Would You Trade Chris Davis in a Salary Dump

[Frobby]

That's fair, but we need to discount the remaining $6M and not say his 2016 cost is $23M. Isn't one WAR worth $8M? I understand that it's not linear, so help me understand how much he was worth in 2016 if one were to subscribe to WAR.

Though there is a good case that the relationship between WAR and salary is not linear (and should not be linear), I haven't ever seen a formulation that calculates the relationship in a non-linear way. So for now, your $8 mm/WAR is about the best we can do.

Fangraphs says Davis was worth 2.8 fWAR this year and that was worth $22.4 mm. BB-ref says 3.0 rWAR so that would be $24 mm. Davis is earning $23 mm/yr if you include the deferred comp, and if you discount the $6 mm that is deferred, it comes out to $21-22 mm/yr. Here's an article suggesting it's worth about $21 mm/yr: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

Taking this in the light most generous to Davis, he was worth $24 mm (the BB-ref number) and will be paid $21 mm (the discounted value of the $23 mm). So, he had excess value of $3 mm in year one of his seven-year deal. I do not think that is a very good margin if you want to build up enough surplus in the early years to "pay for" the likely deficit in the later years. Of course, nobody knows exactly how Davis' performance will vary as he ages. Some guys defy gravity. But it's not a good bet.

[24fps]

That's precisely when I will be on board with moving him.

Me too. Even at the AS break next season if the O's are struggling and he's having one of his hot streaks.

[Redskins Rick]

Better than staying married. Sometimes you are better off cutting your losses.

I guess since I have over 40+ years of marriage to the same woman, I believe are you quite correct.

[TINSTAAPP]

Though there is a good case that the relationship between WAR and salary is not linear (and should not be linear), I haven't ever seen a formulation that calculates the relationship in a non-linear way. So for now, your $8 mm/WAR is about the best we can do.

Fangraphs says Davis was worth 2.8 fWAR this year and that was worth $22.4 mm. BB-ref says 3.0 rWAR so that would be $24 mm. Davis is earning $23 mm/yr if you include the deferred comp, and if you discount the $6 mm that is deferred, it comes out to $21-22 mm/yr. Here's an article suggesting it's worth about $21 mm/yr: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

Taking this in the light most generous to Davis, he was worth $24 mm (the BB-ref number) and will be paid $21 mm (the discounted value of the $23 mm). So, he had excess value of $3 mm in year one of his seven-year deal. I do not think that is a very good margin if you want to build up enough surplus in the early years to "pay for" the likely deficit in the later years. Of course, nobody knows exactly how Davis' performance will vary as he ages. Some guys defy gravity. But it's not a good bet.

I've always consider players to be worth more like $5 million/WAR. A player like JJ Hardy was worth $14+ million/year from 2011-2014. He's not worth that anymore. There's a lot of shortstops around the league who have produced at a similar level to Hardy and make a lot less money than he does. That's why signing Manny Machado to a long-term contract would actually be one of the safest deals out there. Barring injury, I'm very confident Machado will perform at a 6+ WAR level for the next ten years.

[Redskins Rick]

I've always consider players to be worth more like $5 million/WAR. A player like JJ Hardy was worth $14+ million/year from 2011-2014. He's not worth that anymore. There's a lot of shortstops around the league who have produced at a similar level to Hardy and make a lot less money than he does. That's why signing Manny Machado to a long-term contract would actually be one of the safest deals out there. Barring injury, I'm very confident Machado will perform at a 6+ WAR level for the next ten years.

At 1.9 WAR, Hardy is still worth almost 16 million per year.

[Frobby]

At 1.9 WAR, Hardy is still worth almost 16 million per year.

Not if you buy into TINSTAAP's logic. But yes if you buy into fangraphs'. I think next year determines whether the Hardy deal was worth it. Another year like this one (hopefully, minus the 40 games missed due to injury), and I will feel it was worth it, or close enough. But if he takes a big step backwards and has a year like 2015, I will feel we got a very bad deal. JJ said he was feeling very good at the end of the season compared to last year, so hopefully that augurs well for 2017.

[backwardsk]

Though there is a good case that the relationship between WAR and salary is not linear (and should not be linear), I haven't ever seen a formulation that calculates the relationship in a non-linear way. So for now, your $8 mm/WAR is about the best we can do.

Fangraphs says Davis was worth 2.8 fWAR this year and that was worth $22.4 mm. BB-ref says 3.0 rWAR so that would be $24 mm. Davis is earning $23 mm/yr if you include the deferred comp, and if you discount the $6 mm that is deferred, it comes out to $21-22 mm/yr. Here's an article suggesting it's worth about $21 mm/yr: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/

Taking this in the light most generous to Davis, he was worth $24 mm (the BB-ref number) and will be paid $21 mm (the discounted value of the $23 mm). So, he had excess value of $3 mm in year one of his seven-year deal. I do not think that is a very good margin if you want to build up enough surplus in the early years to "pay for" the likely deficit in the later years. Of course, nobody knows exactly how Davis' performance will vary as he ages. Some guys defy gravity. But it's not a good bet.

Thanks for the response. I do find it odd that Davis had a 3.2 rWAR going into the Yankees series, goes 3-10 with 3 walks and loses $1.6M in value.

[Trackmaster]

I guess that the fallacy with us trading Chris Davis now is the same fallacy of day trading. Yes, he's overpaid, but we are a team that is trying to win now, and we have the means to pay him. If a team took his contract off our hands, it would mean that either they were making a valuation mistake, we were making a valuation mistake, we weren't trying to win now, or we couldn't pay the contract.

