Outfield Options

[BTS]

Has there actually been a study to show the average value of a comp pick to be $10MM? That seems like a very aggressive evaluation. I can understand using the extra slot money to sign players in later rounds thus giving you a better chance at signing your top picks, not sure if you can put a value on that though.

 

Also, does the 2017 draft have the comp picks still sandwiched between 1st & 2nd or do the rules from the new CBA kick in which would seemingly make them them worth much less?

 

There has been a lot written about this. There's a reason why analysts across different publications are comfortable with the $10M back of napkin evaluation. And just intuitively, how much have we heard from teams saying they don't want to surrender comp picks? How much have we heard from players saying the compensation is hurting their market significantly? Why did the MLBPA make a point of changing the rules in in the CBA? None of the above comes up as frequently as it has if the analysts are wrong and the comp picks don't actually carry many millions of dollars of value to MLB teams.

 

And yes, 2017 is the last year with the current compensation rules.

[BTS]

When did I say they have no value? I said you have no idea what the Blue Jays value the draft pick at, which is quite true. I saw some evidence NJH posted a couple weeks ago, it was a shred of evidence from what I remember. Taking that as given and then applying it to one specific team is a pointless exercise.

 

You don't make any sense. Why is Toronto's evaluation important here? You laughed at me for suggesting that Valbuena + 9M + pick is more valuable than Bautista at 18M. The only reason you would do that is if you believe the draft pick has no value (or almost no value). You're placing a value on the draft pick in saying that you'd prefer Bautista to Valbuena. The value you're choosing to place on it just happens to be much, much lower than the estimated market value. I don't know why you're using a random value in your evaluation. I suspect it's the result of wanting to be an internet contrarian.

[L54]

Coming to a theatre near you: RJF starring in Never Back Down 4.

[Governator]

There has been a lot written about this. There's a reason why analysts across different publications are comfortable with the $10M back of napkin evaluation. And just intuitively, how much have we heard from teams saying they don't want to surrender comp picks? How much have we heard from players saying the compensation is hurting their market significantly? Why did the MLBPA make a point of changing the rules in in the CBA? None of the above comes up as frequently as it has if the analysts are wrong and the comp picks don't actually carry many millions of dollars of value to MLB teams.

 

And yes, 2017 is the last year with the current compensation rules.

 

 

Yea I mean that all seems quite logical in my books. There is obviously a very high value on them based on the market alone for free agents with comp picks attached. If teams felt they were worth $500K no one would give a s***.

[reedjohnsonfan]

You don't make any sense. Why is Toronto's evaluation important here? You laughed at me for suggesting that Valbuena + 9M + pick is more valuable than Bautista at 18M. The only reason you would do that is if you believe the draft pick has no value (or almost no value). You're placing a value on the draft pick in saying that you'd prefer Bautista to Valbuena. The value you're choosing to place on it just happens to be much, much lower than the estimated market value. I don't know why you're using a random value in your evaluation. I suspect it's the result of wanting to be an internet contrarian.

 

Why wouldn't it be? You're saying they should sign Valbuena over Bautista, so their value (not the aggregated value for all teams) of the draft pick is an important determinant over deciding which is a better option. I'm not sure how this isn't getting through...

[crmr]

You don't make any sense. Why is Toronto's evaluation important here? You laughed at me for suggesting that Valbuena + 9M + pick is more valuable than Bautista at 18M. The only reason you would do that is if you believe the draft pick has no value (or almost no value). You're placing a value on the draft pick in saying that you'd prefer Bautista to Valbuena. The value you're choosing to place on it just happens to be much, much lower than the estimated market value. I don't know why you're using a random value in your evaluation. I suspect it's the result of wanting to be an internet contrarian.

 

You have taken perhaps the most basic criteria of valuation and accepted it as gospel.

 

A fringe playoffs team should value, even regarding some abstract monetary value, a player who would get them to the playoffs more than a last place team. So, your valuation of the deal is crap.

