Finding surplus value -- it isn't easy

[Frobby]

The

Generally I would like to the O's make a decision on whether to extend a player or trade him prior to his free agent year. Next off season the O's should make a decision on Tillman and Gonzalez.

This doesn't always work. Davis was coming off a down year and Wieters was injured last off season. That made them hard to move and get value in return. Being Boras clients they were very unlikely to extend.

Britton is a little difference case. He will probably be too expensive to be an O's closer next off season. There is probably a decision to be made at that point. He is also a Boras client so extension is probably not in this future.

I haven't researched this, but it seems to me you get a lot more back in a trade if the player has two years remaining before FA rather than one.

[hoosiers]

So, just to be clear, do you advocate shopping Jones, Machado and Britton next offseason, even if we are contenders in 2016?

Baseball's a funny game. We easily made the playoffs in 2014 despite missing Wieters for 4.5 months and Manny for 3 months, plus the awful year from Davis. We missed the playoffs by a solid margin in 2015 despite terrific years from Manny and Davis and at least more of Wieters in 2015 than in 2014. I don't think you'd say that those players were irrelevant to winning and losing, though. There were other factors at play, such as the starting pitching and the loss of Cruz and Markakis. Yes, we got lucky that Caleb Joseph competently replaced Wieters in 2014, but 2015 shows that sometimes the dice don't roll your way when you replace an established player with guys who are more "iffy."

I want to point out that I'm not necessarily ruling out trading away established stars for prospects, depending on factors such as (1) whether the team is a contender or not, (2) whether payroll limitations prevent the team from keeping all of its star players, (3) the quality of the available trade package and how ready the prospects are to join the major league club, and (4) whether there are good players already in the system who can fill the vacated positions. With 20/20 hindsight, trading Wieters two year ago would have been a great move, if we had any reason to expect Caleb Joseph to be as capable as he's turned out to be. But I don't think that was really foreseeable at the time.

I mostly care about the quality of the trade package. If a team needs a top CF prospect and is willing to meet our asking price, I would indeed trade Adam Jones. I think we should deal Britton this offseason when he will provide value in his pay relative to his production and generate a better prospect haul than he will next year.

I think Machado is a different case because he might be a 4/5 plus WAR player for the next 10 years and a HOFer.

Having a prospect to play CF if we deal Jones, whether we are a contender or not, etc, I think those are much lesser concerns. I would not deal those guys simply to make a trade. I would deal them to a team that called and thought Adam Jones was the difference between competing and not and offered a prospect package that reflected that - that's what I thought an "AM-esque" trade was. If a team is going to give up two top prospects for Britton, you make that trade whether you sign Darren O'Day or not. If a team offered three top prospects for Adam Jones in an overpay, I would make that deal.

People make too big a deal about "contending or not". The teams with the most talent and the best "surplus value" win in the end. You can't say how important it is to create surplus value and then pass on the best opportunities for obtaining such value - trading away players at peak value for top prospects.

[Stotle]

I mostly care about the quality of the trade package. If a team needs a top CF prospect and is willing to meet our asking price, I would indeed trade Adam Jones. I think we should deal Britton this offseason when he will provide value in his pay relative to his production and generate a better prospect haul than he will next year.

I think Machado is a different case because he might be a 4/5 plus WAR player for the next 10 years and a HOFer.

Having a prospect to play CF if we deal Jones, whether we are a contender or not, etc, I think those are much lesser concerns. I would not deal those guys simply to make a trade. I would deal them to a team that called and thought Adam Jones was the difference between competing and not and offered a prospect package that reflected that - that's what I thought an "AM-esque" trade was. If a team is going to give up two top prospects for Britton, you make that trade whether you sign Darren O'Day or not. If a team offered three top prospects for Adam Jones in an overpay, I would make that deal.

People make too big a deal about "contending or not". The teams with the most talent and the best "surplus value" win in the end. You can't say how important it is to create surplus value and then pass on the best opportunities for obtaining such value - trading away players at peak value for top prospects.

If Jones, for example, landed you Jackie Bradley, Jr., Brian Johnson, Sam Travis, and Luis Ysla you probably have to take it.

[brianod]

If Jones, for example, landed you Jackie Bradley, Jr., Brian Johnson, Sam Travis, and Luis Ysla you probably have to take it.

Real baseball isn't like fantasy baseball. It's not as simple as trading War for more War. Adam Jones is the leader of this team. His clubhouse presence is important. Losing Nick and Cruz this off season deflated moral. How do you measure that with analytics? The simple answer is that you can't, so you ignore it. After we signed Jones to a long term deal, we became competitive. Why? Because the players believed that we were serious about winning. If you take that away, you take away the chance to compete. Even if the players you get have slightly higher wars than the players you give up.

[hoosiers]

Real baseball isn't like fantasy baseball. It's not as simple as trading War for more War. Adam Jones is the leader of this team. His clubhouse presence is important. Losing Nick and Cruz this off season deflated moral. How do you measure that with analytics? The simple answer is that you can't, so you ignore it. After we signed Jones to a long term deal, we became competitive. Why? Because the players believed that we were serious about winning. If you take that away, you take away the chance to compete. Even if the players you get have slightly higher wars than the players you give up.

