Destinations for Adam Eaton

[SoxAce]

Turns 28. Value will never be any higher. Could get a haul for him

 

Bingo.

[GGajewski18]

White Sox lack depth. When you are rebuilding and you can turn one player into more players you do it (as long as it's the right deal).

 

Eaton and Robertson to the Cardinals for Kelly, Bader, Weaver and ~3 others.

 

If you don't get Reyes in a deal with Eaton, then you lost the trade automatically. Much like Urias in a Sale trade.

[Chisoxfn]

I don't think we will trade Eaton, since you still need to have some players around and he's under contract for a long time anyway. I could easily see the Sox approach to this being move Sale, Frazier, Melky, Robertson while sticking with a Q & Eaton with their view somewhere in there being that I presume the Sox intend on competing sooner vs. later and thus you could still easily see Q / Eaton being good fits on a team (even when going through a 1-2 year rebuild process before you start to emerge into some sort of competitive team (note, I don't see playoff team, just more competitive).

 

That said, if teams want to offer up significant packages for Eaton, then I think the Sox have to really listen as he is a pretty valuable trade asset. Just depends on how much of a "reset" the Sox intend on hitting and I just don't see them going full blown (but maybe they do). I don't expect the Sox to target a lot of low level talent and wouldn't be surprised if some of the deals they go after include other major league pieces (again I don't see the Sox front office looking at this long winded rebuild). I do see the appetite there to infuse new talent and majorly shake things up though.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

You move Q as well. Sale and Q have the most value

[Bob Sacamano]

You move Q as well if a team offers a big haul. Sale and Q have the most value

 

Fixed.

Edited November 15, 2016 by soxfan2014

[Y2Jimmy0]

You move Q as well. Sale and Q have the most value

 

 

You don't have to though. He has 4 years of control. Can be moved at deadline. Or next offseason. Or the one after.

[Eminor3rd]

I love Eaton, but I don't think ANY team thinks he's a 6 win player going forward. The problem with deriving so much value from your arm is that people stop giving you the chance to throw them out. The problem with deriving so much value from rangey plays is that you don't always get the opportunity to make rangey plays. The defensive "production" is likely to regress, even if he plays exactly as well as he did this year.

 

On top of that (and possibly partially because of that), players like Eaton tend to consistently command less on the trade/free agent market than everyone expects. I think most teams would love to have him, but I don't think he would return what most seem to be expecting. There's a good chance he's more valuable to the Sox on the field than he is as trade bait.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Eminor3rd

[Bob Sacamano]

You don't have to though. He has 4 years of control. Can be moved at deadline. Or next offseason. Or the one after.

 

This is the point I've been hammering lol everyone is trying to rush everyone out of here. A full rebuild can take 3-4 years (maybe even more). Guys can be held onto and dealt if you don't feel like a deal is what you want right now. Realistically, I see one of Sale/Quintana, Abreu, Jones and likely Eaton here for at least until June. I don't see many teams willing to give up their top talent. I'd love to be proven wrong and see most of those guys dealt for huge hauls but I'm taking a realistic approach. Melky, Frazier, Robertson and one Sale/Q I see dealt.

Edited November 15, 2016 by soxfan2014

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Fixed.

I thinks that's understood because it's been stated multiple times we don't have to move either one.

[southsider2k5]

I love Eaton, but I don't think ANY team thinks he's a 6 win player going forward. The problem with deriving so much value from your arm is that people stop giving you the chance to throw them out. The problem with deriving so much value from rangey plays is that you don't always get the opportunity to make rangey plays. The defensive "production" is likely to regress, even if he plays exactly as well as he did this year.

 

On top of that (and possibly partially because of that), players like Eaton tend to consistently command less on the trade/free agent market than everyone expects. I think most teams would love to have him, but I don;t think he would return what most seem to be expecting. There's a good chance he's more valuable to the Sox on the field than he is as trade bait.

 

Seeing what Ellsbury and Crawford pulled down on the free agent market, I don't know that I agree with that.

[Eminor3rd]

Seeing what Ellsbury and Crawford pulled down on the free agent market, I don't know that I agree with that.

 

On the contrary, I think those examples actually help prove the point. Both of those guys got that money when they started hitting homers. The contract year's for each of those guys were 150 wRC+ and 132 wRC+ respectively. Eaton's recent big season came on the back of a 115 wRC+.

[ChiSox59]

Don't think he gets dealt. We'd have to be blown away and not many teams have the bullets to get it done.

 

This. I don't think there's any realistic chance Adam isn't on the Sox on Opening Day. No one is going to meet their price, and if the Sox REALLY don't HAVE to trade Eaton. Dude is dirt cheap for 5 more years. However, his value may never be higher.

