Jay Bruce

[BlackSox13]

for me, #1 I agree, however the baseball pro's may have other thoughts.

#2 is just an extension of 1.

 

#3 I think the sox brass knows there is a limited time of assembling a good team to compete.

I trust them they have a pict and a game plan and I am sure they are following it.

 

I agree about the value of Q, btw nice way of getting rid of a body without any traces.

Thing is that Q's huge value lies not only in his stats but his age plus his long term control plus his cheap salary. Also, as another poster mentioned, Q has a higher WAR going for him. Q genuinely has higher value than Bruce.

 

RE: body. Yeah I stole the idea from a man named BrickTop. Smart fella that Brick Top.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Thing is that Q's huge value lies not only in his stats but his age plus his long term control plus his cheap salary. Also, as another poster mentioned, Q has a higher WAR going for him. Q genuinely has higher value than Bruce.

 

RE: body. Yeah I stole the idea from a man named BrickTop. Smart fella that Brick Top.

We do need a closer and if you are rebuilding as it appears the Reds are doing then 2 years of Chapman for the same AAV we just gave Duke seems good. Just have to figure out what it would take to land Chapman though the Reds could probably get a really decent haul for him.

[BlackSox13]

We do need a closer and if you are rebuilding as it appears the Reds are doing then 2 years of Chapman for the same AAV we just gave Duke seems good. Just have to figure out what it would take to land Chapman though the Reds could probably get a really decent haul for him.

The Sox have more money to spare than minor league talent so FA would be the best place to grab a closer,IMO. Maybe the Sox are one of the teams that have an offer out to Miller?

 

The Reds are looking for prospects, the Sox are still building their farm so its really not a match.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

The Sox have more money to spare than minor league talent so FA would be the best place to grab a closer,IMO. Maybe the Sox are one of the teams that have an offer out to Miller?

 

The Reds are looking for prospects, the Sox are still building their farm so its really not a match.

I know but having him would be sweet. Abreu needs another home boy if Alexei and Tank get moved.

[Balta1701]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

[SoCalSox]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

 

Wow... This is a pretty impressive post. Interesting way of looking at it all.

[caulfield12]

Except pitchers have a much higher likelihood of career-threatening injuries than position players.

 

Sure you can come back eventually from TJ...and Stanton almost had his career ended...but shoulder/labrum injuries are killers

 

It's the age old argument about a pitcher with 32 starts vs. 150+ games from an everyday player...especially at SS or CF.

Edited November 22, 2014 by caulfield12

[Dam8610]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

 

THANK YOU! Maybe now all this "trade Q" crap will die. How's Chris Sale look in this sort of analysis, by the way?

 

[Balta1701]

Wow... This is a pretty impressive post. Interesting way of looking at it all.

It changes a bit if you go to $6 million per WAR, Trout wins by about $4 mil/year during the contract,but it's like "$178 million in excess value" versus "$144 million in excess value". The difference isn't zero but it's small compared to the numbers these guys are putting up. The basic point stands; if you would trade Mike trout with his current contract for a guy, you would trade Quintana for that guy. If you at least hesitate about it, then ok you trade Quintana for that guy. If you say no about Trout, then you can't trade Quintana for that guy unless you think Jose is about to blow his arm out.

 

Jose is that valuable. He's a video game cheat code right now and should be treated that way.

[Dam8610]

Except pitchers have a much higher likelihood of career-threatening injuries than position players.

 

Sure you can come back eventually from TJ...and Stanton almost had his career ended...but shoulder/labrum injuries are killers

 

It's the age old argument about a pitcher with 32 starts vs. 150+ games from an everyday player...especially at SS or CF.

 

Fine, then, assign Quintana about 90% of the value you'd assign Trout and then move on with the analysis. Bruce is still nowhere near worth that. Let alone the absurd idea of the Sox giving up more than Quintana for Bruce.

[Balta1701]

THANK YOU! Maybe now all this "trade Q" crap will die. How's Chris Sale look in this sort of analysis, by the way?

Chris is under contract for 1 less year than Quintana, but he's put up 5.1 and 5.3 fWAR the last 2 years. If you believe Sale will repeat his last year, then Quintana is more valuable than Sale, hands down, but the difference is that Sale missed 4 weeks last year.

 

If Sale was healthy all year last year with no difference in performance, he's a >7 fWAR pitcher, but we haven't seen that from him yet. It seems more likely with him than Quintana but that's where health comes in.

