• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

MLB '12-'13 OffSeason OT: Magic is the New Market Inefficiency

F

Fenix

Member
I'm more comfortable giving up Syndergaard than Gose, since goes has already shown that this defensive tools play in the Majors at only 21. TINSTAAPP always applies and of course the risk is higher since Noah hasn't even pitched at high-A yet. Not that I don't love Syndergaard as a prospect, there's just a lot more risk than Gose. Possibly more reward too.

Edit: Rosenthal says deal is in place, jays have a 72 hour period to negotiate an extension and complete the deal.
 
F

Fenix

Member
darkside31337 said:
I find it amazing how Jays fans are underrating Dickey.
Click to expand...
Same.

Reading Mike Wilner's feed yesterday was amazing. Of course these are the same fans who complain that Rogers never does anything to make the Jays competitive. Toronto fans will complain about anything.
 
R

rinse82

Member
Regardless of what I think about what we gave up, I look at this and it makes me feel better:

Dickey
Johnson
Morrow
Buerhle
Romero

Dat rotation
 
gaming_noob

gaming_noob

Member
rinse82 said:
Regardless of what I think about what we gave up, I look at this and it makes me feel better:

Dickey
Johnson
Morrow
Buerhle
Romero

Dat rotation
Click to expand...

First 3 with ace material....and if Romero can come back to form like in 2011 we can expect some low scoring games from the opposition.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
rinse82 said:
Regardless of what I think about what we gave up, I look at this and it makes me feel better:

Dickey
Johnson
Morrow
Buerhle
Romero

Dat rotation
Click to expand...

Jays have a unique opportunity to take advantage of a division that isn't going to feature the Bankees and the Sox at the top. Team looks really good, makes sense to me.
 
L

LJ11

Member
It's a smart baseball move, but man do I hate giving up Dickey. Also funny that Sandy's insisted that the team is not in rebuild/tank mode, only fools bought that line.

Should have traded Wright as well, what's the point in keeping him around? He'll be 33 by the time they field a competitive team, if that. Whatever, they need to sell something to the fans, even though most of us tuned in to watch Dickey and not Wright, especially in the second half.
 
D

Dmncnby2k9

Banned
LJ11 said:
It's a smart baseball move, but man do I hate giving up Dickey. Also funny that Sandy's insisted that the team is not in rebuild/tank mode, only fools bought that line.

Should have traded Wright as well, what's the point in keeping him around? He'll be 33 by the time they field a competitive team, if that. Whatever, they need to sell something to the fans, even though most of us tuned in to watch Dickey and not Wright, especially in the second half.
Click to expand...
Agreed man. Dickey was awesome. It was too good to last I guess. Great story, great player, great guy. Wish he could stay but I understand. He will be missed.
 
B

Bauer Action Hour

Member
LJ11 said:
It's a smart baseball move, but man do I hate giving up Dickey. Also funny that Sandy's insisted that the team is not in rebuild/tank mode, only fools bought that line.

Should have traded Wright as well, what's the point in keeping him around? He'll be 33 by the time they field a competitive team, if that. Whatever, they need to sell something to the fans, even though most of us tuned in to watch Dickey and not Wright, especially in the second half.
Click to expand...

The business aspect of keeping Wright shouldn't be minimized. Having someone around that people can feel attached to has to help their bottom line. The fact that Wright is still a very good to great player helps too.

As for tuning in, aren't you interested in watching Harvey pitch for a full season? His slider is pretty devastating. Also, barring some terrible happening, Wheeler will make his way to the MLB rotation as well.
 
S

Sanjuro

Member
LJ11 said:
Should have traded Wright as well.
Click to expand...

ibuh61HGM91oNw.gif
 
C

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
This question goes out to the Phillies fans:

If Dom Brown was traded to the Braves, what kind of package would you expect back from Atlanta?
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
LJ11 said:
It's a smart baseball move, but man do I hate giving up Dickey. Also funny that Sandy's insisted that the team is not in rebuild/tank mode, only fools bought that line.

Should have traded Wright as well, what's the point in keeping him around? He'll be 33 by the time they field a competitive team, if that. Whatever, they need to sell something to the fans, even though most of us tuned in to watch Dickey and not Wright, especially in the second half.
Click to expand...

