Would You Trade Chris Davis in a Salary Dump

[Justinlstn]

Davis didn't sign until January21st, I honestly doubt he was training during the off season with all the FA nonsense going on. I am sure IF he focuses this off season to rebound after this season he will do alot better.

Depends if he is comfortable with his performance while continuing to collect a pay check, or if he is truly focused on winning. But honestly only 20 some hits separates him from hitting 262 like he did last year.

[Trackmaster]

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.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what a sunk cost is, or at least the theory behind calling something a sunk cost from a business standpoint.decision making. The fallacy behind a sunk cost would be getting too emotional about it, and letting it effect what you do (continuing to use materials/supplies if they’re worthless, insisting on getting the original market value for them instead of taking the current market value, or even getting rid of them in frustration just because they don’t live up to the cost, etc.). So in Davis’ case, value him the same that you would value a player that you pay almost nothing for. If he’s the best at his position, he starts. If he’s no longer of value to your team, and you’ve confirmed that he will never gain enough value to be on the top 40 man roster, you waive him.

Obviously, it would be nice for a team to pick up his check for us. But I don’t’ see that happening. If we believe that he’s way overpaid, most likely every other team will think that. So if a team picks up his check, its likely that we’ll be paying the difference of his market value and his contract owed.

[Trackmaster]

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.

The player (he gets more money, but the team can spend more to surround him with talent), the manager/GM (same thing, more talent now, so a false projection of the abilities of the manager/GM right now), and even the owner (he may not even live long enough to see that money spent). But it dumps a lot of that money down the road, so long after the players, manager, and GM are gone, we?ll still be fans of a team playing for players of yesteryear. It could be fine if it was the right player at the right price, but I worry about the moral hazard and inappropriate agency relationship. It?s like walking into a car dealership knowing that a person that you?ve never met will get the bill for your car. You have an incentive to get the most expensive one and not negotiate down the price. So the cost is higher and inappropriate for what it would if it was your own money. Similarly, when you split a check down the middle with a group of friend at a restaurant, you are all incentivized to get the most expensive thing, because marginally you pay very little for it. So you all pay more.

I also don?t like gerrymandering structured contracts for NFL players. I think that every year the GM and coach/manger/players should feel the brunt of money that they are earning (or players are earning) against the payroll/cap.

[Trackmaster]

The player (he gets more money, but the team can spend more to surround him with talent), the manager/GM (same thing, more talent now, so a false projection of the abilities of the manager/GM right now), and even the owner (he may not even live long enough to see that money spent). But it dumps a lot of that money down the road, so long after the players, manager, and GM are gone, we?ll still be fans of a team playing for players of yesteryear. It could be fine if it was the right player at the right price, but I worry about the moral hazard and inappropriate agency relationship. It?s like walking into a car dealership knowing that a person that you?ve never met will get the bill for your car. You have an incentive to get the most expensive one and not negotiate down the price. So the cost is higher and inappropriate for what it would if it was your own money. Similarly, when you split a check down the middle with a group of friend at a restaurant, you are all incentivized to get the most expensive thing, because marginally you pay very little for it. So you all pay more.

I also don?t like gerrymandering structured contracts for NFL players. I think that every year the GM and coach/manger/players should feel the brunt of money that they are earning (or players are earning) against the payroll/cap.

Sorry about this, turns out I can't really edit my posts here, and this was a C/P disaster. This was supposed to be the last two paragraphs of a three paragraph post. The first one talked about how I think that deferred contracts and crazy structures create agency problems for the fans.

[Ruzious]

I'd definitely do it if there was a sucker... I mean trade partner. And then try to keep Trumbo for less money. But even if it wouldn't work out with Trumbo, the answer is still YES.

[Ruzious]

If she spends 60K/year of your money when married and only 10K of your money when divorced that gives you 50K to spend on escorts.

Next give a warning: Do not read while drinking coffee.

