will need 120 million to re-sign. First, it doesn't make sense to trade our best young players at this stage of team building. Second, why on earth would we do that when we could theoretically sign a comparably valued player for roughly the same amount without giving up our best young talent?

This whole conversation just makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...