They're not in full rebuild, otherwise they would have dealt Wright, Reyes, and even someone like Hairston at the deadline who was garnering interest.

They're in limbo, and they will always be until the Wilpons are gone.
 
Z

Zep

Banned
CygnusXS said:
This question goes out to the Phillies fans:

If Dom Brown was traded to the Braves, what kind of package would you expect back from Atlanta?
Click to expand...

Two years ago...Your best prospect(s)

Now?
Dan Uggla

He's really at his lowest in trade value right now.
 
L

LJ11

Member
Maxim726X said:
They're not in full rebuild, otherwise they would have dealt Wright, Reyes, and even someone like Hairston at the deadline who was garnering interest.

They're in limbo, and they will always be until the Wilpons are gone.
Click to expand...

Not dealing Reyes was a dumb move, but I don't think Sandy had a choice, that was on the Wilpons. This is pretty much a rebuild, no reason to get into semantics. Agree about the Wilpons, get them the fuck out of here.
 
C

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
Zep said:
Two years ago...Your best prospect(s)

Now?
Dan Uggla

He's really at his lowest in trade value right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what makes him an interesting option for me. Still has a lot of potential, and could probably be acquired cheaply.
 
Z

Zep

Banned
CygnusXS said:
Yeah, that's what makes him an interesting option for me. Still has a lot of potential, and could probably be acquired cheaply.
Click to expand...

Well nothing is imminent due to our unsettled OF. If they sign Ross or Swisher, you then have a battle for starting LF between Brown/Ruf/Mayberry in spring training.

I'm personally hoping to see a Brown/Ruf platoon, with Mayberry as a 4th outfielder. I haven't seen anything from Dom to make me think he'll take the LF job outright.
 
C

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
Zep said:
Well nothing is imminent due to our unsettled OF. If they sign Ross or Swisher, you then have a battle for starting LF between Brown/Ruf/Mayberry in spring training.

I'm personally hoping to see a Brown/Ruf platoon, with Mayberry as a 4th outfielder. I haven't seen anything from Dom to make me think he'll take the LF job outright.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth (not a lot), Bill James is projecting a break out season from him.
 
O

Opiate

Member
I really despise that trades are supposed to be evaluated after the prospects have panned out (or fizzled). It's an obvious failure of logic and a misunderstanding of how to evaluate probability.

Let's say I have a bag of marbles which I know has 3 black marbles and 7 white ones inside of it. I am going to reach inside and pick out one marble, and I bet on picking out a white marble. If I instead reach in and take a black marble, does that mean I made the wrong choice? Was my bet the wrong one? Obviously not. The Mets' acquisitions should be evaluated now, and not 5 years from now when it's apparent their prospects have succeeded (or failed). I think they did quite well.

If the Mets traded Dickey for the 10 best prospects in the game, and it just so happened that all 10 of those ended up with bad arms at a very young age, or never made the transition to the big leagues, or ended up going to prison, this wouldn't mean they made a bad trade. Even the best odds sometimes don't work in your favor.
 
T

The Frankman

Banned
Saw Bowie was totally the better draft pick over Michael Jordan. Blazers needed size, they didn't need a shooting guard.

...

yeah.
ESPN said:
Case in point: Remember the Johan Santana trade? The Mets gave up prospects Philip Humber, Carlos Gomez, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra. From that perspective, in retrospect, the Mets did not lose. Yet when you consider the trade was contingent upon a six-year, $137.5 million extension for Santana, arguably in retrospect the Mets did not win, either, since the back end of that contract obligation now leaves them handcuffed from other maneuvers.

Ultimately, the Jays will be judged on three factors:
• What type of success did they have in the short term that was benefited by this deal?
• What type of careers do the players they surrender ultimately enjoy?
• And what type of commitment do they give Dickey -- and what value/albatross does that become?
Click to expand...
/end
 
O

Opiate

Member
The Frankman said:
Saw Bowie was totally the better draft pick over Michael Jordan. Blazers needed size, they didn't need a shooting guard.

...

yeah.
Click to expand...

So the question would be whether they correctly evaluated the situation in the first place. It's possible to incorrectly assess the odds at the time; what is not possible is for a good trade to suddenly become a bad one if your player has a freak car accident which permanently injures him.

