ImageImageImageImageImage

Prospects overvalued?

Moderator: JaysRule15

Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 69,979
And1: 33,840
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Prospects overvalued? 

Post#1 » by Fairview4Life » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:44 am

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/737 ... ect-bubble

Big write up on the Molina/Santos trade and the interesting statement that prospects are now overvalued.

To put this in terms that Billy Beane can understand: We've reached a point where trading away prospects is the new market inefficiency.


It's no coincidence that the Blue Jays, who possess a ton of minor league talent and realistic playoff hopes for next season, turned Nestor Molina into Sergio Santos. No GM in baseball has done a better job over the past 18 months than the Blue Jays' Alex Anthopoulos, and it appears he has once again read the market correctly. Prospects have never been trendier than they are right now. Which means that now is the perfect time to cash out.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
flatjacket1
Analyst
Posts: 3,237
And1: 66
Joined: Oct 27, 2009

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#2 » by flatjacket1 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:56 am

With the fail rates, especially with pitchers it makes sense to trade for proven MLB talent. You still have to consider that with vast amounts of pitching talent, a few pitchers will trickle through the the MLB and be extremely successful. Prospects tend to be overvalued but so are young pitchers in the MLB rotation.
Avp115 wrote:Bautista>>Mike Trout and Kendrick
Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 69,979
And1: 33,840
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#3 » by Fairview4Life » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:03 am

That's not really true though. The article recalls a time when prospects were undervalued and major league talent was drastically overvalued, and is now arguing that the tables have been turned. There is so much information out there on every minor league guy, and everything is updated in basically real time, that it has the whiff of truth to it.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
User avatar
Skin Blues
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 872
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#4 » by Skin Blues » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:13 am

We got Lawrie for Marcum 12 months ago. Look back at that in 15 years and it could be Bagwell for Doyle all over again. Same with White and Pomeranz for Ubaldo. This is simply a cherry-picked list. There's been no sea change, it's the same as it ever was. But status quo doesn't make for a good article.
Avenger
Banned User
Posts: 11,501
And1: 624
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
   

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#5 » by Avenger » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:06 am

Fairview4Life wrote:http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7370324/the-mlb-prospect-bubble

Big write up on the Molina/Santos trade and the interesting statement that prospects are now overvalued.

To put this in terms that Billy Beane can understand: We've reached a point where trading away prospects is the new market inefficiency.


It's no coincidence that the Blue Jays, who possess a ton of minor league talent and realistic playoff hopes for next season, turned Nestor Molina into Sergio Santos. No GM in baseball has done a better job over the past 18 months than the Blue Jays' Alex Anthopoulos, and it appears he has once again read the market correctly. Prospects have never been trendier than they are right now. Which means that now is the perfect time to cash out.

If you look last 3-4 years(basically since the Texiera trade) and examine prospects for star trades and prospects for solid MLB'er trades its hard to come to any other conclusion. Trading prospects for MLB players is the new "Moneyball"
WpgPage
Rookie
Posts: 1,145
And1: 1
Joined: Mar 16, 2010

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#6 » by WpgPage » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:43 am

Completely agree the way we are able to fallow prospects now can make fans totally over value them all fans need to remember that these guys are prospects and 70% of them will not have meaningful careers.
Randle McMurphy
RealGM
Posts: 38,277
And1: 21,242
Joined: Dec 07, 2009

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#7 » by Randle McMurphy » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:01 am

Great article, I've been saying prospects have become overrated for a few years now. AA should take more advantage of this trend through trades.
One flew east, one flew west, one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.
User avatar
darth_federer
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 29,060
And1: 922
Joined: Apr 12, 2009
Contact:

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#8 » by darth_federer » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:12 am

Randle McMurphy wrote:Great article, I've been saying prospects have become overrated for a few years now. AA should take more advantage of this trend through trades.


Exactly. Fans get way too attached to guys.
Image

Profanity wrote:This is why I question a Canadian team in our league. it's a govt conspiracy trina to sell all our milk to Russia. They let the raptors participate to not let canadians demand crossing taxes. it will backfire one day.
User avatar
g_greg
Sophomore
Posts: 194
And1: 28
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#9 » by g_greg » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:15 am

The article makes sense, but yeah it seems like the list has been handpicked to support his argument.
Stay thirsty, my friends
User avatar
Schad
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 58,454
And1: 17,975
Joined: Feb 08, 2006
Location: The Goat Rodeo
     

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#10 » by Schad » Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:20 am

Jazayerli is probably the preeminent voice on prospect valuation, but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with him here. Prospects certainly aren't undervalued the way they once were, but I'm not sure that they are terribly overvalued, either.

