Mets wanted Dylan Bundy for Daniel Murphy

[DrungoHazewood]

Oh that's an insane trade alright. Two years of an average second baseman at arb prices for six years of a potential ace at pennies on the dollar? Even if Bundy just ends up as an average starter the O's probably lose that deal by 10-15 WAR.

[Enjoy Terror]

Maybe they were hoping Duquette would click the 'Accept Trade' button by accident

[skanar]

Apparently the Mets are THAT owner in your fantasy league....

"You need a starting pitcher? Sweet, I need a 1B. How about Joey Votto for Phil Hughes? No? Well, I guess I could sweeten the deal with a bench player - how about Rajai Davis? So it's Hughes and Davis for Votto. No again? Really? I thought you wanted a pitcher, man. And Hughes is GOOD, he's going to be in Minnesota instead of Yankee Stadium, I'd be giving up a lot. I actually think I'm losing that deal. You really don't want to make it?"

Another very weird note from the article: The Mets were reportedly interested in trading Murphy because they felt his OBP was too low and "didn't fit with the team philosophy that emphasizes OBP." Except Murphy has a career .333 OBP (.319 last season) which is (1) much higher than the Mets' team OBP, (2) above average for the NL, and (3) quite good for a second baseman.

[Stotle]

Oh that's an insane trade alright. Two years of an average second baseman at arb prices for six years of a potential ace at pennies on the dollar? Even if Bundy just ends up as an average starter the O's probably lose that deal by 10-15 WAR.

It's not a good trade for BAL, but GM equation is closer to

(2014 Murphy production/salary) + (2015 Murphy production/salary) + (Roster spot 2016-20 production/salary)

versus

(Roster spot 2014 production/salary) + (Bundy production/salary 2015-2020)

So, rather than viewing solely as player vs player, we can look at it as use of a finite number of roster spots. If Bundy were viewed as excess (say, Tillman to be extended, Jiminez, Gausman, Rodriguez, Wright and Harvey were the FO's long term plan), then more weight could be given to the roster slot procution in 2014-15.

I still think it makes no sense for Baltimore, but I don't know that I'd only view it in the player for player vacuum.

[24fps]

It's not a good trade for BAL, but GM equation is closer to

(2014 Murphy production/salary) + (2015 Murphy production/salary) + (Roster spot 2016-20 production/salary)

versus

(Roster spot 2014 production/salary) + (Bundy production/salary 2015-2020)

So, rather than viewing solely as player vs player, we can look at it as use of a finite number of roster spots. If Bundy were viewed as excess (say, Tillman to be extended, Jiminez, Gausman, Rodriguez, Wright and Harvey were the FO's long term plan), then more weight could be given to the roster slot procution in 2014-15.

I still think it makes no sense for Baltimore, but I don't know that I'd only view it in the player for player vacuum.

A very subversive post.

You realize what you're risking here right? Get people to abandon the player-for-player-in-a-vacuum model and the number of threads might be reduced by 25%. The number of argumentative posts around here might shrink by a third. Reason might break out in the room, lions might lay down with lambs, in other words all hell might break loose when people find that they have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.

All joking aside, I think this is a very useful approach to looking at potential trade ideas.

[MatthewW]

I feel like this "news" came out a month ago, maybe even longer...

[OFFNY]

I feel like this "news" came out a month ago, maybe even longer ...

Oo

[atomic]

I agree with the sentiment, but I think (or at least hope) that most people talking about Hardy for Miller were hoping that it would be a deal the Cardinals would be inclined to do, rather than a deal that would necessarily be a good deal for them. I think anybody who thinks Hardy and Miller are remotely close in trade value (in a vacuum) is way off base. But, when you have a team who seems "one piece away" with alot of depth available to trade, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think they would overpay to get a player that they covet. However, that was alot of speculation on the Orioles fans' and front offices' part that Miller was in that realm.

I do think the Orioles would have been able to get a very good deal from the Cards for Hardy for those reasons, but they value him very highly so they weren't able to come together. Pretty rational series of trade negotiations. In fact, you could say the Cardinals did end up overpaying by throwing a ton of money at Peralta and looking pretty silly in hindsight compared to if they had waited the market out (with Drew available and no real suitors).

Bundy for Murphy, I don't know how Alderson even thought that would be remotely considered, especially considering that the articles states the Mets were "shopping" him. There's no way any GM of a team in the Orioles' situation with two brain cells to rub together would consider that. I think our plan all along was to go with our internal options for a year to see if Flaherty could become a regular player and see how Schoop develops, and save the budget for our multiple other needs (which was the right call). I understand the idea of "there's no harm in asking," but really the Mets were just wasting everybody's time.

Why would you trade a major league above average second baseman for less than a decent prospect? It is not like Bundy is ready to step-in and pitch this year. He just had a major surgery and probably won't even be productively pitching this year. Who knows if he will ever get back to form. And he was still just a prospect before the surgery. I don't know why people overvalue our prospects so much.

Maybe it wouldn't be a good trade but it is certainly not a crazy deal.

