Giants Relievers...

[Roderick]

 

Cards boards calling for c- mart for Smith, So there’s gonna be more competition for Smith imo.

 

Houser & Stokes & Grisham > Smith or

Houser & Lutz > Smith

 

Soria was 34 at the time of trade, Smith 29 with better stuff.

 

It's a half year rental, so age is completely insignificant. And also just because a team's fanbase floats an idea, it doesn't mean that the idea makes any sense. Would the Giants want Carlos Martinez, who is making nearly $12 million this year, if they are in a rebuild?

 

There is no way the Brewers should even entertain trading a prospect the level of Lutz for a rental reliever. Nor do I think he'd cost close to that much to acquire. You are significantly overvaluing the rental market, or undervaluing our prospects.

 

I assume the tommy john wouldn't matter anymore, right? He has been about as consistently good as a reliever can be. And you can't say it is park effect, in 2018 Smith pitched better away from home. If the Giants put Smith on the market in June to gather potentially more teams to go after him, and get the premium for trading him early - there will be a pretty decent haul going back.

[JosephC]

I think some deeper systems might be able to swing a deal for Smith without including an organizational top 10 prospect, but I don't know if the Brewers quality is good enough outside of the top 10. One guy outside of the top 10 (maybe has moved into the top 10 now) that I think would be of interest to the Giants as one piece would be Stokes because he is MLB ready and could go into the Giant outfield immediately. Frankly, if I'm the Giants there just isn't much else that the Brewers have outside of the top 10 that interests me. Stokes, Supak, Carlos Rodriguez, Eduarqui Fernandez....those are players that would interest me. I'd have absolutely zero interest in players like Diplan and Gatewood, absolutely no interest whatsoever.

[wntrtxn21]

I think some deeper systems might be able to swing a deal for Smith without including an organizational top 10 prospect, but I don't know if the Brewers quality is good enough outside of the top 10. One guy outside of the top 10 (maybe has moved into the top 10 now) that I think would be of interest to the Giants as one piece would be Stokes because he is MLB ready and could go into the Giant outfield immediately. Frankly, if I'm the Giants there just isn't much else that the Brewers have outside of the top 10 that interests me. Stokes, Supak, Carlos Rodriguez, Eduarqui Fernandez....those are players that would interest me. I'd have absolutely zero interest in players like Diplan and Gatewood, absolutely no interest whatsoever.

 

Stokes is not MLB ready. He has just 44 ABs in AAA ball. As of now he is hitting .189 for San Antonio and striking out 1/3 of his ABs. Stokes could be part of the package, but he's not what the Giants would want for immediate help. I don't know if the Crew has what the Giants want for Smith. I don't know if Stearns would give up what the Giants want for a rental.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think some deeper systems might be able to swing a deal for Smith without including an organizational top 10 prospect, but I don't know if the Brewers quality is good enough outside of the top 10. One guy outside of the top 10 (maybe has moved into the top 10 now) that I think would be of interest to the Giants as one piece would be Stokes because he is MLB ready and could go into the Giant outfield immediately. Frankly, if I'm the Giants there just isn't much else that the Brewers have outside of the top 10 that interests me. Stokes, Supak, Carlos Rodriguez, Eduarqui Fernandez....those are players that would interest me. I'd have absolutely zero interest in players like Diplan and Gatewood, absolutely no interest whatsoever.

 

Stokes is not MLB ready. He has just 44 ABs in AAA ball. As of now he is hitting .189 for San Antonio and striking out 1/3 of his ABs. Stokes could be part of the package, but he's not what the Giants would want for immediate help. I don't know if the Crew has what the Giants want for Smith. I don't know if Stearns would give up what the Giants want for a rental.

 

I think this is the right answer. Even though I think some here might be assigning too much value to Smith, the teams still need to match up on the prospects to make the deal happen. It depends if the Giants are looking for guys they can plug onto the MLB roster immediately, or if they are looking for younger higher upside guys. The Brewers obviously have a decent sized pool of both types of players, but nobody really knows where they value them. So the only real right answer is "I don't know."

[LouisEly]

Giants may let Panik walk instead of offering arby, and they have no upper level MI prospects. Dubon is blocked by Arcia and Hiura... I'd float Dubon and a PTBNL (their choice of one of Stokes/Grisham/Gatewood) and see what they say.

 

It's early, so the Giants will ask a lot, but they are also in a pickle if they want/need to dump salary because nobody is going to touch Posey, Crawford, Longoria, Cueto, Samardzjia, or Melancon with a 100-foot pole.