 

Here's a basic idea equation for you, which should be simple enough for you to understand:

 

Jays_Excess_Value(Bautista over Valbuena) = Value of Bautista in Terms of War (Not real Value) - Value of Valbuena In Terms of War (Not Real Value) - Value of Prospect + Pr(Baustista WAR - Valbuena WAR > WAR needed to make playoffs)*[Cash Coming in From Playoffs] + [monetary value of fan perception of team affecting tickets/merc/in stadium sales]

 

Notice the first two items in the RHS don't really belong, they aren't 'real' things. Also notice the valuation drastically changes based on the lhs team name, since many of the components there change. To argue that teams value things (or even should) the same way is absolutely stupid and is obviously not how they operate. $/war is not gospel to anybody but you, how you dont understand that is amazing. Go run another regression...

[BTS]

You have taken perhaps the most basic criteria of valuation and accepted it as gospel.

 

A fringe playoffs team should value, even regarding some abstract monetary value, a player who would get them to the playoffs more than a last place team. So, your valuation of the deal is crap.

 

Here's a basic idea equation for you, which should be simple enough for you to understand:

 

Jays_Excess_Value(Bautista over Valbuena) = Value of Bautista in Terms of War (Not real Value) - Value of Valbuena In Terms of War (Not Real Value) - Value of Prospect + Pr(Baustista WAR - Valbuena WAR > WAR needed to make playoffs)*[Cash Coming in From Playoffs] + [monetary value of fan perception of team affecting tickets/merc/in stadium sales]

 

Notice the first two items in the RHS don't really belong, they aren't 'real' things. Also notice the valuation drastically changes based on the lhs team name, since many of the components there change. To argue that teams value things (or even should) the same way is absolutely stupid and is obviously not how they operate. $/war is not gospel to anybody but you, how you dont understand that is amazing. Go run another regression...

 

It's cute that you're coming to your buddy's defense, but I don't feel like you (or him for that matter) have read anything I've written with the intent to actually have a productive conversation.

 

This conversation started with me saying that I, personally, would value Valbuena + 9M in payroll space, + the comp pick more than Bautista at 18M, based on what I know. I then supported that by saying that the league values the comp picks at around 10M. I opted not to make guesses at how Toronto is altering their value of the pick based on their spot on the win curve. I did that for two reasons: 1) that's irrelevant to my post about what I personally would do given the information I have, and 2) it's a complete guessing game. Had RJF said simply that he thinks Bautista is the better option given their spot on the win curve, without acting like my personal preference was asinine, that would have been valid. He didn't do that, and opted instead to act like an idiot.

 

You're significantly more intelligent than him, so I don't expect that you'll have much of an issue with this.

[Maahfaace]

I think there is a real chance bats doesn't get a contact before June. This same valuation on draft picks will be considered with any team potentially signing a soon to be 37 yr old OF. That has to be considered in any equation, and given the odds are probably not in favor of Bats getting a contract from other teams before June, would directly and substantially affect the value of said pick to the jays.

[Abomination]

I think there is a real chance bats doesn't get a contact before June. This same valuation on draft picks will be considered with any team potentially signing a soon to be 37 yr old OF. That has to be considered in any equation, and given the odds are probably not in favor of Bats getting a contract from other teams before June, would directly and substantially affect the value of said pick to the jays.

 

I'm not sure about that. He's seen what's happened to other players when they've done that.

[Governator]

I think there is a real chance bats doesn't get a contact before June. This same valuation on draft picks will be considered with any team potentially signing a soon to be 37 yr old OF. That has to be considered in any equation, and given the odds are probably not in favor of Bats getting a contract from other teams before June, would directly and substantially affect the value of said pick to the jays.

 

 

I don't think he'd give up half a year of salary when he only has like 3 or 4 years left in his career. That seems like a significant loss of $ for a player of his age where he might not be able to make it up. If he settles and signs a 1 year $17MM deal, he'd have no draft pick attached next off season and would probably ink a similar deal that he's looking for now without losing +/- $8MM signing mid season.

[burlingtonbandit]

I think there is a real chance bats doesn't get a contact before June. This same valuation on draft picks will be considered with any team potentially signing a soon to be 37 yr old OF. That has to be considered in any equation, and given the odds are probably not in favor of Bats getting a contract from other teams before June, would directly and substantially affect the value of said pick to the jays.