 

But really, a good rule of thumb is...if you say "God no" to any trade proposal involving sale, you should say the exact same thing about Quintana. Sale should outperform Jose but he seems a higher injury risk based on his record, so if you weigh them about the same for trade value, Sale's trade Value and Quintana's trade value should be close enough that they're exchangeable.

 

So, would you trade Sale as the key piece in a deal involving Jay Bruce? Literally there's no deal I can put together with the Reds roster that works, not with Cueto that close to FA. I wouldn't trade Sale as the key piece for Votto, so I wouldn't trade Quintana as the key piece for Votto. Their total value to the franchise is just about that close.

 

The only reason you'd trade either of them is to remove the injury risk, and from the perspective of this thread, if you're worried about injury risk, how confident are you about a guy who struggled with knee injuries last year? This is approaching silly. No one with a lick of sense would trade Sale for a deal with Bruce as the centerpiece, so it's equally silly to trade Quintana for a package around him, let alone Quintana+.

[BlackSox13]

Very well done Balta!

 

If Cincy wants to talk about Tank, Gillaspie, the Sox MI's or minor leaguers not named Anderson then fine but otherwise, I suggest they look to trade Bruce elsewhere.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

Chris is under contract for 1 less year than Quintana, but he's put up 5.1 and 5.3 fWAR the last 2 years. If you believe Sale will repeat his last year, then Quintana is more valuable than Sale, hands down, but the difference is that Sale missed 4 weeks last year.

 

If Sale was healthy all year last year with no difference in performance, he's a >7 fWAR pitcher, but we haven't seen that from him yet. It seems more likely with him than Quintana but that's where health comes in.

 

But really, a good rule of thumb is...if you say "God no" to any trade proposal involving sale, you should say the exact same thing about Quintana. Sale should outperform Jose but he seems a higher injury risk based on his record, so if you weigh them about the same for trade value, Sale's trade Value and Quintana's trade value should be close enough that they're exchangeable.

 

So, would you trade Sale as the key piece in a deal involving Jay Bruce? Literally there's no deal I can put together with the Reds roster that works, not with Cueto that close to FA. I wouldn't trade Sale as the key piece for Votto, so I wouldn't trade Quintana as the key piece for Votto. Their total value to the franchise is just about that close.

 

The only reason you'd trade either of them is to remove the injury risk, and from the perspective of this thread, if you're worried about injury risk, how confident are you about a guy who struggled with knee injuries last year? This is approaching silly. No one with a lick of sense would trade Sale for a deal with Bruce as the centerpiece, so it's equally silly to trade Quintana for a package around him, let alone Quintana+.

 

Great post.

 

[hi8is]

Good things said here...

To which I offer this response: Preach on Brother.

[GreenSox]

Onto the next proposal of how to relieve the organization of its top prospects for 1 or 2 years of some "elite" player so we can return to 2003 or 2011

Sox don't need another top of the rotation starter, with still big holes to fill.

Edited November 22, 2014 by GreenSox

[caulfield12]

Chris is under contract for 1 less year than Quintana, but he's put up 5.1 and 5.3 fWAR the last 2 years. If you believe Sale will repeat his last year, then Quintana is more valuable than Sale, hands down, but the difference is that Sale missed 4 weeks last year.

 

If Sale was healthy all year last year with no difference in performance, he's a >7 fWAR pitcher, but we haven't seen that from him yet. It seems more likely with him than Quintana but that's where health comes in.

 

But really, a good rule of thumb is...if you say "God no" to any trade proposal involving sale, you should say the exact same thing about Quintana. Sale should outperform Jose but he seems a higher injury risk based on his record, so if you weigh them about the same for trade value, Sale's trade Value and Quintana's trade value should be close enough that they're exchangeable.

 

So, would you trade Sale as the key piece in a deal involving Jay Bruce? Literally there's no deal I can put together with the Reds roster that works, not with Cueto that close to FA. I wouldn't trade Sale as the key piece for Votto, so I wouldn't trade Quintana as the key piece for Votto. Their total value to the franchise is just about that close.

 

The only reason you'd trade either of them is to remove the injury risk, and from the perspective of this thread, if you're worried about injury risk, how confident are you about a guy who struggled with knee injuries last year? This is approaching silly. No one with a lick of sense would trade Sale for a deal with Bruce as the centerpiece, so it's equally silly to trade Quintana for a package around him, let alone Quintana+.

