Roberts to the Dodgertown?

[Roll Tide]

You could make a case that Kershaw is the best pitching prospect in baseball. Tillman is no where near him in value.

Dont know really ... I see a 5+ era a lot of hits & walks. I know its early in his first run at the majors.

And IMO ... I wouldn't trade him other than straight up!

I guess I should have stated to me their value was close (sorry about that) But I doubt Mcphail would discuss much more than that as Tillman will be here in the next year or so and is just as likely to be a top end (likely #2) as Kershaw ...Again IMO

And the Orioles likely aren't competing in 2009 either way.

[bej6789]

I appreciate the invitation. But for now the pants stay on. Or is this some reference to The Emperor's New Clothes?

I think there's some merit to what you say - a run at (and a failure) going for B-Rob, depending on what's offered, could drive the entire Dodgers bidding process up. Suddenly, what B-Rob costs (even if inflated) might not seem so much. Kind-of like an anchoring effect.

WHOOPS lol!!!!

[SceffBmo]

Trade one of the best 2b/lead-off hitters in the game for a OF who's putting up about the same numbers as the one you already have and a AA SS prospect, creating a hole at the top of the lineup and at 2b to go along with the one at SS that's alreay there. Yep, makes sense to me.

[Stotle]

Hey Stotle... I hate to be in serious agreement here. But there are a few things that one would need to consider here.

First I would imagine that Tillman & Kershaw will likely be pretty close in value. If not now then likley in another year. Last time I looked Kershaw was getting hammered at the majors ... notice his 5.18 Era, 10.5 Hits per9, 5.8 BB per nine. (kind of has a stirking resemblence to G Olson at this point).

The Roberts & Manny for Kemp argument is this

Manny ...attitude extraordinare... And he is essentially a 2 month rental because the 20 Million option is probably not renewed. Very unlikely he'd return in 2009 for a lesser deal.

Kemp... There are the bad attitude issues. I dont know how bad they are or the damage he's done with the Dodgers front office. But you've gotta believe his value has decreased because of them. Probably not by a wide margin but still. Kemp at .287 w/ a K's in every 3.5 AB's & has 11 HR's (1 in every 36 AB's). Still hasn't blossomed. His best years start 2-3 years from now if he can cut down the K's.

Roberts ... Lets face it he's on the top of his game. No reason to think he will be in decline in the next 3-4 seasons.He is under a teams control next season & he would probably sign a 3-4 year (Reasonable) extension if he liked the Dodgers . He is a fan favorite here & theres no reason to think he wouldn't be anywhere else.

I'd say Roberts would be more valuable than Kemp at this point. Especially if they need a table setter.

I doubt Sherrill merits a everyday SP as rumored as the O's want to go along with the SS. But I'd think he'd be worth a couple AA prospects with good potential. Donald & a pitcher.

Because of this I believe your theory is way off. In fact as much as I like Kershaw the only way they get Tillman is straight up!

Respectfully, Tillman is still a ways away from Kershaw. Olson and Kershaw are not in the same universe -- Kershaw has potentially the best curveball in baseball right now and sits in the mid-90s, touching the upper-90s on his fastball. I think Tillman could be the "next" Kershaw, as far as scouting-hype is concerned, but it won't happen for another year. The developmental differences make a straight-up trade an impossibility -- you'd always go for the guy that's at the ML-level.

With regards to the rest of your breakdown, I don't have the energy (long day) but there are many reasons to think Roberts could go into serious decline as early as 2010.

Bottom line is Kershaw isn't going anywhere -- you'd have to offer up a young pitcher with the same upside but not as developed, and additional players. Otherwise, it isn't worth it for LAN to move him.

[Lucky Jim]

Dont know really ... I see a 5+ era a lot of hits & walks. I know its early in his first run at the majors.

And IMO ... I wouldn't trade him other than straight up!

I guess I should have stated to me their value was close (sorry about that) But I doubt Mcphail would discuss much more than that as Tillman will be here in the next year or so and is just as likely to be a top end (likely #2) as Kershaw ...Again IMO

And the Orioles likely aren't competing in 2009 either way.

I think Stotle's point was less about comparable value and more about the subjective valuation of the clubs - the way the Dodgers value Kershaw is the way we value Tillman (only moreso.)

So, while Kershaw does - objectively - have more value than Tillman, what it would take to get him would be increased by the additional value the Dodgers have placed on him. In behavioral economics this is called the endowment effect - it happens even with objective valuation, but is probably far more likely in a situation where valuation is necessarily subjective. The endowment effect was coined to explain why folks value something they have in hand at a greater-than-actual value in a barter scenario.

