Revisiting the Santana Trade as a Commentary on the State of Baseball

by jscape2000 on Dec 24, 2009 11:00 AM EST in Analysis Comment 6 comments

It didn't really hit me until I started reading Tyler Kepner's article on the Vazquez trade.

Phil Hughes + Melky Cabrera + Jeff Marquez + Ian Kennedy = Johan Santana

Jeff Marquez + Wilson Betemit = Nick Swisher

Melky Cabrera + Arodys Vizcaino = Javier Vazquez

IPK + Phil Coke + Austin Jackson = Curtis Granderson

Phil Hughes = 5th starter/ bullpen ace

Throughout its history, baseball has undergone an evolution in how it evaluates player value.

In the '30s and '40s strikeouts were the worst thing a hitter could do. A high batting average made superstars, and walks were under-appreciated. The stolen base has gone in and out of style. Pitchers have been measured by wins, by IP, by K's, and by WHIP (baserunners per inning).

Obviously, everyone understands the value of an ace: Sabathia, Lee and Halladay were all traded for bundles of young talent. Santana will likely be remembered as the outlier because Bill Smith put a higher value on keeping Santana away from the Yanks and Red Sox and didn't get a marquee player from the Mets.

But might baseball undervalue durable starters who pitch many innings around league average?

These players are making their money via free agency (Marquis just signed a 2 year $15M deal with the Nationals). It could the reverse; the media frenzy around Doc Halladay started 2 years before he could have filed for free agency. Ditto for Cliff Lee.

The Yanks brought aboard V for a league average center fielder and a young top prospect. Jarrod Washburn went to Detroit for an MLB reliever and a high-A starter. Jason Marquis was only worth Luis Vizcaino. None of these guys would be a fan-base's first choice to top a rotation, but clearly a pitcher able to post quality starts is an asset. How are they so undervalued?

0 recs | Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great Article

Arodys Vizcaino* Johan* Haha otherwise though great job I like this kind of stuff it’s really intruiging

by Brandon C. on Dec 24, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions

I see it the other way.

I’ve been thinking about this subject since reading an analysis of top Yankee picks going back decades.

While these prospect brought in some players of value, few ever amounted to a bag of BP balls.

Still the teams in general prize prospects and draft picks. I think that the trades you cite show a great overvalue of prospects. This is especially true of ‘high ceiling’ players in the low minors. Most of these guys never get to the show at all.

The Yankee trade for Granderson is a great case. I think the proper value of a prospect is his ceiling times some kind of probability function. If they were valued this way how could you get the players you do for them?

A league average starter is indeed undervalued too, because so many starting prospects faulter and fall to the bull pen. But I don’t think these starters are undervalued as much as the prospects are overvalued.

One reason for the great value of the prospect is the years they can be made to play way below ‘market value’. I’m afraid it’s more about profit than it is about winning.

I wonder if it would be interesting to regress VOR (or under) against $ under league average to find out how these values relate, and if the exchange rate varies throughout the year or is changing year to year?

Are salaries in the process of adjusting down?

It is obvious this year, that even the Yanks are conscious of keeping some low salaries in order to save dough for the big names we all love. (because they win us WS’s.)

"You don't realize how easy this game is until you get up in that broadcasting booth." Mickey

by Cbeck3 on Dec 24, 2009 11:53 AM EST reply actions

I agree with you

Low minors prospects are almost always overvalued. Even late-stage prospects are close to a 50/50 gamble. In all the heat over Montero, I did a little research on previous top prospects from Baseball America. I didn’t publish it at the time—got swamped at work and then forgot. But BA’s top 25 prospects from 2005 makes an interesting study:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040228top1004.html

Obviously, there are some familiar names on the list: Mauer, King Felix, Kazmir, even Swisher. But half of the list has so far been below league average in MLB, or worse: Stewart, Guzman, Weeks, Marte, Milledge, McPherson, Miller, Hermida, Dopirak, Quentin, Francis, Capellan.

Which goes to show you that you really do need to do some probability adjusting when valuing a package of prospects.

I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Dec 24, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

Bartolo Colon

Indians to Expos

by wdogg72 on Dec 24, 2009 10:10 PM EST reply actions

And you adding him to the aces because he was having a Cy Young season that year, or arguing that he’s a guy who was just durable but brought back a boat load of talent?

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 24, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

mets

thank god we didnt sign santana hes going to be worse thing since schilling after the 2004 world series. i think his elbow is messed up and they didnt real check it out so i say his 2010 season hes going to be 8-15 4.50 era lol
and oh yea yankees repeat go yankees and **** the sox even if they signed horse face lackey another injury prone pitcher.

by BLACKMESSIAH978 on Dec 25, 2009 9:13 PM EST reply actions