[25 Nuggets]

I'm surprised that over 50% of the board voted "yes" when, as RZNJ pointed out, it's a terrible time to trade him. You trade him when his value is high -- of course most of the board would likely vote "no trade" at that point.

This is why you trade Zach Britton this off season. With the Chapman deal return as the floor.

Really though I think we should get used to the idea of Davis staying with the team for a long time and breaking home run records and maybe winning a gold glove or two. Enjoy it and stop complaining.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm surprised that over 50% of the board voted "yes" when, as RZNJ pointed out, it's a terrible time to trade him. You trade him when his value is high -- of course most of the board would likely vote "no trade" at that point.

This is why you trade Zach Britton this off season. With the Chapman deal return as the floor.

Really though I think we should get used to the idea of Davis staying with the team for a long time and breaking home run records and maybe winning a gold glove or two. Enjoy it and stop complaining.

First off you are assuming it gets better at some point than what we saw this year.

Secondly I don't think teams are going to be swayed by a hot couple of months. His lack of a market last season was telling.

If I can get out from under that contract for a reasonable price I do it.

[waroriole]

Think the Rangers would bail us out like they did Detroit, now that Fielder is done?

[Tryptamine]

A year after the Os give Davis a contract that felt like the Os were bidding against themselves for, I'd guess it would take 40-50M to buy your way out of it. Mountcastle or Reyes aren't going to be near enough. Frankly the per year money isn't horrific, but the 7 years is way too long.

[FlipTheBird]

This board honestly might be best served by going dark for about three months. At this point, morale is so low that it feels like 90 percent of the posters here hate literally every player on this team.

[FlipTheBird]

I'm surprised that over 50% of the board voted "yes" when, as RZNJ pointed out, it's a terrible time to trade him. You trade him when his value is high -- of course most of the board would likely vote "no trade" at that point.

This is why you trade Zach Britton this off season. With the Chapman deal return as the floor.

Really though I think we should get used to the idea of Davis staying with the team for a long time and breaking home run records and maybe winning a gold glove or two. Enjoy it and stop complaining.

80 percent of the people that voted YES were probably also SCREAMING for the team to extend him after 2013. They go where the most recent breeze takes them.

[ChuckS]

I'm surprised that over 50% of the board voted "yes" when, as RZNJ pointed out, it's a terrible time to trade him. You trade him when his value is high -- of course most of the board would likely vote "no trade" at that point.

This is why you trade Zach Britton this off season. With the Chapman deal return as the floor.

Really though I think we should get used to the idea of Davis staying with the team for a long time and breaking home run records and maybe winning a gold glove or two. Enjoy it and stop complaining.

I voted for dumping him now because I don't think he will be dumpable in three or four years. Of course I would love to get value from him for a few years and then have someone take on his contract when he is worthless but we don't live in a fairytale world where other teams will just take on 23 mil a year of worthlessness for a B prospect.

This is going to be a Ryan Howard situation. I also called this the worst contract in Orioles history when it was signed, so no hindsight here. I don't think Chris was worth his contract this season despite what the dollar amounts attached to WAR are. He came up empty in too many key situations. His complete inability to make contact in situations with men on base is something that I don't think that WAR stat figures in.

[atomic]

80 percent of the people that voted YES were probably also SCREAMING for the team to extend him after 2013. They go where the most recent breeze takes them.

Yeah you know everything about everyone. I have always been against signing Chris. I don't like players that strike out 200 times a year and don't hit the other way when the other team is giving you a hit if you do. When I was young guys like Rave Kingman were not thought of well. Now we give them seven year contracts.

[Barnaby Graves]

CD bounce's back next year with .270 45hr 120rbi and this thread will be resurrected and totally laughed at.

Basically.

Why even poll the fanbase when it seems like half of them are totally disconnected from reality. Guy hits three dingers, sign him for 7 years at $whatever. Strikes out three times the next day and he's a DFA candidate.

I remember making a thread defending Arrieta and everyone howled with laughter. I don't care anymore. Trying to discuss baseball seriously is pointless.