Myers and a Prospect

[BohKnowsBmore]

43 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

By rWAR Mancini has been worth 5.9 wins.  At 8M a win that is about 48M.  He has been paid about 2M.

Mancini’s production To date is definitely above EV for even some of the top prospects, though, is it not?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Mancini’s production To date is definitely above EV for even some of the top prospects, though, is it not?

Two wins a year is a pretty average baseline for a MLB starter.  It was why I chose him.

It will be slightly disappointing if AR doesn't beat that.

[BohKnowsBmore]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Two wins a year is a pretty average baseline for a MLB starter.  It was why I chose him.

It will be slightly disappointing if AR doesn't beat that.

Right, as would we all. But EV would take into account all of the failures as well. To keep it simple, if you have a universe with three prospects and one hits big for 5 WAR per year but the other two are complete zeroes, then that data set would yield an EV for subsequent prospects of 1.67 WAR/year. Obviously this is a super simple, high variance example, but I think it gets to the heart of what we mean when we talk about the surplus value expected for a prospect. 

[ChosenOne21]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

By rWAR Mancini has been worth 5.9 wins.  At 8M a win that is about 48M.  He has been paid about 2M.

Mancini is like a 99.5th percentile outcome for his draft position. 

Still, I was way off about prospect value. According to Fangraphs, average value of a first overall pick while under team control is like $45.5 million. Since Adley is the best prospect to go 1:1 in a few years, you could argue he'll likely be worth more than that

EDIT: By my count, there are 55 players drafted in the 8th round with a higher career WAR than Mancini, which would make him something like 96.7th percentile. However, his career is just beginning and I'm sure he will pass many of those above him by the time it's over

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Mancini is like a 99.5th percentile outcome for his draft position. 

Still, I was way off about prospect value. According to Fangraphs, average value of a first overall pick while under team control is like $45.5 million. Since Adley is the best prospect to go 1:1 in a few years, you could argue he'll likely be worth more than that

Sure, I wasn't suggesting otherwise, Mancini was a great pick.

I chose him because he was the closest to an "average" MLB starter in terms of value I could think of off hand.

 

[weams]

The idea of the Orioles paying this kind of money for a singular prospect is close to insane. 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Mancini’s production To date is definitely above EV for even some of the top prospects, though, is it not?

Some?  Sure, guys bust.  But on the other hand someone like Acuna has already put up 75M in excess value in just two years.

[Frobby]

26 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Some?  Sure, guys bust.  But on the other hand someone like Acuna has already put up 75M in excess value in just two years.

That’s the tricky part.     A player who underperforms can only have so much deficit in value, because he simply won’t play much if he’s really bad.   But the players on the other end of the spectrum can create huge amounts of surplus value.       So, the “mean” result typically will be much higher than the “median” result.   Taking 1:1 for example, the mean WAR is 19.8, the median WAR is 14.4.    One ARod makes up for about five Danny Goidwins.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

That’s the tricky part.     A player who underperforms can only have so much deficit in value, because he simply won’t play much if he’s really bad.   But the players on the other end of the spectrum can create huge amounts of surplus value.       So, the “mean” result typically will be much higher than the “median” result.   Taking 1:1 for example, the mean WAR is 19.8, the median WAR is 14.4.    One ARod makes up for about five Danny Goidwins.

And the total busts, say a Mark Appel, provide more value (0) than someone who was actually good enough to make the majors but produced negative value once they got there.

[Camden_yardbird]

13 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

Why?

Most teams looking to salary dump are non-contenders, and non-contenders don't give up prospects who they think will be valuable in the future.

I mean...read the post.  I provided a specific situation in which we have a contender, the Padres, looking to salary dump, with specific prospects reported in the media as being part of the conversation.

[DirtyBird]

8 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

I mean...read the post.  I provided a specific situation in which we have a contender, the Padres, looking to salary dump, with specific prospects reported in the media as being part of the conversation.

The Padres are not a contender

[hoosiers]

Would love to see the Os inject ourselves into a situation like this to "pay" for quality prospects by absorbing unproductive major league salaries.  Elias said these opportunities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  

Not sure if we could chew on something this big - net having to pay $30M-$35M for an unproductive Myers over three years - AND have an unproductive major league OF/1B on the roster with Chris Davis for the next few years - esp as we try to find a location at 1B/OF for Mountcastle and Mancini.  

I guess a creative way forward to reduce that logjam would be to send Mancini back to San Diego in this deal and ask for two or three more high quality prospects from the Padres.  This would give San Diego additional benefits of a cheap, quality player like Mancini to go along with shedding half of the obligation to Myers.

The Os would "shed" obligations to Mancini that would likely offset well more than half of the amounts due Myers at the major league payroll level and enable the Os to take perhaps four or five top 150 prospects from the Padres.  The Os would be entering 2023 having paid out the poorly performing contracts to Davis and Myers and would have an incredibly strong prospect base to build the major league team.

 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

The Padres are not a contender

For a Wildcard?  They certainly are.

[interloper]

Would be cool if Elias gets in on some of these types of deals, but, like, not this one. Which is far too expensive. And I'm much more concerned with him building up a pipeline of international talent and using Sig's methods to make good draft choices than I am  about nabbing one or two guys off the back of some expensive contract. 

Focus on the things that will provide year after year in a sustainable way. These kinds of deals are really the least of my concerns right now. If one makes sense, we could see it happen, but we have two albatross contracts on the roster as it is and a bunch of young guys at other positions. 

[Camden_yardbird]

4 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Plus, we don’t need Campusano. We have AR.

Okay.  Independent of everything you posted let's address this terrible fault of logic. 

This line of thinking is so completely wrong and misguided in every way.  Players get injured/ don't pan out (yes, even #1 draft picks).  And in the fortunate situation that you do end up with AR being a stud generational talent and you have someone like Campuasano coming up behind him as a stud prospect, you can then trade campusano to fill other holes in your now (hopefully) competitive roster.  Not to mention your own post mentions that the Padres are able to use these prospects to fill holes because there previous prospects had entrenched themselves.

2019 WS winner: Nationals. With hits on prospects like Gio, Strasburg, Roark, etc. the Nationals were able to trade three highly thought of SP prospects (Lopez, Giolito, Dunning) for Adam Eaton who put up a 2.3 WAR and scored 100 runs.

2018 WS Boston:  With Devers progressing as a top talent were able to ship Moncada for Sale and put a cheap Ace on top of their rotation.

I could go on but the point is, this line of thinking should never be part of your calculus.