Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

Trade possibles and their WAR and $$ implications


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Ivy Walls

Ivy Walls

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

Soriano's WAR was 1.1  (2012 WAR 3.6)  saved $1.8 M this year $5M next

Feldman WAR was 1.9   (2012 WAR 2.3) saved $3M this year

Garza WAR was 1.3       (2012 WAR 1.1) saved $2,3M this year

Hairston WAR (-0.8)      (2012 WAR 1.6)  saved $1.25M this year, $2.5M next

Marmol WAR (-0.8)        (2012 WAR 0.2) saved $4.5M  added $2.35M for Guerrier  (WAR 0.0)

Camp WAR (-0.8)           (2012 WAR 0.5) DFA picked up by AZ minor league save $50K

 

traded WAR 2.7 (5 players)  saved $10.5M this year 7.5M next

DFA -0.8

  • DeJesus (2014 option year $6.5M) 2013 owed $1.42M  WAR=1.2  (2012 WAR 1.3)
  • Schierholtz (2014 arb year) 2013 owed $750K  WAR=1.9  (2012 WAR 0.4)
  • Gregg (2014 FA) 2013 owed $167K  WAR=0.1 (2012 WAR -0.2)
  • Russell (2014-15 arb years) 2013 owed $358K WAR=0.7 (2012 WAR 0.8)
  • Ransom (2014 FA) 2013 owed $183K  WAR=1.3  (2012 WAR 1.1)
  • Valbuena (2014 arb year) 2013 owed $310K  WAR =1.8 (2012 WAR 1.4)
  • Barney (2014-2016 arb years) 2013 owed $187K WAR=0.7 (2012 WAR 2.3)
  • Villaneuva (2014 $5M) 2013 owed $1.66M WAR=0.6 (2012 WAR 0.6)
  • Navarro (2014 FA) 2013 owed $583K  WAR=0.8 (2012 WAR 0.3)

 

I think the landscape is obvious, Ransom, Navarro and Gregg is obvious and total WAR value here is 2.2 or mid level A or A+ prospects,  if teams want the other players they will have to overpay dearly...starting with

 

Schierholtz is close to a Top organizational 3, DeJesus Top 10 organizational, Valbuena Top 5, Barney Top 5, and Russell a top 3

 

Hard to see teams ponying up such prospects unless injury and despiration.

 


"What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs."~Harry Carey

#2 Nate

Nate

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

Posted 26 July 2013 - 08:01 PM

Yes, because WAR is the only stat looked at when a trade happens. 



#3 Cerambam

Cerambam

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Twitter:cerambam1736
  • Facebook:michael Anthony

Posted 27 July 2013 - 11:45 AM

Yes, because WAR is the only stat looked at when a trade happens.


Dude, it's obviously not the only stat, but this is still a nice look into the value of individual players and their potential returns. Try to add value with your comment next time, instead of just disregarding everything laid out above.

#4 Rizzo1684

Rizzo1684

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts
  • LocationTatooine

Posted 27 July 2013 - 12:53 PM

I like reading posts like this.  Just ignore Nate, I have no idea why ppl think its cool to put ppl down just to try and sound smart.



#5 Nate

Nate

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

Posted 27 July 2013 - 01:47 PM

Ok, this discussion of WAR is barely scratching the surface of the stat.  Of the players listed all rank between 13 and 18 (I didn't look at Russell) at their respective postion.  I won't get into money but there are plenty of players that have similiar contracts and a better WAR.  There is also, no look at the market.  If packaged together there could be some really good returns but at this point the cubs need to get as many good prospects as possibly.  I wouldn't want to just throw these guys away but some of them are really throw ins in a trade to up value.  Sheirholtz and reliever togethger could get a top 3 prosepct (posibly a top 100) but more likely a top 10 and maybe a 15 to 20 type guy or a ptbnl.

 

Russell could bring back a lot but he may be the only guy.  I just think this a way overestimate of trade value.  I hope I'm wrong but I don't see it



#6 #1lahairfan

#1lahairfan

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:29 PM

Makes perfect sense to me.

#7 Ivy Walls

Ivy Walls

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:25 AM

Thank you for the kind comments, Nate's original snipe exempted. WAR is but one analytic tool that does the most important relationship, it places a value on how the player effects the ultimate goal for placing a player on the field. It is not the only statistical valuation and other numbers like RC+ or wOBA or the Fld besides the promotional numbers like BA/RBI/HR or even OBP/OPS or even wOBA and BABIP or ERA and WHIP.

 

When I played at a collegiate competitive level golf, my college coach taught me that all the stats just tell the story of how you got where your final score for a round, tourney or year came from, but that didn't diminish my contribution to the team as in matches won/lost or metal scores that combined for team scores.

 

WINS are WINS

 

In golf my father first wanted to know where I placed and then my score that was the purpose in playing.

 

When I won it was because all my underlying statistics were pluses or in the green.

 

But WAR is the best quick look at how valuable a player is in accordance to their financial liability.


"What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs."~Harry Carey




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).