Fangraphs: Hardy's 2011 season was worth $21.3 mm...

[allstar1579]

Yes, I wanted them to pursue a 2/15 type extension.

However, what changed is that the team sucked and all the young pitching underachieved and instead of being closer to contention, we were further away than before the season started.

In other words, the priorities changed.

Not to mention, Hardy had a monster first half, so his trade value was pretty high.

...but it's higher now. If he can manage to have another good season here this upcoming year (I don't think there is a chance they trade him this season) I think he's got really good trade value the year after when (in theory) Machado should be about ready to come up.

[Sports Guy]

...but it's higher now. If he can manage to have another good season here this upcoming year (I don't think there is a chance they trade him this season) I think he's got really good trade value the year after when (in theory) Machado should be about ready to come up.

Key word.

I have no doubt he will produce well...IF healthy.

Again, if being the key word.

[allstar1579]

Key word.

I have no doubt he will produce well...IF healthy.

Again, if being the key word.

True that. I wouldn't put money on another healthy season back to back, but I think if he's healthy you'll see similar numbers. Park effect and all.

I just don't really mind extending him for the contract he got while he's holding a position for someone coming up. It's a little risk that we didn't deal him when he did, but I think from the point you are talking about til now his value just about doubled. After the season when people can reflect on a season and really look back at numbers is when you see more teams get in on and more interested in players (I guess since there is more time to look into it not being in-season), so anytime you make it to an offseason and can add more teams to the mix, not just the contenders, it's going to jack up trade value.

[Sports Guy]

True that. I wouldn't put money on another healthy season back to back, but I think if he's healthy you'll see similar numbers. Park effect and all.

I just don't really mind extending him for the contract he got while he's holding a position for someone coming up. It's a little risk that we didn't deal him when he did, but I think from the point you are talking about til now his value just about doubled. After the season when people can reflect on a season and really look back at numbers is when you see more teams get in on and more interested in players (I guess since there is more time to look into it not being in-season), so anytime you make it to an offseason and can add more teams to the mix, not just the contenders, it's going to jack up trade value.

In a vaccuum, the contract was an excellent one.

But trading him would have been better for the team.

I think we could have gotten a nice package from St Louis by dealing them Guthrie and Hardy(for example).

[backwardsk]

The only thing that I don't like about the outcome of the hardy trade is that it now creates an example of the team trading nothing to get an impactful player.

Now, I'll brace myself for a winter of Hudson/Josh Johnson proposals.

[allstar1579]

In a vaccuum, the contract was an excellent one.

But trading him would have been better for the team.

I think we could have gotten a nice package from St Louis by dealing them Guthrie and Hardy(for example).

Maybe...not that I like a lot that STL has to offer in their system, besides S. Miller. But what could we get for the two of them NOW compared to July? (again, not that we will trade Hardy) I could see Guthrie getting a chance to go win somewhere for the right package, but we really need a steady innings eater in addition to him already, so replacing him just adds to our list.

Not taking away from what you mean, I was 50/50 on it at the time, but I really like Hardy and I'm fine keeping him too.

[Stotle]

I imagine Baltimore could get a pretty impressive package from Philly if they are so inclined to deal this off-season. Hardy, Jones, Guthrie would all be interesting for PHI.

[Frobby]

In a vaccuum, the contract was an excellent one.

But trading him would have been better for the team.

I think we could have gotten a nice package from St Louis by dealing them Guthrie and Hardy(for example).

True or false - Hardy's trade value is greater today than it was before he signed his extention? In my mind, it is undoubtedly true. A player who is signed for three years at a cheap price is more valuable than a player whose contract expires at the end of the year.

Now, will we trade him this offseason? I seriously doubt it. But he's worth more right now than he was in July.

[DrungoHazewood]

True or false - Hardy's trade value is greater today than it was before he signed his extention? In my mind, it is undoubtedly true. A player who is signed for three years at a cheap price is more valuable than a player whose contract expires at the end of the year.

Now, will we trade him this offseason? I seriously doubt it. But he's worth more right now than he was in July.