[Number5]

Why would you trade a major league above average second baseman for less than a decent prospect? It is not like Bundy is ready to step-in and pitch this year. He just had a major surgery and probably won't even be productively pitching this year. Who knows if he will ever get back to form. And he was still just a prospect before the surgery. I don't know why people overvalue our prospects so much.

Maybe it wouldn't be a good trade but it is certainly not a crazy deal.

Less than decent prospect? Really? Really?

[atomic]

Oh that's an insane trade alright. Two years of an average second baseman at arb prices for six years of a potential ace at pennies on the dollar? Even if Bundy just ends up as an average starter the O's probably lose that deal by 10-15 WAR.

What if Bundy is a bust? What if he isn't the pitcher he was before the surgery? You have to trade quality prospects to get quality players. It made sense to offer to the Orioles because we don't have a quality second baseman.

[DrungoHazewood]

What if Bundy is a bust? What if he isn't the pitcher he was before the surgery? You have to trade quality prospects to get quality players. It made sense to offer to the Orioles because we don't have a quality second baseman.

You make reasonable projections of value, or ranges of value. Bundy's is just massively higher than Murphy's. Literally, the mid-case has to be many tens of millions of dollars higher. If Duquette pulled the trigger on that my grade for the off-season would go from B to D-.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's not a good trade for BAL, but GM equation is closer to

(2014 Murphy production/salary) + (2015 Murphy production/salary) + (Roster spot 2016-20 production/salary)

versus

(Roster spot 2014 production/salary) + (Bundy production/salary 2015-2020)

So, rather than viewing solely as player vs player, we can look at it as use of a finite number of roster spots. If Bundy were viewed as excess (say, Tillman to be extended, Jiminez, Gausman, Rodriguez, Wright and Harvey were the FO's long term plan), then more weight could be given to the roster slot procution in 2014-15.

I still think it makes no sense for Baltimore, but I don't know that I'd only view it in the player for player vacuum.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that changes the valuation much. It seems like a rationalization for trading a highly-valued asset for something close to a commonly-available one.

If Bundy were viewed as surplus you could (easily) get a better return than maybe $20M worth of a second baseman for $10 or $12M.

[Stotle]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that changes the valuation much. It seems like a rationalization for trading a highly-valued asset for something close to a commonly-available one.

If Bundy were viewed as surplus you could (easily) get a better return than maybe $20M worth of a second baseman for $10 or $12M.

The market tells you what you can get, and time value of the particular asset matters (as does the value of the particular "wins" you are trying to add to your team).

EDIT -- It's also a matter of real world value as opposed to hypothetical value (which is why you see GMs make moves that don't make great sense on the Fangraphs WAR/$ spectrum, but are nonetheless determined to be worthwhile moves by the front office folk). Optimization of "value" is important as a goal, but ultimately winning baseball games is what matters to orgs.

[DrungoHazewood]

The market tells you what you can get, and time value of the particular asset matters (as does the value of the particular "wins" you are trying to add to your team).

Right, and if Dylan Bundy's current market is two years of Daniel Murphy at $10-12M, then much of what I know about player valuation is just wrong. I don't see how anyone could take one of the better pitching prospects in baseball, someone with true ace upside, and trade six years of that for a couple of years of a decent second baseman.

Last year Murphy was worth 1.8 rWAR, less than the mashup of Brian Roberts + Ryan Flaherty + Alexi Casilla. It boggles the mind that anyone thinks it's in any way reasonable to trade a potential franchise cornerstone for what amounts to a push at second coming off a year where the organization didn't even really try to fill the position. You'd get almost the same impact by releasing Bundy and signing a second baseman off the waiver wire in late March! There's probably a 20, 30, 40% chance Flaherty is a better player in 2014 than Murphy, and 100% chance he's a lot cheaper, and you get to keep Dylan Bundy.

[Stotle]

Right, and if Dylan Bundy's current market is two years of Daniel Murphy at $10-12M, then much of what I know about player valuation is just wrong. I don't see how anyone could take one of the better pitching prospects in baseball, someone with true ace upside, and trade six years of that for a couple of years of a decent second baseman.

Last year Murphy was worth 1.8 rWAR, less than the mashup of Brian Roberts + Ryan Flaherty + Alexi Casilla. It boggles the mind that anyone thinks it's in any way reasonable to trade a potential franchise cornerstone for what amounts to a push at second coming off a year where the organization didn't even really try to fill the position. You'd get almost the same impact by releasing Bundy and signing a second baseman off the waiver wire in late March! There's probably a 20, 30, 40% chance Flaherty is a better player in 2014 than Murphy, and 100% chance he's a lot cheaper, and you get to keep Dylan Bundy.

I never said this was a good trade for Baltimore (infact I said the opposite a couple times, including the very post of mine you responded to -- it started "It's not a good deal for Baltimore...", I believe).

I was just offering up that the calculus can at times be more nuanced than "6 years of cheap control for potentially the next great young ace versus two years of relatively expensive meh." Also that GMs, for a number of reason, have different valuations for players than Fangraphs -- particularly when you talk about the speculative value of prospects with varying developmental time horizons.