 

It's fine to take that kind of risk with a Thome or Dye because you're buying on a dip, especially with a FA coming off a down year or injury.

 

The problem is the Reds aren't going to sell low on any of those guys, so a trade becomes virtually impossible.

 

Of course, the risk is buying veterans like Keppinger, Duke and LaRoche at high points when the odds are good they won't be able to sustain that level of success. At least they're mitigating risk by not spreading it out over 4-5 seasons with these signings. There's that. They're not franchise-altering missteps like Dunn and Danks.

Edited November 22, 2014 by caulfield12

[GreenSox]

Of course, the risk is buying veterans like Keppinger, Duke and LaRoche at high points when the odds are good they won't be able to sustain that level of success. At least they're mitigating risk by not spreading it out over 4-5 seasons with these signings. There's that. They're not franchise-altering missteps like Dunn and Danks.

Duke and Laroche certainly could regress, but Keppinger is an anomaly, not the norm. He just didn't want to play.

[LDF]

Duke and Laroche certainly could regress, but Keppinger is an anomaly, not the norm. He just didn't want to play.

 

interesting, I never thought of it that way.

 

[LDF]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

 

excellent post and I am with you on this. that is why I been confuse with the all Q trade

talk.

 

thanks

[LDF]

Except pitchers have a much higher likelihood of career-threatening injuries than position players.

 

Sure you can come back eventually from TJ...and Stanton almost had his career ended...but shoulder/labrum injuries are killers

 

It's the age old argument about a pitcher with 32 starts vs. 150+ games from an everyday player...especially at SS or CF.

 

however there is always that one that can not recover and keeps reinjuring themselves.

I know it is rare, but it does happen.

 

the is the wildcard of this kind of injury

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

 

Interesting exercise, except even though Quintana is about the same surplus value montetarily, you also have to factor in that if Trout and Quintana both continue to have similar 2014 campaigns until 2020, Trout has just amassed 51 WAR, while Quintana has accrued about 32 WAR. So, yes, Q and Trout may give you similar bang for your buck, but you'd still be better off with him on your team than Quintana. Not assuming you don't understand that, but I just want to make sure other posters don't get confused thinking that Q and Trout have the same value.

[Lemon_44]

So this is sort of crazy.

 

Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million.

 

Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million.

 

Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout.

 

This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020.

 

So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract.

This just proves to me why I'm not a sabermetric guy and hate how they are used to justify players values because Trout is a much better baseball player than Quintana regardless of what those "metrics" say. Personally, I'd trade Quintana for Bruce tomorrow. I'd probably trade him for Mike Trout too

Edited November 22, 2014 by Lemon_44

[LDF]

 

now this discussion is going back to the old days of baseball. take away the

advance stat and think of it this way.

 

2 great players a pitcher the other is a hitter.

 

who will get your ball club the most wins???

the hitter or the pitcher.

 

now all things being equal, come playoff time who will help your team

win that elusive World Series Ring?

the hitter or the pitcher.

 

i know its the old story of the chicken or the egg, but how to pick the

better player for your team.

[LDF]

This just proves to me why I'm not a sabermetric guy and hate how they are used to justify players values because Trout is a much better baseball player than Quintana regardless of what those "metrics" say. Personally, I'd trade Quintana for Bruce tomorrow. I'd probably trade him for Mike Trout too

 

2 totally different values, 1 I would say no, the other yes.

Edited November 22, 2014 by LDF

[Dam8610]

Interesting exercise, except even though Quintana is about the same surplus value montetarily, you also have to factor in that if Trout and Quintana both continue to have similar 2014 campaigns until 2020, Trout has just amassed 51 WAR, while Quintana has accrued about 32 WAR. So, yes, Q and Trout may give you similar bang for your buck, but you'd still be better off with him on your team than Quintana. Not assuming you don't understand that, but I just want to make sure other posters don't get confused thinking that Q and Trout have the same value.

 

I would think the use of the phrase "surplus value" would cover that, but that said, just because Quintana would "only" put up 32 WAR over 6 seasons doesn't mean he should just be traded away. If Trout is 51 WAR over the same 6 years, that still kind of illustrates that Quintana is likely one of the most valuable players in the league for that time span regardless of contract, and shouldn't just be offered up as trade bait unless you're getting several quality major league contributors or one or two extremely high caliber major league contributors in return. When you factor contract in, it becomes nigh impossible to get value out of Quintana in a trade.