 

I think people are overreacting. Some team is going to realize Jose friggen Bautista is available, sign him and great great value. Sure he had a bad year, but how times have we seen elite players bounce back after bad years. Nelson Cruz, Robinson Cano, Adrian Beltre, even people thought Ortiz was done after 09.

[crmr]

It's cute that you're coming to your buddy's defense, but I don't feel like you (or him for that matter) have read anything I've written with the intent to actually have a productive conversation.

 

This conversation started with me saying that I, personally, would value Valbuena + 9M in payroll space, + the comp pick more than Bautista at 18M, based on what I know. I then supported that by saying that the league values the comp picks at around 10M. I opted not to make guesses at how Toronto is altering their value of the pick based on their spot on the win curve. I did that for two reasons: 1) that's irrelevant to my post about what I personally would do given the information I have, and 2) it's a complete guessing game. Had RJF said simply that he thinks Bautista is the better option given their spot on the win curve, without acting like my personal preference was asinine, that would have been valid. He didn't do that, and opted instead to act like an idiot.

 

You're significantly more intelligent than him, so I don't expect that you'll have much of an issue with this.

 

My main point is that in assessing Valbuena vs Bautista, where they are on the win curve is the most important thing. The effect of that is more so I think you watered down what could be an interesting conversation if we consider everything. Don't you agree? Maybe I'm not cutting you enough slack. The real thing to think about with those two are the extra things, not just these simplistic valuation considerations which I think this board goes to too often. Sure, we don't have an idea about how they value those things, but the Jays are at a point where the marginal value of war (wins, actually) is quite high, so they probably should be paying a premium for them.

 

Rather than coming to his defense, I just think, personally, the discussion here is often status quo (i.e. reference $/war or some basic valuation) and accepting it as gospel, which limits what kind of discussion can be had (and hence makes the forum less interesting for me!)

[BTS]

My main point is that in assessing Valbuena vs Bautista, where they are on the win curve is the most important thing. The effect of that is more so I think you watered down what could be an interesting conversation if we consider everything. Don't you agree? Maybe I'm not cutting you enough slack. The real thing to think about with those two are the extra things, not just these simplistic valuation considerations which I think this board goes to too often. Sure, we don't have an idea about how they value those things, but the Jays are at a point where the marginal value of war (wins, actually) is quite high, so they probably should be paying a premium for them.

 

Rather than coming to his defense, I just think, personally, the discussion here is often status quo (i.e. reference $/war or some basic valuation) and accepting it as gospel, which limits what kind of discussion can be had (and hence makes the forum less interesting for me!)

 

We never had a chance at an interesting discussion based on the way he decided to respond to my first post in this thread. That's on him, not me.

 

I have no disagreements with anything baseball-related that you've said. I disagree with the conclusion that Bautista is clearly the better option, but it's not a $/WAR thing: I simply think that Valbuena (~2 wins) + the 9M (maybe Ziegler/Logan + Iannetta filling in spots that would otherwise be replacement-level under the current budget?) gets you most or all of the way to the wins that I expect Bautista to provide (2.5-3). And then you still have the comp pick. You can squabble all you want about it's value, but it does have real value, and based on everything that Shapiro and Atkins have said, I don't think they're prepared to toss it away to maybe make the team a few runs better in 2017.

[crmr]

We never had a chance at an interesting discussion based on the way he decided to respond to my first post in this thread. That's on him, not me.

 

I have no disagreements with anything baseball-related that you've said. I disagree with the conclusion that Bautista is clearly the better option, but it's not a $/WAR thing: I simply think that Valbuena (~2 wins) + the 9M (maybe Ziegler/Logan + Iannetta filling in spots that would otherwise be replacement-level under the current budget?) gets you most or all of the way to the wins that I expect Bautista to provide (2.5-3). And then you still have the comp pick. You can squabble all you want about it's value, but it does have real value, and based on everything that Shapiro and Atkins have said, I don't think they're prepared to toss it away to maybe make the team a few runs better in 2017.