I have listened to Os fans speak to the importance of Melvin Mora to the team, the importance of Brian Roberts, of Nick Markakis, of Matt Wieters, of JJ Hardy, of Chris Davis, blah, blah, blah, blah. Every one of them would have brought a uber-quality prospect haul at various points and in every case we would have been better off than we were carrying those players to FA and/or poor production.

The one star we DID trade in his prime - Erik Bedard - actually brought a uber-quality prospect haul that set the stage for a massive organizational rebound. The two times we traded high quality relief pitchers - Koji Uehara and George Sherrill - we received tremendous talent back. What we received for Sherrill did not pan out into anything and we were none the worse for wear in the bullpen.

What is it about the Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara deals that would prevent Os fans from repeating them if/when given the opportunity?

[brianod]

I have listened to Os fans speak to the importance of Melvin Mora to the team, the importance of Brian Roberts, of Nick Markakis, of Matt Wieters, of JJ Hardy, of Chris Davis, blah, blah, blah, blah. Every one of them would have brought a uber-quality prospect haul at various points and in every case we would have been better off than we were carrying those players to FA and/or poor production.

The one star we DID trade in his prime - Erik Bedard - actually brought a uber-quality prospect haul that set the stage for a massive organizational rebound. The two times we traded high quality relief pitchers - Koji Uehara and George Sherrill - we received tremendous talent back. What we received for Sherrill did not pan out into anything and we were none the worse for wear in the bullpen.

What is it about the Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara deals that would prevent Os fans from repeating them if/when given the opportunity?

DD has been GM of this team for 3 years, or is it four? Anyway, how many successful trades has he made? How many trades has he lost? I have no faith in his ability to get value for Adam Jones and anyone who is advocating trading the leader of this team for prospects doesn't really understand baseball. I say this with respect, of course.

[abbott]

I have listened to Os fans speak to the importance of Melvin Mora to the team, the importance of Brian Roberts, of Nick Markakis, of Matt Wieters, of JJ Hardy, of Chris Davis, blah, blah, blah, blah. Every one of them would have brought a uber-quality prospect haul at various points and in every case we would have been better off than we were carrying those players to FA and/or poor production.

The one star we DID trade in his prime - Erik Bedard - actually brought a uber-quality prospect haul that set the stage for a massive organizational rebound. The two times we traded high quality relief pitchers - Koji Uehara and George Sherrill - we received tremendous talent back. What we received for Sherrill did not pan out into anything and we were none the worse for wear in the bullpen.

What is it about the Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara deals that would prevent Os fans from repeating them if/when given the opportunity?

We have SteveClevenger, Hall of Famer, for1time fluke Cy Young Award winner.

Massive organizational rebound? Wow, that's way over the top. In the 8 years that the Orioles hauled in those uber-quality prospects they have had 2 playoff seasons and 1 first place finish.

[hoosiers]

We have SteveClevenger, Hall of Famer, for1time fluke Cy Young Award winner.

Massive organizational rebound? Wow, that's way over the top. In the 8 years that the Orioles hauled in those uber-quality prospects they have had 2 playoff seasons and 1 first place finish.

I consider going from worst to first in the AL East a massive turnaround. I have no problem going on record saying that.

[abbott]

I consider going from worst to first in the AL East a massive turnaround. I have no problem going on record saying that.

1st place, one time, 2 years ago. Right now looks like a fluke or luck.

[Stotle]

Real baseball isn't like fantasy baseball. It's not as simple as trading War for more War. Adam Jones is the leader of this team. His clubhouse presence is important. Losing Nick and Cruz this off season deflated moral. How do you measure that with analytics? The simple answer is that you can't, so you ignore it. After we signed Jones to a long term deal, we became competitive. Why? Because the players believed that we were serious about winning. If you take that away, you take away the chance to compete. Even if the players you get have slightly higher wars than the players you give up.

Well, you don't really measure a deal like this in "wars". Plus, after making this move I also traded Gausman/Britton to the Cubs for Schwarber/Baez/McKinney. Schwarber and Travis are buds and I assume will have an awesome impact on the clubhouse. Once I give Hardy the boot I get:

CA - Joseph/?

1B - Travis

2B - Schoop

3B - Baez

SS - Machado

LF - Schwarber

CF - JBJ

RF - McKinney

Machado LOVES having such a young team, and he loves how cool and fun Schwarber and JBJ are in the clubhouse, so he's extending. Now I just need to find arms to go along with Johnson. Good thing I spent all of my extra 2016 1st round/sandwich round draft picks on college arms!

[wildcard]

The

I haven't researched this, but it seems to me you get a lot more back in a trade if the player has two years remaining before FA rather than one.

I agree but you also give up an extra year of the player you are trading when trading with two years left before FA. Players in their 2nd year before FA may be maturing enough to have good years and give the O's a chance to be contenders.

