The Value of Prospects Revisited
by Eli Greenspan on Aug 3, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
12 comments
1. J.D. Drew
2. Rick Ankiel (as a pitcher)
3. Eric Chavez
4. Bruce Chen
5. Brad Penny
6. Michael Barrett
7. Ryan Anderson
8. Pablo Ozuna
9. Ruben Mateo
10. Matt Clement
Does this list mean anything to you? Joe Posnanski at Inside Baseball for SI.com tells us that it is the Baseball America's Top Ten prospect list from 10 years ago. How many guys on this list, he asks would you not have risked giving up for a superstar Cy Young pitcher? It kind of makes you think the value of prospects has gotten skewed lately in placing too much value in them. But, and it's a big but-the second 10 names on that same list include Roy Halladay, Lance Berkman and Carlos Beltran. So, trading away prospects by a team wanting to win today is always a risk.
The reason you see John Smoltz's picture in this post is to bring home the never-resolved issue of prospects-for-stars debate. In 1987 the Tigers were in a tight race but needed a proven starter to bolster their rotation. They traded prospect Smoltz for 36-year old Doyle Alexander.
He had not pitched particularly well for almost two years. He had played for eight teams in his Magellan-like career, and he played for the Yankees twice. On top of that, he was not exactly known for his clutch pitching*. There were a lot of reasons to think that Alexander would not be much of a factor.
*Alexander's postseason numbers were abominable -- he was 0-3 with a 7.65 ERA in the playoffs and World Series. And that year in the playoffs, he would get bombed in both his starts.
Instead, he was THE factor. Alexander was great -- in the regular season at least. He started 11 times in the final month and a half as Detroit and Toronto went back and forth in the standings. And ... Detroit won all 11 times he started. It was remarkable. He threw three complete-game shutouts. He punched up a 1.53 ERA. On Sept. 27, with the Tigers 2 1/2 games behind Toronto, he threw 10 2/3 innings and gave up only one earned run to beat the Blue Jays. His next start, he beat the Jays again to push the Tigers into first place to stay.
It was one of the greatest pennant race performances in the history of the game. You never want to give too much credit to one player, but Detroit won the American League East in 1987 because of the Doyle Alexander trade. There was much joy in Detroit. Then the Tigers lost the ALCS to Minnesota in five games.
The Tigers did not win the pennant that year but they undeniably got as far as they did with the sizable contribution they got from Alexander. Smoltz, of course went on to have an impressive career but he was not ready at that time to fill the role Doyle Alexander did.
The way prospects are brought along by teams now, with signing bonuses and what-not, it's not as easy to give them up unless the post-season is in sight-and even then....
This debate never ends. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions..
1 recs |
12 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
GREAT ARTICLE!
Thanks for posting…very interesting read.
by Bloggy on Aug 3, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Joe? Posnanski maybe?
Scott Posnanski at Inside Baseball for SI.com
He can get 4, NOT 5.
by Warden11 on Aug 3, 2009 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So sorry, you’re right,it’s Joe.
by Eli Greenspan on Aug 3, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+100,000,000
Wear it.
"I occasionally post and offer little to no insight here on AN except emotional ramblings. Do I remind you of someone? (Nomar maybe?)"
by MMunoz33 on Aug 3, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fans (and certain teams) have come to the point where they value the long-term assets of a somewhat top prospect
more than the short-term assets of a superstar, which I find mind-boggling.
by Daniel Berlyn on Aug 3, 2009 6:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is that so mind-boggling?
The fans of those teams are generally teams with limited funds. When you’re a fan of a team with less than an $80MMish payroll, you tend to accept that you cannot compete, financially, with the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Cubs or the Mets of the world. Let’s take, for example, the A’s—because I’m an A’s fan and I know what it’s like.
Last off season, the Yankees signed Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira to monster deals. The A’s went out and signed an aging Giambi, a hurt Nomar, and an old shortstop in Cabrera. Let’s make a hypothetical situation and say that before those signings, both teams were given rosters of the exact same talent level. Both teams, before the signings, would have gone 81-81. After the signings, who do you think would come out on top that season? Sabatha/Burnett/Teixeira v. Giambi/Nomar/Cabrera? Easy answer: the Yankees win more games.