[Roderick]

 

It's early, so the Giants will ask a lot, but they are also in a pickle if they want/need to dump salary because nobody is going to touch Posey, Crawford, Longoria, Cueto, Samardzjia, or Melancon with a 100-foot pole.

 

They may want to dump salary, but they won't need to. At first thought, I would think Dubon would be an overpay. But, if the FO doesn't think he beats out Arcia at some point, then his value is as the min. wage utility guy. Which is valuable, but not as much as Will Smith in the pen for the Brewers in 2019.

[Smichaelis9]

What are people thinking it would take for Moronta and Watson? I honestly have no clue. Moronta having so much control makes it tough.

[JosephC]

Kind of surprised this thread didn't get bumped back up after last night's game.

 

Will Smith made Yelich look foolish in the 9th inning, something not very many pitchers can do. Extremely impressive performance by him.

 

I was also very impressed with Dyson. Cain gets a cheap hit to start the inning thanks to some bad defense by Sandoval. Then Dyson is smart enough and trusts his stuff enough to pitch around Yelich, even though it puts him in a 2 on, nobody out situation. Then gets Braun on the double play ball and Grandal on a ground out. Very good ground ball rates throughout his career, he looks to be a solid fit a Miller Park and juiced ball environment.

 

Normally I'd like to wait at least a couple more weeks just to see if another need area pops up due to injury. But if I was in Stearn's chair, I'd be letting the Giants know today that I would have interest in Smith, Dyson and Tony Watson and checking on the prices.

[Brew crew 92]

Kind of surprised this thread didn't get bumped back up after last night's game.

 

Will Smith made Yelich look foolish in the 9th inning, something not very many pitchers can do. Extremely impressive performance by him.

 

I was also very impressed with Dyson. Cain gets a cheap hit to start the inning thanks to some bad defense by Sandoval. Then Dyson is smart enough and trusts his stuff enough to pitch around Yelich, even though it puts him in a 2 on, nobody out situation. Then gets Braun on the double play ball and Grandal on a ground out. Very good ground ball rates throughout his career, he looks to be a solid fit a Miller Park and juiced ball environment.

 

Normally I'd like to wait at least a couple more weeks just to see if another need area pops up due to injury. But if I was in Stearn's chair, I'd be letting the Giants know today that I would have interest in Smith, Dyson and Tony Watson and checking on the prices.

 

Will Smith is going to command a lot more than Stearns would ever part with imo. He will be the most sought after rental RP by far on the market, bidding war big time, no thanks. Watson > meh, Dyson > meh. Moronta > no.

[JosephC]

Looking at the caliber of prospects that have been traded in recent years for rental relievers, I think some of you are either way overvaluing the cost of someone like Smith, or are undervaluing our prospects. I could see Smith being dealt for perhaps a couple guys in the teens or 20s (think Webb, Stokes, Bello, Gatewood level) and a lottery ticket-type. I can't see Smith's value being leaps and bounds higher than Soria's was last year, and Soria brought back Medieros (#13 at the time of the deal) and a lottery ticket.

 

Considering the injury he had, working back from that injury, the fairest number would probably be to just take what Smith has done and pro-rate it over the remainder of the season. That's also the highest number one would come up with when looking at historical WAR values, so that should be pretty much the highest number used. bWAR and fWAR both 1.1, so if that continues over the rest of the season he'd be worth 1.4 WAR. That's 12.6 million in value minus 2.4 in remaining salary and he has 10.2 million in surplus value. I suppose it's possible some team overpays and gives up a back of the top 100 prospect, but IMO the numbers show a fair deal would be more along the lines of a solid top 10 organizational prospect or 2 role-player prospects. Market demands probably would also require another fringe prospect to be included.

 

When talking about the Brewers system, I think a couple players in the #8-#15 region works best, but it's the Giants pick of those two players. So no Webb and Stokes...more like Ashby and Feliciano.

 

I think pretty reasonable deals would be:

Will Smith for Tristen Lutz and Clayton Andrews

Will Smith for Aaron Ashby, Mario Feliciano and Korry Howell

 

If the demand goes over that level, then IMO it's super-easy to transition away from Will Smith and ask about Tony Watson instead.

[And That]

If Smith has $10.2MM excess value, Lutz by himself would be a pretty big overpay. Driveline values a 45 OFP prospect at $10.5MM and Lutz is an across the board 50-55 OFP. Even just at 50 OFP, Lutz' value is nearly $26MM.

 

Dubon for Smith or Feliciano plus a DSL flyer for Smith would seem to work value-wise. Maybe Supak and Francis.

[adambr2]

If Smith has $10.2MM excess value, Lutz by himself would be a pretty big overpay. Driveline values a 45 OFP prospect at $10.5MM and Lutz is an across the board 50-55 OFP. Even just at 50 OFP, Lutz' value is nearly $26MM.