If Jordan really did appear to be worse than Saw Bowie at the time of their drafting, then they made the right call. The fact that it didn't pan out for them is irrelevant. If I buy lottery tickets and happen to win, does that mean I made the right choice? Of course not -- any statistician can tell you that lottery tickets are a tax on the stupid or ignorant.

/end
Click to expand...

Their analysis is completely wrong and addressed to people who do not know how probability works.
 
B

bluemax

Banned
Opiate said:
I really despise that trades are supposed to be evaluated after the prospects have panned out (or fizzled). It's an obvious failure of logic and a misunderstanding of how to evaluate probability.

Let's say I have a bag of marbles which I know has 3 black marbles and 7 white ones inside of it. I am going to reach inside and pick out one marble, and I bet on picking out a white marble. If I instead reach in and take a black marble, does that mean I made the wrong choice? Was my bet the wrong one? Obviously not. The Mets' acquisitions should be evaluated now, and not 5 years from now when it's apparent their prospects have succeeded (or failed). I think they did quite well.

If the Mets traded Dickey for the 10 best prospects in the game, and it just so happened that all 10 of those ended up with bad arms at a very young age, or never made the transition to the big leagues, or ended up going to prison, this wouldn't mean they made a bad trade. Even the best odds sometimes don't work in your favor.
Click to expand...

Evaluating trades after the fact doesn't really work and isn't really how trades are made. I don't think anyone but sports radio yokels and dumb ass message board posters do this.

Ideally a trade should benefit both parties equally.
 
O

Opiate

Member
The Frankman said:
I don't understand this premise. Please explain.
Click to expand...

Let's say I buy a house in an area that has only seen floods once in the last 200 years. If I move in and there is a flood a year later, did I retroactively make the wrong choice to buy the house? To not buy flood insurance when the odds of flooding were so low?

I have a die with 6 sides. Someone bets me 10 dollars that it will land on a 3 (and thus meaning I win if it lands on anything else). I take that bet. The die does end up landing on a 3, and I owe the guy 10 dollars. Did I make a bad bet?

I can provide more examples, if needed. In each case, hopefully you can see that good decisions don't suddenly become bad decisions when the odds don't work out in your favor. To continue with my dice example: I lost the first bet, because the die happened to roll a 3. Does that mean I should not take my friend up on a second, identical bet? Obviously I should. Why? Because despite losing the first time, the odds are still in my favor and it's a good bet.

bluemax said:
Evaluating trades after the fact doesn't really work and isn't really how trades are made. I don't think anyone but sports radio yokels and dumb ass message board posters do this.

Ideally a trade should benefit both parties equally.
Click to expand...

I agree!
 
C

cashman

Banned
The thing is, Travis D'arnoud is a pretty solid bet to a be a decent major leaguer at a premium position. That alone makes it a pretty good move by the mets.
 
O

Opiate

Member
cashman said:
The thing is, Travis D'arnoud is a pretty solid bet to a be a decent major leaguer at a premium position. That alone makes it a pretty good move by the mets.
Click to expand...

I very much agree; this is what I've been trying to say. And perhaps failing.

In the off chance that D'arnoud not only fails to be a "decent major leaguer," but has some sort of injury from which he never really recovers and he consequently doesn't even make the major leagues, getting D'arnoud was still the right choice.

All prospects are, almost by definition, bets on future production. If you can find a prospect who has an 80% chance of being a solid major leaguer (disclaimer: I just made up those numbers), but the 20% chance happens and he never makes it, this doesn't mean you made a bad bet, it means even good bets sometimes don't work out.

D'arnoud seems like a "good bet" to me. The Mets did well, even if D'arnoud doesn't make it in the future. No organization can make everything magically work out; the best you can do is place the best bets you can. This is why I so strongly disagree with ESPN's analysis, and why I agree with bluemax that this is probably something only done by silly sportswriters who need to reach a word count to publish.
 
T

The Frankman

Banned
Except that in sports that type of logic/probability doesn't always work that way. Every trade has to be leveraged with 2-3 different things in mind, and while it's nice to say every trade should benefit both parties equally, few ever do.