Really depends on the framework you're using...if it's pure player-for-player, quite possibly; if it's player + expense for player + expense, it's a different story given the cost controls on young players. No matter what one's budget might be, cheap production and long-term team control is a godsend; if you have 5-6 players in the everyday lineup and rotation making a total of $20m or less combined while putting up numbers befitting a payroll hit of several times that, you've got money that is freed up to spend elsewhere.

That's what led to the Santana deal, as an example: the Twins didn't trade him just because, but rather because they weren't willing to pay the salary he was about to command, and saw the prospects plus $20m a year in payroll savings as being of greater value than Santana. And y'know what? Poor though those prospects have been, they may still be winning that deal...with Santana looking less and less likely to produce value commensurate to his contract as injuries pile up, effectively getting nothing might end up being the better end of that trade.
Image
**** your asterisk.
User avatar
satyr9
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 563
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
     

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#11 » by satyr9 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:13 pm

They are definitely not universally overvalued yet, but they certainly can be.

I think you look at Santana and realize that too many players sign contracts that make them enormous negative assets (I don't see how Pujols, even if he's MVP quality for the next 5 years, ever becomes a positive trade asset, which is different than thinking there wouldn't be a GM willing to give good assets for him to be clear) so if someone gives you prospects for the right to sign that player, the prospects have to win, since they can't cost enough to be net negatives.

There haven't been that many trades where the prospects were wildly overvalued, that I can think of anyway. Halladay was never fair return, but in cases like that the team is forced to a decision and it's just the best you can get, not what he's actually worth. There are many cases like that, but the GM trading the vet in those situations never believes the prospects are worth the player, only that he can't get anymore because of contract situations and the player's publicly expressed desires.

Trades like Santos/Molina, or Beltran/Wheeler where it's single player for single prospect aren't that common either, but as those two show I don't think you can say prospects are universally overvalued by GMs, although they surely are by the knowledgeable fans. These kinds of deals are simply too dependent upon a single GMs evaluation of a player to read too much into prospect valuation as a whole. If Williams is confident Molina gives him a great chance of 6 years above average 200 IP, then of course he's worth any reliever, but AA sees a piece he has to get that's going to cost him 30-40 million on the open market and gives up a single AA prospect at a position he has at least 5 players with as much upside and keeps his cheques for somewhere else (hopefully :P). I think from AA's perspective Molina was overvalued, but Kenny can't win know so what are 70 IP worth at the end of games now? So much of trade value for players is situational for GMs and just because you take inferior prospects for MLB quality players doesn't necessarily mean they're overvalued. That does mean it's a fantastic way to add veteran pieces if you're looking to improve, you just have to find the places where the player isn't really worth anything to the other GM anymore and the rest of the league hasn't figured that out yet.

*Schad, if you still wanna re-roll skyrim, you should do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhBiNx74 ... _embedded#
User avatar
Skin Blues
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 872
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#12 » by Skin Blues » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:30 pm

The Halladay trade was a poor return? Really? We could have had one season of Halladay, but instead we have Gose/d'Arnaud/Drabek. That's a damn good return. We can safely assume that those three players, as it stands now, are worth much more than the $25M or so that Halladay was worth during that one season. And that's with the centerpiece of the trade being a bust so far. Look at what the Royals got for Greinke; a 25 year old center fielder that can't hit, a 25 year old SS that can't hit, a 24 year old relief pitcher that can't throw strikes, and Jake Odorizzi. For 2 years of Greinke, that's pretty pathetic. If those guys were actually prospects it might support the article, but Odorizzi is the only true prospect of the bunch. The rest are cheap roster filler, which as mentioned by Schad, has inherent value if only for the fact that they ensure you don't have to spend money on good players. Instead, they can sign, say, Yuni Betancourt to an MLB contract. That doesn't mean Odorizzi was over-valued... it means the Royals were cheap and don't care about winning. There are still plenty of trades where great prospects can be had for vets on expiring contracts.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,131
And1: 31,722
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#13 » by tsherkin » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:39 pm

That Viking video is beyond hysterical...
Tyrone Slothrop
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,540
And1: 2,203
Joined: Nov 18, 2010
         

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#14 » by Tyrone Slothrop » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:52 pm

Skin Blues wrote:The Halladay trade was a poor return? Really? We could have had one season of Halladay, but instead we have Gose/d'Arnaud/Drabek. That's a damn good return. We can safely assume that those three players, as it stands now, are worth much more than the $25M or so that Halladay was worth during that one season.