 

I honestly did not read any post in this thread except the one I replied to so I don't really know what happened. It is a general theme, so I just inferred based on other threads.

 

You're right, there is a value to that comp pick and Valbuena isn't the worst option. But, as I've been harping on a bit, I think they should either be agressive or jump ship, but they seem to be acting like a small market front office. While you're right about those WARs as expectations, Bautista definitely has a higher upside than that and Valbuena probably doesn't so that's a factor too (i.e. if Bautista has the opportunity to provide much more than 2.5 war, even if you age him from his 2015 season). Really depends how you see 2016 (was it the new norm or just a guy dealing with an injury riddled year).

 

I just think, if they're legitimately making an effort to contend this year, they should gamble, which is what all the big market teams do. I think the front office is smart, but I think they're acting like the Cleveland Indians (or Tampa Bay Rays), and should be operating in that manner with more fringe players (like Steve Pearce), but not be scared to gamble, especially for a player who seems like he coudl be coming at a discount anyway in Bautista

 

 

I

[Maahfaace]

I don't think he'd give up half a year of salary when he only has like 3 or 4 years left in his career. That seems like a significant loss of $ for a player of his age where he might not be able to make it up. If he settles and signs a 1 year $17MM deal, he'd have no draft pick attached next off season and would probably ink a similar deal that he's looking for now without losing +/- $8MM signing mid season.

 

If the current valuation is 10m for the pick as BTS suggested, would that not make it close to a 1 yr 27m deal? I think a lot of teams wouldn't give up a pick for 1 yr of Bats.

 

He might come close in terms of monetary value on a one year deal signing in June with the added benefit of being able to sign with a contender.

[BTS]

I honestly did not read any post in this thread except the one I replied to so I don't really know what happened. It is a general theme, so I just inferred based on other threads.

 

You're right, there is a value to that comp pick and Valbuena isn't the worst option. But, as I've been harping on a bit, I think they should either be agressive or jump ship, but they seem to be acting like a small market front office. While you're right about those WARs as expectations, Bautista definitely has a higher upside than that and Valbuena probably doesn't so that's a factor too (i.e. if Bautista has the opportunity to provide much more than 2.5 war, even if you age him from his 2015 season). Really depends how you see 2016 (was it the new norm or just a guy dealing with an injury riddled year).

 

I just think, if they're legitimately making an effort to contend this year, they should gamble, which is what all the big market teams do. I think the front office is smart, but I think they're acting like the Cleveland Indians (or Tampa Bay Rays), and should be operating in that manner with more fringe players (like Steve Pearce), but not be scared to gamble, especially for a player who seems like he coudl be coming at a discount anyway in Bautista

 

 

I

 

Yeah, Bautista will likely have the bigger variance on his projection in 2017 than Valbuena + whatever the hypothetical 9M is spent on. That variance is more attractive to Toronto right now than the safer projection. If it's just the money we're talking about, I'd spend it on Bautista. The comp pick changes that for me. But we just have different ideas about the types of moves that we want to see made right now. You're interested in seeing the team do everything they can to win while Donaldson is here and the old guys are productive. I'm interested in seeing them take the foot off the gas a little bit to set up a sustainable winner.

[Governator]

If the current valuation is 10m for the pick as BTS suggested, would that not make it close to a 1 yr 27m deal? I think a lot of teams wouldn't give up a pick for 1 yr of Bats.

 

He might come close in terms of monetary value on a one year deal signing in June with the added benefit of being able to sign with a contender.

 

 

I think a team giving up their #1 unprotected pick to sign Bautista is worth significantly more to them. The Blue Jays gaining a 33rd/34th pick in the draft (or losing a 2nd round pick if you look at it that way) just isn't the same as the Astros giving up their highest overall 16th pick.

[Maahfaace]

I think a team giving up their #1 unprotected pick to sign Bautista is worth significantly more to them. The Blue Jays gaining a 33rd/34th pick in the draft (or losing a 2nd round pick if you look at it that way) just isn't the same as the Astros giving up their highest overall 16th pick.