Look no further than the Knicks' Tracy McGrady trade of 2010. The deal was made solely for the purpose of the Knicks getting under the cap and acquiring a topflight player in the bonanza Summer of 2010, in which the Knicks acquired Amar'e Stoudemire and Raymond Felton. In the meantime, none of the picks Houston received have really helped them a ton. In that sense, New York got the better of that deal. Did NY have to make some shrewd moves and hope they panned out? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that the succes of that deal hinged on the Knicks getting cap flexibility and capitalizing on it.

Like I said, same thing with the Johan deal, only it included alot more prospects. Johan's success vs. the growth of said prospects would influence who "won" the deal. If you polled MLB-GAF, I'm sure you'd probably hear that the Mets won, but by the slimmest of margins. None of the prospects panned out for the Twins, but outside of a few good years (and a no-no) Santana's health/contract is now hurting the Mets.
 
B

Bauer Action Hour

Member
Opiate said:
I really despise that trades are supposed to be evaluated after the prospects have panned out (or fizzled). It's an obvious failure of logic and a misunderstanding of how to evaluate probability.

Let's say I have a bag of marbles which I know has 3 black marbles and 7 white ones inside of it. I am going to reach inside and pick out one marble, and I bet on picking out a white marble. If I instead reach in and take a black marble, does that mean I made the wrong choice? Was my bet the wrong one? Obviously not. The Mets' acquisitions should be evaluated now, and not 5 years from now when it's apparent their prospects have succeeded (or failed). I think they did quite well.

If the Mets traded Dickey for the 10 best prospects in the game, and it just so happened that all 10 of those ended up with bad arms at a very young age, or never made the transition to the big leagues, or ended up going to prison, this wouldn't mean they made a bad trade. Even the best odds sometimes don't work in your favor.
Click to expand...

Great post, I agree completely. Ultimately, this trade from both team's perspectives involved a good process.

For TOR it's time shifting future value to the present to take advantage of a seldom seen opportunity to reach the playoffs out of a diminished AL East. For the Mets it's trying to shift that surplus present value, that they weren't going to make much use out of, to the future when their prospects to compete look better. It's hard to fault the move from either perspective.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
Opiate said:
I very much agree; this is what I've been trying to say. And perhaps failing.

In the off chance that D'arnoud not only fails to be a "decent major leaguer," but has some sort of injury from which he never really recovers and he consequently doesn't even make the major leagues, getting D'arnoud was still the right choice.

All prospects are, almost by definition, bets on future production. If you can find a prospect who has an 80% chance of being a solid major leaguer (disclaimer: I just made up those numbers), but the 20% chance happens and he never makes it, this doesn't mean you made a bad bet, it means even good bets sometimes don't work out.

D'arnoud seems like a "good bet" to me. The Mets did well, even if D'arnoud doesn't make it in the future. No organization can make everything magically work out; the best you can do is place the best bets you can. This is why I so strongly disagree with ESPN's analysis, and why I agree with bluemax that this is probably something only done by silly sportswriters who need to reach a word count to publish.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. And I have the same argument about the Beltran/Wheeler trade: Whether or not Wheeler turns into a star is irrelevant- It was still the right move.
 
T

The Frankman

Banned
Maxim726X said:
Yes, I agree. And I have the same argument about the Beltran/Wheeler trade: Whether or not Wheeler turns into a star is irrelevant- It was still the right move.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that Sabean was a moron for making the deal, though. They gave away all their leverage, that was a bigtime fleece.
 
J

Jon

Member
CygnusXS said:
This question goes out to the Phillies fans:

If Dom Brown was traded to the Braves, what kind of package would you expect back from Atlanta?
Click to expand...

I'd want...

Teheran

Probably a one for one.

I mean, you could throw in Pastornicky, but I don't think that would happen, haha.
;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CNET hands on with the PS5 Pro
2 3 4 5
200
15K
Katatonic replied
  • Locked
MLB Playoffs 2019 |OT| Juiciest Balls Since 2001
Sports 2 3 4 5
240
20K
GreatnessRD replied
MLB The Show 19 | OT | Baseball is the most important thing in the world, but MLB The Show is pretty good, too.
|OT| 2 3
119
10K
Fox Mulder replied
MLB Regular Season 2018 OT – I believe in the Church of Baseball
2 3 4
153
15K
Schattenjäger replied
MLB Post Season |OT| BYOB
2 3 4
178
11K
Musky_Cheese replied
Top Bottom