Can we safely assume that? What exactly have those three guys done for the Jays? By all accounts d'Arnaud seems to be as close to a sure thing as you can get, but Drabek and Gose both have major issues to work out if they're going to be any sort of contributor in the majors. I don't want to say the deal was necessarily a bad one, but talking about how great these 3 guys are when we have no idea how they'll do in the majors is ridiculous
tecumseh18
RealGM
Posts: 18,944
And1: 11,190
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Location: Big green house
 

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#15 » by tecumseh18 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:07 pm

satyr9 wrote:Trades like Santos/Molina, or Beltran/Wheeler where it's single player for single prospect aren't that common either, but as those two show I don't think you can say prospects are universally overvalued by GMs, although they surely are by the knowledgeable fans. These kinds of deals are simply too dependent upon a single GMs evaluation of a player to read too much into prospect valuation as a whole.


Or Lawrie/Marcum. I suppose we have to separate out the situations where the prospect is virtually major league ready, although even that's a GM subjective call. Was it a given at the time of the trade that 20-year-old (unbelievable!) Lawrie would be able to handle 3rd base, and hit major league pitching?

And separate out the forced trades - the Halladay situation. Taylor/Drabek/D'Arnaud wasn't much of a return, but not bad in the circumstances - and we were lucky that AA could convert Taylor to Gose.

Maybe more so under the old CBA, there was a financially quantifiable aspect to high-end prospects, or at least to the replacement of them. High schoolers might slip in the draft because of signability issues, but certain teams - including the Jays, finally - were willing to pay wildly overslot. Those teams could then ship out prospects for a MLB player, with the confidence that the prospects could be replaced in the next draft for x-million dollars. But that's no longer the situation. I think good prospects have been made less expendable by the new CBA.
User avatar
Skin Blues
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 872
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#16 » by Skin Blues » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:46 pm

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:The Halladay trade was a poor return? Really? We could have had one season of Halladay, but instead we have Gose/d'Arnaud/Drabek. That's a damn good return. We can safely assume that those three players, as it stands now, are worth much more than the $25M or so that Halladay was worth during that one season.


Can we safely assume that? What exactly have those three guys done for the Jays? By all accounts d'Arnaud seems to be as close to a sure thing as you can get, but Drabek and Gose both have major issues to work out if they're going to be any sort of contributor in the majors. I don't want to say the deal was necessarily a bad one, but talking about how great these 3 guys are when we have no idea how they'll do in the majors is ridiculous

Their value alone right now, being unproven, is definitely worth more than one season of Roy Halladay. And this is with the centerpiece of the deal falling apart. Don't forget it's not just the $25M of production we got with Halladay... we would have had to pay him $15M so there's only $10M of value. I think we can safely say Gose, d'Ardnaud, and Drabek will provide more than $10M of value over the next 6 years or so that they're under team control.

That's the problem... it's too easy to be profitable by having a crappy team. There are hugely diminishing returns. And as long as there are teams willing to pay the price for those diminishing returns, there will be opportunities for frugal owners to operate at a low budget and still make moeny with very little risk.
User avatar
baulderdash77
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,579
And1: 235
Joined: Jun 12, 2003
     

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#17 » by baulderdash77 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:54 pm

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:The Halladay trade was a poor return? Really? We could have had one season of Halladay, but instead we have Gose/d'Arnaud/Drabek. That's a damn good return. We can safely assume that those three players, as it stands now, are worth much more than the $25M or so that Halladay was worth during that one season.