 

Dubon for Smith or Feliciano plus a DSL flyer for Smith would seem to work value-wise. Maybe Supak and Francis.

 

Surplus value will fly right out the window if there's a bidding war. I don't think either of the proposed deals will work, I think it would take closer to Lutz.

 

Not saying I think we should do that, just that I expect that to be the market.

[wntrtxn21]

If Smith has $10.2MM excess value, Lutz by himself would be a pretty big overpay. Driveline values a 45 OFP prospect at $10.5MM and Lutz is an across the board 50-55 OFP. Even just at 50 OFP, Lutz' value is nearly $26MM.

 

Dubon for Smith or Feliciano plus a DSL flyer for Smith would seem to work value-wise. Maybe Supak and Francis.

 

The problem with the whole excess value thing is the minors are filled with 45 type guys. Nottingham is a 45 and the Giants would laugh themselves silly if you offered Smith straight up for him even though the "excess value" says they would be getting the better end of the deal. Smith's value will depend on how many teams are looking at him. Value is in the eye of the beholder and the number of teams in the bidding.

[JosephC]

On the board I used, modified from Point of Pittsburgh prospect surplus value estimates, I'd have a 26 million dollar hitting prospect at being equivalent to the #73 player on the top 100 list. Lutz is still at the tail end of Fangraphs top 100, but I don't get the idea that he is regarded nearly that high by most other "evaluators," and...right or wrong...from that I'll conclude that most MLB front offices don't view him that highly either. I have 10 million being roughly equivalent to the #240 hitter on the average top 300 list (if it existed). The 240 number comes from, in an average MLB system, I'd guess Lutz would rank about #8 on the average list.

 

I'd still rank Dubon as a top 300 player but would put him right near the end of that list. My best guess on his prospect surplus value would be 6.3 million.

[HiAndTight]

If Smith has $10.2MM excess value, Lutz by himself would be a pretty big overpay. Driveline values a 45 OFP prospect at $10.5MM and Lutz is an across the board 50-55 OFP. Even just at 50 OFP, Lutz' value is nearly $26MM.

 

Dubon for Smith or Feliciano plus a DSL flyer for Smith would seem to work value-wise. Maybe Supak and Francis.

 

Surplus value will fly right out the window if there's a bidding war. I don't think either of the proposed deals will work, I think it would take closer to Lutz.

 

Not saying I think we should do that, just that I expect that to be the market.

 

 

I highly question how much a GM will measure a trade using the surplus value in this way, to begin with. They have their own rankings, they obviously aren't looking at WAR literally, they're looking at how a player figures into a team. Example, if Kimbrel comes back and pitches well, he's going to save the Cubs a LOT more games than whatever his projected WAR is. I don't think they're assigning a dollar figure on OF'ers who have certain grades on them as we speculate on here nor do I believe they assign a fixed value for the #80th prospect in baseball. I think WAR is the pre-eminent stat for comparing a players value. It's imperfect but as good as you can get. I do not believe it's anywhere near a real translation or that you can really value it in actual dollars and cents at the trade deadline when talking about trading for rentals and prospects. I don't think a team's going to pass on Will Smith for example because even though they may agree on the prospects, when you break down projected production the other team comes out ahead with 3 million in excess value.

 

But I also don't believe there's going to be the bidding war that others do. I think this is going to be more of a buyers market. Obviously it's possible a team acts stupid and trades away two elite prospects they sell low on because they went on a 5 game winning streak vs one team before the All-Star break only to watch as one of those prospects hits ~.340 playing CF for one of the best teams in the AL all for a #3 pitcher who hadn't shown much more than that type of upside in a few years, but we could always get "Pirated" again.

 

If you break it down by team, teams who are more likely to be sellers than buyers right now, you have

AL East-2 Toronto and Baltimore. Boston would have to fall way back given the talent they have to sell.

AL Central-I think you could reasonably see 4 sellers there other than the Twins. And even if it's just 3, Cleveland almost certainly won't be buying and adding salary.

AL West-I think 4 is also very possible there. Say 3.5 as the A's tend to buy and sell in the same year while they're competitive.

 

NL East-3 sellers. Maybe that number is only 2 if the Nats go on a run like they're capable of doing, but as positioned now, they're in the sellers category. If they become a buyer, it'll be whatever BP piece you can find though as they've got a GREAT rotation, very good lineup(potentially great with a healthy Turner) and literally one of the worst BP's in the last 30-40 years.

NLC-2 Sellers, possibly 3 if St. Louis falls back at all. They're really counting on a bunch of guys in their 30's to start to produce.