[southsider2k5]

On the contrary, I think those examples actually help prove the point. Both of those guys got that money when they started hitting homers. The contract year's for each of those guys were 150 wRC+ and 132 wRC+ respectively. Eaton's recent big season came on the back of a 115 wRC+.

 

I believe if Adam Eaton were a free agent today, he would exceed the deal that either player got as a FA.

[Chisoxfn]

I love Eaton, but I don't think ANY team thinks he's a 6 win player going forward. The problem with deriving so much value from your arm is that people stop giving you the chance to throw them out. The problem with deriving so much value from rangey plays is that you don't always get the opportunity to make rangey plays. The defensive "production" is likely to regress, even if he plays exactly as well as he did this year.

 

On top of that (and possibly partially because of that), players like Eaton tend to consistently command less on the trade/free agent market than everyone expects. I think most teams would love to have him, but I don't think he would return what most seem to be expecting. There's a good chance he's more valuable to the Sox on the field than he is as trade bait.

I think Q is in the same boat, but driven by the fact that his stuff isn't what you typically see from an "ace". If he threw upper 90's, but put up the exact same numbers, we would get better offers, imo.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

I think ya trade Q because his value will never be higher.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I think ya trade Q because his value will never be higher.

 

 

I think you trade Sale because it seems like team and he has 3 years of control. I have no reason to believe that Quintana won't remain awesome. If you could get a ton for both guys then I'd deal both. If you can't, then they should trade Sale now and hang onto Q into the season.

[Chicago White Sox]

You don't have to though. He has 4 years of control. Can be moved at deadline. Or next offseason. Or the one after.

And why would you expect to get better offers then? The starting pitching market will be much better next offseason and Q will have one less year of control. This offseason should provide the Sox with the best estimate of what is fair value for guys like Sale & Quintana.

[Dick Allen]

I love Eaton, but I don't think ANY team thinks he's a 6 win player going forward. The problem with deriving so much value from your arm is that people stop giving you the chance to throw them out. The problem with deriving so much value from rangey plays is that you don't always get the opportunity to make rangey plays. The defensive "production" is likely to regress, even if he plays exactly as well as he did this year.

 

On top of that (and possibly partially because of that), players like Eaton tend to consistently command less on the trade/free agent market than everyone expects. I think most teams would love to have him, but I don't think he would return what most seem to be expecting. There's a good chance he's more valuable to the Sox on the field than he is as trade bait.

Yes but he has been a top 10 WAR player for a year and a half, even when he was negative in CF. in 2015. He is signed so cheaply, and is controlled as long as guys who just completed their rookie seasons.

 

If teams refuse to run on him and that hurts his WAR, that shows a problem with the WAR. Players not even attempting to take another base is a pretty valuable commodity to have in an OF.

[Eminor3rd]

I believe if Adam Eaton were a free agent today, he would exceed the deal that either player got as a FA.

 

You think Eaton gets >$150mm on the market today? I'm sorry, I just can't get there. I wish I had time to look up comps and dig deeper. Would be an interesting question to ask a FanGraphs guy to look into. I think he's more like $80mm in a normal year, maybe $100mm in a historically weak class like this.

 

Yes but he has been a top 10 WAR player for a year and a half, even when he was negative in CF. in 2015. He is signed so cheaply, and is controlled as long as guys who just completed their rookie seasons.

 

If teams refuse to run on him and that hurts his WAR, that shows a problem with the WAR. Players not even attempting to take another base is a pretty valuable commodity to have in an OF.

 

It is, indeed, probably the biggest drawback in the field of measuring defense -- the fact that the chances aren't equally distributed like at bats. But, yes, while holding runners from advancing is definitely valuable and definitely not accounted for, it is much less valuable than gunning them down. It isn't fair, but it's the truth. Eaton's team this year will enjoy the benefit of his reputation on runners, but it's very unlikely to get the "wins" he earned this year out of those throwouts. They just aren't likely to happen again. It's certainly POSSIBLE, but he's probably more of a 3-4 win guy going forward. And so I think that's what teams are seeing in his value.

 

That's still valuable, mind you.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Eminor3rd

[southsider2k5]

You think Eaton gets >$150mm on the market today? I'm sorry, I just can't get there. I wish I had time to look up comps and dig deeper. Would be an interesting question to ask a FanGraphs guy to look into. I think he's more like $80mm in a normal year, maybe $100mm in a historically weak class like this.