Can we safely assume that? What exactly have those three guys done for the Jays? By all accounts d'Arnaud seems to be as close to a sure thing as you can get, but Drabek and Gose both have major issues to work out if they're going to be any sort of contributor in the majors. I don't want to say the deal was necessarily a bad one, but talking about how great these 3 guys are when we have no idea how they'll do in the majors is ridiculous


I agree, we can't assume that we won the Halladay trade. That last season of Halladay could have put us in playoff contention in 2010. Then who knows what happens. I would agree that the smart thing to do was trade him, but we could have a very different team if we didn't.

It's going on 3 years after the Halladay trade and we certainly haven't got equivalent value of his 1 season yet and I think it's 2013-2014 before we even might. That's 4-5 years. Time value of money degrades the trade as even salvageable at this point.

Drabek started off well but imploded so the centerpiece of that deal is dubious at this point (I still have some hope. Most people don't have him penciled into the starting 5 next season.

d'Arnaud has all kinds of potential and he put it together last year but he's a year away and he has JPA to contend with.

Gose has all the tools in the world but is a big work in progress.
Image
Michael Bradley
General Manager
Posts: 9,444
And1: 2,142
Joined: Feb 25, 2004

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#18 » by Michael Bradley » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:14 pm

Skin Blues wrote:The Halladay trade was a poor return? Really? We could have had one season of Halladay, but instead we have Gose/d'Arnaud/Drabek. That's a damn good return. We can safely assume that those three players, as it stands now, are worth much more than the $25M or so that Halladay was worth during that one season. And that's with the centerpiece of the trade being a bust so far.


Halladay for one year + getting two picks for him in 2011 would have been more worthwhile for the team in the long run, and that would have been the worst case scenario (best case the team performs well and convinces Roy to stay beyond 2010). Maybe it was not a poor return given the circumstances, but when the other option is getting two picks for him, you have to look at it from that perspective as well.

I don't think prospects are any more or less overvalued than they have always been. Most prospects fail to live up to expectations, so trading a prospect for an established player is a pretty safe bet in most cases, but for teams like the Jays who don't want to spend money it becomes a case of prospects being undervalued because there is more value in six years of control than there is in getting established performance for a shorter period of time with more dollars attached to it. There are not too many Sergio Santos contracts out there. Unless you're trading prospects for a difference maker, it won't really help the Jays all too much at this point.
User avatar
baulderdash77
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,579
And1: 235
Joined: Jun 12, 2003
     

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#19 » by baulderdash77 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:27 pm

Skin Blues wrote: I think we can safely say Gose, d'Ardnaud, and Drabek will provide more than $10M of value over the next 6 years or so that they're under team control.


In 2010 Roy had 7 WAR of value and Drabek had -0.4 WAR of value.

I don't know that we can safely assume that. It's year 3 now and so far we've gotten negative value from Drabek. Gose and d'Arnaud are at best September call ups and Drabek is not necessarily in the rotation next year.

So I don't know if you're going to get 7.5 WAR of value in 2014 & 2015 from these guys and I'm not sure if the time value of that WAR makes it worth it.

In fact its a pretty safe assumption that we didn't get value from Roy when you consider we would have gotten 2 picks at a minimum out of him and those guys could be producing in 2014 or 2015.
Image
User avatar
Skin Blues
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 872
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Re: Prospects overvalued? 

Post#20 » by Skin Blues » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:23 pm

We have those three guys for pretty much a decade if you include the minors and short call-ups. Why would you only look at 2010 WAR? Gose and d'Arnaud are our top 2 prospects according to BA. If we wanted to, we could cash them in for something of more value in 2012 than the $10M of value we missed out on from Halladay in 2010. We just traded our 18th rated prospect for a guy that will likely provide $15M of value over the next 3 seasons and has team-friendly options for another 3 years after that. The comp picks definitely need to be taken into consideration, but players already in the midst of their development, like the three we got, are way more of a sure thing than two unknowns. Have a look at our first round picks recently and then try to extrapolate/interpolate what kind of value they would have had.

We might get nothing out of all three of them. We might get 50 WAR over their controllable years. Could go either way. If prospects are so over-rated then it's curious how we got Lawrie for two seasons of Shaun Marcum. Or the Pomeranz/White haul that Colorado got. I'm just not seeing much of a change at all from how it was 2 or 5 or 10 years ago. There are so few of these trades involving top prospects that cherry picking from an already small sample size has very little merit.

Return to Toronto Blue Jays