NL West-I think there could be 4 here as well. The D-backs are in a rebuild...and while they're staying around .500, they know they're not going to do anything in the playoffs. Doubt they give up anything of substance via prospects or money just to MAYBE get into a one-game playoff. The Rockies actually look like they're in a pretty good situation, but they're not going to be willing to spend much money. So lets just say 3 and assume the Rockies are in it.

 

 

Now the buyers.

ALE-The Yankees might buy, but they don't really need much. Maybe the Yanks go out and get a starter for depth, but I don't think we'd be competing against them. The Red Sox would be a team we'd have to bid against as they have a need for BP help, but they have multiple needs.

The Rays are usually very conservative.

ALC-The Twins look like they may actually be buyers this year. And given the offensive explosion(which I expect will regress significantly) they seem like they could be one of the most aggressive teams.

ALW-Astros-That teams is so absurdly talented, I don't see much need to add there.

 

NLE-The Braves are cheap and already added Kuchel. I don't think they'll be real aggressive.

NLC-The Cubs made a big move to get Kimbrel. They have been worried about that Luxury tax. They could still big against us, but I don't think they can afford to be that aggressive, nor do I think they'll need to be.

NLW-The Dodgers are likely to want to add multiple relievers, but I think we stand a better chance of pulling off a deal with the Giants than the Dodgers. Even if the Dodgers make a slightly better offer.

 

 

I think in the past teams have been more aggressive in fighting just to get that final WC slot whereas the past few years I don't think GM's are willing to part with valuable pieces JUST to play one game and risk going home. That's why I think teams like the D-backs, Rockies, Indians won't be aggressive and the A's will likely go on their usual second-half run, but they'll still probably sell a piece or two.

 

I think you're talking about 7-9 teams who will be buyers, not all of them have the same needs we do, and 16-18 teams who will be sellers and then a couple of teams who may just play it out and maybe make some smaller trades.

 

I think this is sorta what played out last year when we were able to acquire Soria and have the Sox pay some of his salary despite the fact that he was performing extremely well as a closer.

 

 

But all this is what makes baseball fun. We'll have to see.

[And That]

I highly question how much a GM will measure a trade using the surplus value in this way, to begin with.

They would seem to, even if it's not the exact way we can use publically available data.

[And That]

Nottingham is a 45 and the Giants would laugh themselves silly if you offered Smith straight up for him even though the "excess value" says they would be getting the better end of the deal.

I'd argue that the surplus value is more of an argument for who the Brewers *shouldn't* trade than who they should trade. If the Brewers value Lutz at 50 or 55 OFP for calculating his value, they flat shouldn't trade him for Smith. It's a bad deal.

 

I need to update my OFP reports, but currently, I have 12 Brewers at a 45 OFP. And the Giants may value one or more of those players more highly than the Brewers do, and if a deal happens, that's probably where agreement is made. Player(s) the Brewers value under 50 OFP, but the Giants value more than the Brewers.

 

Pretty sure this is what happened with the Schoop deal. It seems the Brewers didn't actually internally value Luis Ortiz highly at all, or at least nearly as highly as the Orioles did.

[And That]

I'd have a 26 million dollar hitting prospect at being equivalent to the #73 player on the top 100 list.

I generally disagree with using rankings to try to suss out value. I'd guess beyond the top 20-40 players, there's pretty strong variance in player ranking. OFP/FV grades, on the other hand, are almost always pretty consistent across a half dozen or more evaluations.

[HiAndTight]

I highly question how much a GM will measure a trade using the surplus value in this way, to begin with.

They would seem to, even if it's not the exact way we can use publically available data.

 

 

I don't see how this supports that GM's are using surplus value in the ways that have been suggested in this thread to upgrade their teams in deadline deals at all.

 

 

Analytics are extremely important in baseball, but I don't think a GM is going to pass up trading a guy with a 45 grade for example for a pitcher he feels can fortify his BP because when you project what a player with a 45 grade averages out to vs a dominant reliever over half a season, you end up with negative surplus value. Theo certainly didn't do that when he traded for Chapman.

 

Also, there was too much for me to read through in there, but did they actually have quotes or comments from any GMs?

[And That]

I don't see how this supports that GM's are using surplus value in the ways that have been suggested in this thread

 

Also, there was too much for me to read through in there

Indeed.

 

I mean, the blog goes into detail as to how teams are putting together deals that make sense in the $/WAR framework, and this is just one article of many on the topic.

 

It’s research, it’s not been put out there to have quotes from GMs.