 

 

 

It is, indeed, probably the biggest drawback in the field of measuring defense -- the fact that the chances aren't equally distributed like at bats. But, yes, while holding runners from advancing is definitely valuable and definitely not accounted for, it is much less valuable than gunning them down. It isn't fair, but it's the truth. Eaton's team this year will enjoy the benefit of his reputation on runners, but it's very unlikely to get the "wins" he earned this year out of those throwouts. They just aren't likely to happen again. It's certainly POSSIBLE, but he's probably more of a 3-4 win guy going forward. And so I think that's what teams are seeing in his value.

 

That's still valuable, mind you.

 

What is the big difference between Heyward (pre 2016) and Adam Eaton today? These figures are straight off of fangraphs.

 

Jason Heyward 2015

 

6.0 WAR, 16.4 Def, 120 RC+, 22.6 UZR, 24, DRS, 5.2 Arm

 

Adam Eaton 2016

 

6.0 WAR, 18.0 Def, 115 RC+, 22.5 UZR, 20 DRS, 9.1 Arm.

[Chisoxfn]

What is the big difference between Heyward (pre 2016) and Adam Eaton today? These figures are straight off of fangraphs.

 

Jason Heyward 2015

 

6.0 WAR, 16.4 Def, 120 RC+, 22.6 UZR, 24, DRS, 5.2 Arm

 

Adam Eaton 2016

 

6.0 WAR, 18.0 Def, 115 RC+, 22.5 UZR, 20 DRS, 9.1 Arm.

Heyward had a lot more of a track-record and is more physically gifted, so I think people see him as a guy who could have even expanded from there. Eaton's track record is still good, just not the long span that Heyward had. Heyward has essentially 4 seasons of 6 WAR (a few just a bit above and one that I'm counting that was at 5.8). That is in his first six seasons. His last two entering free agency were a 6.2 and a 6.5 and was only going to be 26 during the first year of his contract.

 

Eaton, to his own defense, has put up a 5.2 and a 6.2 in two of the last three years and even his down year was a 3.9. Case in point, not a ton of difference necessarily between the two, just one had a longer track record and a bigger reputation, but both are damn good players. I'd say that Eaton was far more underappreciated but part of that is Heyward was so hyped coming up, etc.

 

If Adam were a free agent this year, he'd get a big contract ($100M plus for sure). You can see why teams would want him, but we also have years of control over him and I would hope intend to compete during the reign where he'd still be in his "prime" years. Either way, Adam Eaton is a good problem to have.

[southsider2k5]

Heyward had a lot more of a track-record and is more physically gifted, so I think people see him as a guy who could have even expanded from there. Eaton's track record is still good, just not the long span that Heyward had. Heyward has essentially 4 seasons of 6 WAR (a few just a bit above and one that I'm counting that was at 5.8). That is in his first six seasons. His last two entering free agency were a 6.2 and a 6.5 and was only going to be 26 during the first year of his contract.

 

Eaton, to his own defense, has put up a 5.2 and a 6.2 in two of the last three years and even his down year was a 3.9. Case in point, not a ton of difference necessarily between the two, just one had a longer track record and a bigger reputation, but both are damn good players. I'd say that Eaton was far more underappreciated but part of that is Heyward was so hyped coming up, etc.

 

If Adam were a free agent this year, he'd get a big contract ($100M plus for sure). You can see why teams would want him, but we also have years of control over him and I would hope intend to compete during the reign where he'd still be in his "prime" years. Either way, Adam Eaton is a good problem to have.

 

If the market dictated that Heyward was a $184 million player, I have to say that Adam Eaton would be at least $150 million on the open market.

[Chisoxfn]

If the market dictated that Heyward was a $184 million player, I have to say that Adam Eaton would be at least $150 million on the open market.

I think in this free agent class, there is a shot someone goes to $150. I'd peg him at the $125-$175M range.

[beautox]

Eaton is under control for 5 years the only way you move him is if your getting a haul that rivals Q or you think his value will plummet after a firesale, His surplus value if you consider he has a similar aging curve to say Alex Gordon is around 130m after taking into account his contract.

[dmbjeff]

What is the big difference between Heyward (pre 2016) and Adam Eaton today? These figures are straight off of fangraphs.

 

Jason Heyward 2015

 

6.0 WAR, 16.4 Def, 120 RC+, 22.6 UZR, 24, DRS, 5.2 Arm

 

Adam Eaton 2016

 

6.0 WAR, 18.0 Def, 115 RC+, 22.5 UZR, 20 DRS, 9.1 Arm.

 

Speaking of a Cub player. Eaton would be a perfect fit to take over for Fowler and the Cubs have the prospects to get a deal done. Unfortunately, I get it, the Sox won't trade with them, but I disagree with that line of thinking. Your job as a GM is to make your team better, who cares if it makes the crosstown team better as well. Whatever gets us closer to a WS title.