Exactly. If they'd traded him before the extension teams would be paying for 2-3 months of JJ Hardy, or the equivalent of maybe 2 WAR, or less than $10M in value.

Right now they're looking at a guy coming off a $20M season signed to a 3/22 deal. Tons more plausible surplus value.

But anyway, they're not trading him.

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly. If they'd traded him before the extension teams would be paying for 2-3 months of JJ Hardy, or the equivalent of maybe 2 WAR, or less than $10M in value.

Right now they're looking at a guy coming off a $20M season signed to a 3/22 deal. Tons more plausible surplus value.

But anyway, they're not trading him.

Would you? (Just curious.)

[Sports Guy]

True or false - Hardy's trade value is greater today than it was before he signed his extention? In my mind, it is undoubtedly true. A player who is signed for three years at a cheap price is more valuable than a player whose contract expires at the end of the year.

Now, will we trade him this offseason? I seriously doubt it. But he's worth more right now than he was in July.

It depends on the team.

Let's say there was a team that really wanted Hardy for this year but had a good SS prospect that they felt was going to be ready next year. They may have preferred Hardy plus 2 picks vs his contract.

Now, if you want to look at it as of right now, the same thing applies. A team may want Hardy for a year but not beyond that.

Also, he has an 8 team NTC, so that could hurt the Orioles in terms of who they can shop him to.

And of course, you have the injury factor and his contract could be an issue if he gets hurt.

[Lucky Jim]

It depends on the team.

Let's say there was a team that really wanted Hardy for this year but had a good SS prospect that they felt was going to be ready next year. They may have preferred Hardy plus 2 picks vs his contract.

Now, if you want to look at it as of right now, the same thing applies. A team may want Hardy for a year but not beyond that.

Also, he has an 8 team NTC, so that could hurt the Orioles in terms of who they can shop him to.

And of course, you have the injury factor and his contract could be an issue if he gets hurt.

Your trading-theories have always ignored transaction costs. So, if the case is that some team has an up-and-comer, why not just trade Hardy again when they need to? Nothing that increases Hardy's over-all value should actually hurt his market. Unless trading Hardy again in a year means that he's suddenly going to bring less value than 2 picks.

[Sports Guy]

Your trading-theories have always ignored transaction costs. So, if the case is that some team has an up-and-comer, why not just trade Hardy again when they need to? Nothing that increases Hardy's over-all value should actually hurt his market. Unless trading Hardy again in a year means that he's suddenly going to bring less value than 2 picks.

What are you talking about? I also consider that.

And your theory here is definitely true...But again, you have the NTC and health history to worry about.

Those 2 things are seemingly ignored by so many on here but they are obviously very important.

[Lucky Jim]

What are you talking about? I also consider that.

And your theory here is definitely true...But again, you have the NTC and health history to worry about.

Those 2 things are seemingly ignored by so many on here but they are obviously very important.

I'm harkening back to old conversations where you espoused endless trades and flipping and re-flipping. Not a big deal - but I do think the first issue is a non-issue for the reasons I stated.

The second two are legitimate, but only the last one (and that's a time/uncertainty factor) is substantial. And injury does a lot of damage. If Hardy is a ticking time-bomb, then sure, he loses a lot of value. The NTC is limited enough, and the surplus value so great, that it's hard to imagine that it makes much of a dent in his trade value.

[Sports Guy]

I'm harkening back to old conversations where you espoused endless trades and flipping and re-flipping. Not a big deal - but I do think the first issue is a non-issue for the reasons I stated.

The second two are legitimate, but only the last one (and that's a time/uncertainty factor) is substantial. And injury does a lot of damage. If Hardy is a ticking time-bomb, then sure, he loses a lot of value. The NTC is limited enough, and the surplus value so great, that it's hard to imagine that it makes much of a dent in his trade value.

Well, if 4 teams need a SS and 3 of them are on his NTC(and he refuses to waive it), then it really hurts his value, don't you think?

And yes, I realize that is likely an extreme example but Frobby's original t/f question, which is where this discussion has come from, ignored too many of these factors.