 

I agree, which is why I think Bats will not get a 1 yr offer from any team other than the jays for the monetary compensation he is seeking, it just doesn't make any sense financially. The only scenario I see bats getting a 1 yr offer would be in the super low ball range of something like 8 to 10m, which he definitely will not sign. However, I could see a team in need offering in the range of a 1 yr 16m pro rated deal in june, with no pick attached, which wouldn't be much of a pay cut.

[G-Snarls]

I think people are overreacting. Some team is going to realize Jose friggen Bautista is available, sign him and great great value. Sure he had a bad year, but how times have we seen elite players bounce back after bad years. Nelson Cruz, Robinson Cano, Adrian Beltre, even people thought Ortiz was done after 09.

 

Interestingly all Dominican players

[burlingtonbandit]

I'll bet $20 that Bautista signs before April 1.

[Brownie19]

I think people are overreacting. Some team is going to realize Jose friggen Bautista is available, sign him and great great value. Sure he had a bad year, but how times have we seen elite players bounce back after bad years. Nelson Cruz, Robinson Cano, Adrian Beltre, even people thought Ortiz was done after 09.

 

how many times have we seen once elite, but now 37 year old players coming off a poor year simply continue to decline before retiring?

[P2F]

how many times have we seen once elite, but now 37 year old players coming off a poor year simply continue to decline before retiring?

 

Virtually every time, with very few exceptions.

[G-Snarls]

Virtually every time, with very few exceptions.

 

Exactly

 

Ortiz is a very rare exception

 

Usually they decline (Ichiro, Pujols, A-Rod, etc)

[burlingtonbandit]

Exactly

 

Ortiz is a very rare exception

 

Usually they decline (Ichiro, Pujols, A-Rod, etc)

 

A Rod had a wRC+ of 130 in 2015 after everyone thought he was finished.

 

People act like Jose was dogshit last year but he had a wRC+ of 122 which was tied for 44th best in MLB. Steamer has him projected to be the 15th best hitter in baseball next year.

 

His swing and contact rates are exactly the same as prior years unlike Encarnacion who's seen a big decline. I'd bet on him having a productive year next year as a LF/DH/1B

[Abomination]

Exactly

 

Ortiz is a very rare exception

 

Usually they decline (Ichiro, Pujols, A-Rod, etc)

 

Man did the Cards ever bail on Pujols at the right time (although people have said for years he may be older than his stated age). He's still a dangerous hitter, just not bank breaking godly.

[P2F]

A Rod had a wRC+ of 130 in 2015 after everyone thought he was finished.

 

People act like Jose was dogshit last year but he had a wRC+ of 122 which was tied for 44th best in MLB. Steamer has him projected to be the 15th best hitter in baseball next year.

 

His swing and contact rates are exactly the same as prior years unlike Encarnacion who's seen a big decline. I'd bet on him having a productive year next year as a LF/DH/1B

 

For every Ortiz or A-Rod, there's 30 players that decline, relative to their age, as predictably expected. Players like Ortiz are the rare exception, far from the rule or likely outcome. To boot, Bautista is coming off a significant injury that, when coupled with his age, more than likely kick-starts his decline immediately. The odds are absolutely stacked against him.

 

He could still be productive for another season or two, but probably not at the levels we've seen in the past. Taking the comp pick and signing a replacement like Valbuena makes so much more sense.

[Brownie19]

Virtually every time, with very few exceptions.

 

Excellent job slamming home my impeccable setup...

[P2F]

Excellent job slamming home my impeccable setup...

 

Lol thanks for the alley-oop.

[crmr]

Virtually every time, with very few exceptions.

 

There are also plenty of 37 year old bargains in history...

[crmr]

For every Ortiz or A-Rod, there's 30 players that decline, relative to their age, as predictably expected. Players like Ortiz are the rare exception, far from the rule or likely outcome. To boot, Bautista is coming off a significant injury that, when coupled with his age, more than likely kick-starts his decline immediately. The odds are absolutely stacked against him.

 

He could still be productive for another season or two, but probably not at the levels we've seen in the past. Taking the comp pick and signing a replacement like Valbuena makes so much more sense.

 

I agree completely, if we go into an immediate rebuild.