[JosephC]

I would be extremely surprised if there was just one MLB team that didn't do surplus value calculations, using their own set of metrics, as guidelines for all types of player transactions...starting with trades. If I was a GM and was considering an offer, the first thing I would do is put it through the analytics department and have them give me the mathematical evaluation on if the deal was fair. I'm not saying that I would make or break deals 100% of the time based on a number, but I sure would use it as a guideline to tell me if the deal had value or not. I'd go as far as saying that if there was a team out there that wasn't using their analytics department for this purpose, then I'd question the value that their analytics department had to their franchise. Trades can be a pretty big deal.

[Oxy]

I would be extremely surprised if there was just one MLB team that didn't do surplus value calculations, using their own set of metrics, as guidelines for all types of player transactions...starting with trades. If I was a GM and was considering an offer, the first thing I would do is put it through the analytics department and have them give me the mathematical evaluation on if the deal was fair. I'm not saying that I would make or break deals 100% of the time based on a number, but I sure would use it as a guideline to tell me if the deal had value or not. I'd go as far as saying that if there was a team out there that wasn't using their analytics department for this purpose, then I'd question the value that their analytics department had to their franchise. Trades can be a pretty big deal.

 

None of this is in dispute.

 

 

What IS in dispute is the value of a guy like Lewis Brinson. Prospect value CAN be kind of predictive in aggregate (the top 25 prospects every year will likely produce XXX amount of WAR in their careers....however, most of that value is coming from 5 guys or so, then the rest of it is coming from the next 5-8 guys or so and the other 50%+ of guys in that top 25 will literally produce 0 value to an MLB club.

 

(My numbers are approximate. I'd welcome correction from those in the know)

[HiAndTight]

I would be extremely surprised if there was just one MLB team that didn't do surplus value calculations, using their own set of metrics, as guidelines for all types of player transactions...starting with trades. If I was a GM and was considering an offer, the first thing I would do is put it through the analytics department and have them give me the mathematical evaluation on if the deal was fair. I'm not saying that I would make or break deals 100% of the time based on a number, but I sure would use it as a guideline to tell me if the deal had value or not. I'd go as far as saying that if there was a team out there that wasn't using their analytics department for this purpose, then I'd question the value that their analytics department had to their franchise. Trades can be a pretty big deal.

 

None of this is in dispute.

 

 

What IS in dispute is the value of a guy like Lewis Brinson. Prospect value CAN be kind of predictive in aggregate (the top 25 prospects every year will likely produce XXX amount of WAR in their careers....however, most of that value is coming from 5 guys or so, then the rest of it is coming from the next 5-8 guys or so and the other 50%+ of guys in that top 25 will literally produce 0 value to an MLB club.

 

(My numbers are approximate. I'd welcome correction from those in the know)

 

 

Right, I'm not disputing that they are using analytics to evaluate trades, I'm disputing that they're using them as stringently as they're being used on here, ie, a lower end top 100 prospect is worth Xfuture WAR, so he has this much value while Will Smith will only be on the team for half a year, so his value is 1.2 WAR, so we end out coming 20 million dollars behind in this trade, so I'm gonna pass.

 

That's what I''m questioning.

[JosephC]

If I'm in Stearns chair, this would be the first trade I'd officially try and make this season. I'd be giving the Giants a call today and starting with Will Smith...but my real target would be Sam Dyson. I'd put Dyson's trade value in the 4 million surplus value range, so it's not crazy to think the Brewers might be able to land him for a couple fringe prospects. He's not spectacular and could earn 7 million next year, which could easily motivate the Giants to dump him for the first offer they get. Thing that really sells me on Dyson is that he's been so solid for the last 4+ years outside of the terrible start to the 2017 season which resulted in the Rangers dumping him. Also love the ground ball rates he's posted throughout his career, I think there is a very good chance that his stuff plays up when pitching in Miller Park in a juiced ball year.

 

2016 = 2.43 ERA, 3.45 xFIP, 65.2% GB

2017 = 6.09 ERA, 4.96 xFIP, 63.0% GB

2018 = 2.69 ERA, 3.61 xFIP, 61.3% GB

2019 = 2.91 ERA, 3.20 xFIP, 58.6% GB

Note that even though the 58.6% GB rate seems like a "dropping" number when compared to the same number from earlier seasons, the 58.6% GB rate ranks 16th best out of 379 MLB pitchers that have thrown at least 20 innings this year, so he is still getting ground balls at a top rate.

 

And I wouldn't back off trying to get Smith or Watson in as part of this deal if the price was right. But Dyson would be target number one. Just like the combination of performance, fit and likely low price in terms of prospects that would need to be surrendered.

[pacopete4]

Brewers checked in on Will Smith. Might as well grab Sam Dyson too.