To be honest, I've long maintained that with - especially pitching - prospects, a bit of an endowment effect is a good thing. Because it could be read as an internalization of the better information one system has about its own prospect.

[Stotle]

I think Stotle's point was less about comparable value and more about the subjective valuation of the clubs - the way the Dodgers value Kershaw is the way we value Tillman (only moreso.)

So, while Kershaw does - objectively - have more value than Tillman, what it would take to get him would be increased by the additional value the Dodgers have placed on him. In behavioral economics this is called the endowment effect - it happens even with objective valuation, but is probably far more likely in a situation where valuation is necessarily subjective.

I didn't think this sort of explanation would fly on a message board (so I did not include), but this is indeed another large part of what I was saying.

[Lucky Jim]

Stotle clarified his point - and I don't disagree with it - I think Kershaw's stuff grades higher, too. But I also think my (now secondary) point is important to take into account:

When you take a look at your own biases in valuation, then you should realize they exist on the flip-side, too.

[Sports Guy]

First of all, i want to say that our Dodgers guys that give us their input on here are welcome additions to the board.

I just started a poll about this but roncey and Dnoz, would you be ok with a McDonald, LaRoche and DeJesus deal for BRob?(and yes, I know you would prefer to trade Hu and not DeJesus but would it stop you from making the deal?)

[Roll Tide]

I think Stotle's point was less about comparable value and more about the subjective valuation of the clubs - the way the Dodgers value Kershaw is the way we value Tillman (only moreso.)

So, while Kershaw does - objectively - have more value than Tillman, what it would take to get him would be increased by the additional value the Dodgers have placed on him. In behavioral economics this is called the endowment effect - it happens even with objective valuation, but is probably far more likely in a situation where valuation is necessarily subjective.

Good points guys! Long day for me as well Stotle. Have a trainee in town this week.

I guess all things considered ... The Orioles are more than a year to wait... So I'd say keep Tillman & pass on Kershaw!

[Roll Tide]

First of all, i want to say that our Dodgers guys that give us their input on here are welcome additions to the board.

I just started a poll about this but roncey and Dnoz, would you be ok with a McDonald, LaRoche and DeJesus deal for BRob?(and yes, I know you would prefer to trade Hu and not DeJesus but would it stop you from making the deal?)

I dont find Hu Impressive at all!

[Stotle]

Stotle clarified his point - and I don't disagree with it - I think Kershaw's stuff grades higher, too. But I also think my (now secondary) point is important to take into account:

When you take a look at your own biases in valuation, then you should realize they exist on the flip-side, too.

Yeah. The dumbed-down (or as I call it, the "Stotle" explanation) is that if you have something valuable, you are enamored not only with "it" but also the fact that you have "it". Getting something of equal "value" isn't enticing because you are already enamored with what you have -- thus it would take much more value than "it" is worth for you to sever your ties.

[Lucky Jim]

I didn't think this sort of explanation would fly on a message board (so I did not include), but this is indeed another large part of what I was saying.

Eh. I've got logorrhea. I just type. Thanks for your input today, btw. We've had some healthy, largely friendly, discussions on here. Must be Frobby's absence. That dude is poison.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah. The dumbed-down (or as I call it, the "Stotle" explanation) is that if you have something valuable, you are enamored not only with "it" but also the fact that you have "it". Getting something of equal "value" isn't enticing because you are already enamored with what you have -- thus it would take much more value than "it" is worth for you to sever your ties.

Yep - let me know what you think of my comment about the positive aspect of this re: prospects.

I really do think there's something to the idea that the more complete information (for a player along a developmental curve) is actually internalized nicely by an endowment effect. I.e., when you pay the extra cost to "sever" you're really paying for the risk inherent in my taking on a "less known" property.

[Stotle]

Eh. I've got logorrhea. I just type. Thanks for your input today, btw. We've had some healthy, largely friendly, discussions on here. Must be Frobby's absence. That dude is poison.

Ditto -- enjoyed the talks. Heading out now and hoping to get home in time to catch the second half of the game. Later all.

[Stotle]

Yep - let me know what you think of my comment about the positive aspect of this re: prospects.

I really do think there's something to the idea that the more complete information (for a player along a developmental curve) is actually internalized nicely by an endowment effect. I.e., when you pay the extra cost to "sever" you're really paying for the risk inherent in my taking on a "less known" property.

I'm going to think on this an PM you with some thoughts -- I think there is a lot to what your saying. Could make for some interesting topics in the future.