When such teams are able to go out and sign top talent year in and year out, teams like the A’s can’t compete in the same way. They develop their players and trade them for talented prospects to teams that need immediate help. The only way small market teams can put stars on the field is when they’re cheap and under club control.
The A’s aren’t going to compete with the Yankees this year or probably next year, but they’re making a gamble that by loading up with tons of prospects, enough of them will reach their potential that they’ll be able to rival the Yankees, talent wise, but remain in the financial position that they’re capable of.
by NateHST on Aug 3, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what you fail to address
The fact of the matter is when a team is in a legitimate position to win, it is obligated to maximize its potential to the point where they can stack up to the large market teams. A team like the A’s obviously didn’t have the young talent or finances available to compete, so they dismantled, which I don’t disagree with. They also made some low-risk acquisitions, most of which turned out to be busts. But to win, you need good players. Beane went out and traded for Holliday, which sent some good talent the other way, but nothing the A’s couldn’t afford to lose. This was in case the circumstances came together and the A’s could compete, which it turns out they could not.
A team like the Cardinals, however, could really use a player like Holliday. They gave up some good prospects, but again, nothing they couldn’t live without. This trade seems to be universally accepted as a major haul for Beane while Cardinals fans are left shaking their fists. I ask: why? The team is now in position to make a run not likely before said trade. The immediate upside is far more than what you can reasonably expect over a long course of time from what they gave up. The future prospect of having an advantage of signing Holliday having good terms with the Cardinals is worth a gamble, too. The value of Wallace and Co. is more to the A’s because Holliday at best gets them two draft picks. The value of Holliday now is more to the Cardinals because it could mean a championship run for the Cardinals where there are no future guarantees at such an opportunity. Both sides come out on top here and I don’t see the point of being bitter about it if you’re a Cards fan.
by Daniel Berlyn on Aug 3, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The immediate upside is far more than what you can reasonably expect over a long course of time from what they gave up"
That’s where I, and Victor Wang, disagree with you. Wang did research on the value of prospects. Article here. Fangraphs has an article about the Holliday trade specifically here.
Basically what it boils down to is that Wallace, ranked 21st by BA this year, has a surplus value of $22-$25MM. That’s an average of what prospects ranked 11-25th were worth to their teams while under team control. I understand that the Cardinals are looking to compete and there A’s are far from it, so the trade makes sense for both teams, but let’s look at the trade in a vacuum.
Hypothetically, let’s say that you and another GM both have an 81-81 team, and you get to choose between Holliday and Wallace, or any other generic 11-25th ranked prospect. You can choose Holliday and his $6MM salary and take his couple of wins that he’ll be worth for the next couple months and make a run at the playoffs this year and he’ll be gone next year, leaving you with two draft picks worth about $5MM.
Otherwise, you can choose this generic top prospect who would be a bargain and help your team over the next six years. Keep in mind that the prospects ranked 11-25 are worth $25MM on average while under team control.
I’d take the prospect.
by NateHST on Aug 4, 2009 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that's if you believe Wallace deserves recognition as that level of a prospect
which I don’t. If he stays at third base, he’ll have to be one of the best hitters in the game to overcome his sloppy-at-best defense. If he moves to first or DH, he has to be one of the best hitters in the game to overcome his position. Either that or he has to make dynamic improvements in his defense to actually be worth that much. Rankings are outdated. 4 months in the prospect world is an eternity. To be even close to Holliday’s immediate value in the near future he has to make dynamic improvements in his hitting(he hasn’t been great so far but passable) and/or in his defense(a FP% in the .920s in the minors doesn’t make me hopeful). Holliday is shredding the NL apart right now and who knows how valuable he’ll be for the Cards through the playoff run and with draft picks or in the future.
by Daniel Berlyn on Aug 4, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think its important to look at the top 20-25 rather than the top 10. Mostly because I think the top 10 is more weighted for prospects ready for the bigs vs. overall talent. If you look at that list, virtually all of them were in the bigs shortly. And I’d argue that Chavez, Penny, Drew, and Barrett have all had successful careers. Chavez and Penny in particular wouldn’t exactly have been considered scrubs in their primes.
by The R on Aug 4, 2009 5:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