For the same reason that I oppose day trading, when I enter a trade, I assume that its supposed to help both teams. Yes, you try to get the best deal that you can, and you hope to get the upper-hand, but both teams can't get the upper-hand over half the team. So you hope that given your knowledge that both teams will benefit and that it synergize with your line-ups and long-term plans. This means that you try to round your roster out, gain synergies in a certain area, build for the future at the expense of now, or build for now at the expense of the future.

Yes, Davis is overpaid, but he would be overpaid on any team. His contract is a sunk cost, and we either get what value that we can for him on the field, or get pennies on the dollar for him (probably meaning paying the other team to take him).

Let's relax. Players usually dog it right after signing a big deal. I expect him to crank it up as he gets closer to free agency.

[Redskins Rick]

Not if you buy into TINSTAAP's logic. But yes if you buy into fangraphs'. I think next year determines whether the Hardy deal was worth it. Another year like this one (hopefully, minus the 40 games missed due to injury), and I will feel it was worth it, or close enough. But if he takes a big step backwards and has a year like 2015, I will feel we got a very bad deal. JJ said he was feeling very good at the end of the season compared to last year, so hopefully that augurs well for 2017.

Most people were concerned about his losing a step in the field and I think he showed, he can still play at an above average skill level and is still one of the best in the game right now.

[TINSTAAPP]

At 1.9 WAR, Hardy is still worth almost 16 million per year.

Actually, $5.0 million/WAR is probably on the high scale. I'm thinking more along the lines of $4.5 million/WAR. So Hardy was probably worth more like $8.5 to $9.0 million this year. Than you add in the fact that Hardy was essentially a replacement-level player last year and yeah, the contract was almost certainly an overpay. And even if you believe in players being worth $8 million/WAR, Hardy will still have to put up a 3.5 WAR season next year to live up to his contract. That's going to be tough when you consider Hardy's only 3.5+ WAR seasons was when he hit 25+ HRs. Hardy has hit 26 HRs in the last three seasons total.

[Redskins Rick]

Actually, $5.0 million/WAR is probably on the high scale. I'm thinking more along the lines of $4.5 million/WAR. So Hardy was probably worth more like $8.5 to $9.0 million this year. Than you add in the fact that Hardy was essentially a replacement-level player last year and yeah, the contract was almost certainly an overpay. And even if you believe in players being worth $8 million/WAR, Hardy will still have to put up a 3.5 WAR season next year to live up to his contract. That's going to be tough when you consider Hardy's only 3.5+ WAR seasons was when he hit 25+ HRs. Hardy has hit 26 HRs in the last three seasons total.

IMO, 5 is on the low side, and in todays market, I believe FANGRAPHS is more in align with what the clubs are paying for.

I think Hardy is still one of the best defenders at SS, and I think for 2017, its safe to assume, he is going to be the starting SS.

There are other areas that need to be addressed, before you try to improve SS.

[esmd]

What bat?!

The one that hit 38 HRs this season and drove in 84 runs. The one that has 162 game average over his career of 38 HRs and 99 RBIs. The one with 241 career HRs. The one that led the league in HRs two of the last four seasons. That bat.

[TINSTAAPP]

IMO, 5 is on the low side, and in todays market, I believe FANGRAPHS is more in align with what the clubs are paying for.

I think Hardy is still one of the best defenders at SS, and I think for 2017, its safe to assume, he is going to be the starting SS.

There are other areas that need to be addressed, before you try to improve SS.

So you believe Manny Machado will get $55 million/year if he hits free agency tomorrow? Because he's averaged 6.8 WAR in his last three full seasons.

[Bradysburns]

I guess that the fallacy with us trading Chris Davis now is the same fallacy of day trading. Yes, he's overpaid, but we are a team that is trying to win now, and we have the means to pay him. If a team took his contract off our hands, it would mean that either they were making a valuation mistake, we were making a valuation mistake, we weren't trying to win now, or we couldn't pay the contract.

For the same reason that I oppose day trading, when I enter a trade, I assume that its supposed to help both teams. Yes, you try to get the best deal that you can, and you hope to get the upper-hand, but both teams can't get the upper-hand over half the team. So you hope that given your knowledge that both teams will benefit and that it synergize with your line-ups and long-term plans. This means that you try to round your roster out, gain synergies in a certain area, build for the future at the expense of now, or build for now at the expense of the future.

Yes, Davis is overpaid, but he would be overpaid on any team. His contract is a sunk cost, and we either get what value that we can for him on the field, or get pennies on the dollar for him (probably meaning paying the other team to take him).

Let's relax. Players usually dog it right after signing a big deal. I expect him to crank it up as he gets closer to free agency.

I don't see Davis's contract as a "sunk cost." That's the fallacy, right? We've not gotten value for the contract, so we might as well stick with it going forward, otherwise that money will have been lost for no good reason, etc. The fact that he has not lived up to his contract this year isn't a sensible reason to keep him here. But that's only if you can get some value back on a trade.

Davis OPS'd over .900 last year. He's got the potential to do it again next year - real potential. It would be more consistent with his overall career, in fact.

All things equal, I would keep Davis because he hits 40 homers a year, and plays reasonably good defense at first. And he seems like a good clubhouse dude for the most part.

On the other hand, if we could actually get VALUE back in return... in the form of at least 1-2 real prospects... I'd consider it. Put Mancini at first, use money to resign Tillman and Britton, possibly Manny.

Of course I'm flying blind here not knowing what our budget really is.

[Redskins Rick]

So you believe Manny Machado will get $55 million/year if he hits free agency tomorrow? Because he's averaged 6.8 WAR in his last three full seasons.

There are always going to be the exceptions to the rule.

Trout at 16 million and 10.6 was ghastly underpaid, but looks to make up some of that, when he hits 34 million.

Of course, at some point, there is a ceiling involved.