The idea is to not let players walk without getting major league talent in return. Getting a draft pick back when allowing the player to become a free agent requires years of development before the draft choice is ready for the majors. And years more before they are at their peak performance level.

I like the trade or signing a year before FA approach which is closer to what Tampa did when Friedman was GM. Of course the O's should try to extend key players when possible which probably has a better chance than Tampa of working because of the O's higher payroll.

However, Dan does not seem to embrace this philosophy. He prefers to let players go FA get the draft pick and reinvest the dollars that come off the payroll. We will see how well that works this off season.

[Pickles]

If Jones, for example, landed you Jackie Bradley, Jr., Brian Johnson, Sam Travis, and Luis Ysla you probably have to take it.

Not to call you out too much stotle, and it's only your notoriety here that allows me to remember you saying it, but one of the reasons you were against the Jones' extension was because you said we didn't have enough surplus value on the roster.

I disagreed w that vehemently then. We had a whole pitching staff of young cheap (talented) options, and guys like Davis, Hardy, Wieters, Jones himself on the positional side.

However, here and now, I think we're in real trouble. Fangraphs has us like 26th in projected WAR for 2016, behind every team in our division, and we'd be lucky if our farm system was ranked that high.

Signing some FAs, even to solid, reasonable deals, isn't going to be enough. I'm officially very worried.

[osfan83]

So, just to be clear, do you advocate shopping Jones, Machado and Britton next offseason, even if we are contenders in 2016?

Baseball's a funny game. We easily made the playoffs in 2014 despite missing Wieters for 4.5 months and Manny for 3 months, plus the awful year from Davis. We missed the playoffs by a solid margin in 2015 despite terrific years from Manny and Davis and at least more of Wieters in 2015 than in 2014. I don't think you'd say that those players were irrelevant to winning and losing, though. There were other factors at play, such as the starting pitching and the loss of Cruz and Markakis. Yes, we got lucky that Caleb Joseph competently replaced Wieters in 2014, but 2015 shows that sometimes the dice don't roll your way when you replace an established player with guys who are more "iffy."

I want to point out that I'm not necessarily ruling out trading away established stars for prospects, depending on factors such as (1) whether the team is a contender or not, (2) whether payroll limitations prevent the team from keeping all of its star players, (3) the quality of the available trade package and how ready the prospects are to join the major league club, and (4) whether there are good players already in the system who can fill the vacated positions. With 20/20 hindsight, trading Wieters two year ago would have been a great move, if we had any reason to expect Caleb Joseph to be as capable as he's turned out to be. But I don't think that was really foreseeable at the time.

The funny thing that many people have a hard time with is; Players perform at different levels from year to year. The same team, with the same players could perform 10 games better or worse from one year to another. Davis may really struggle in 2016 while Wieters may be an all-star.

[Frobby]

I have listened to Os fans speak to the importance of Melvin Mora to the team, the importance of Brian Roberts, of Nick Markakis, of Matt Wieters, of JJ Hardy, of Chris Davis, blah, blah, blah, blah. Every one of them would have brought a uber-quality prospect haul at various points and in every case we would have been better off than we were carrying those players to FA and/or poor production.

The one star we DID trade in his prime - Erik Bedard - actually brought a uber-quality prospect haul that set the stage for a massive organizational rebound. The two times we traded high quality relief pitchers - Koji Uehara and George Sherrill - we received tremendous talent back. What we received for Sherrill did not pan out into anything and we were none the worse for wear in the bullpen.

What is it about the Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara deals that would prevent Os fans from repeating them if/when given the opportunity?

Well, there is a difference between the moves team makes when they are not contending, and the moves they make when they are. That is proven every single July. It was very easy to justify trading Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara (and Tejada) because the team stunk with them. If Bedard had been the ace of the 2014 Orioles, I seriously doubt they would have traded him, even for great prospects.

Honestly, if the O's are a sub-.500 team in 2016 -- which I think is a possibility -- I will probably be advocating exploring trades like this, either at the July break or at the next offseason. But I think with a good offseason, in which we find a few nuggets in other ways, we can contend in 2016, so I think it's premature to start a sell-off.

[Pickles]

Well, there is a difference between the moves team makes when they are not contending, and the moves they make when they are. That is proven every single July. It was very easy to justify trading Bedard, Sherrill and Uehara (and Tejada) because the team stunk with them. If Bedard had been the ace of the 2014 Orioles, I seriously doubt they would have traded him, even for great prospects.

Honestly, if the O's are a sub-.500 team in 2016 -- which I think is a possibility -- I will probably be advocating exploring trades like this, either at the July break or at the next offseason. But I think with a good offseason, in which we find a few nuggets in other ways, we can contend in 2016, so I think it's premature to start a sell-off.

I certainly think it's possible we can compete.

But how many wins do you think we need to realistically add this offseason to do that?

I'm thinking like 15.

That's not easy to do unless we spend a HUGE amount of money well, and/or get very lucky in a few spots.