Hader trade ideas

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Yanksgoyard suggests Hader to the NYY for Frazier, D. Garcia, and Gil. Bringing in Frazier could move Yelich to first base. It would be a lot for the Yankees to give up, but could be appealing to the Brewers.

 

If I'm Stearns I'm checking out Miguel Andujar in the DWL. If he's healthy, he'd have to be included in any deal with Yankees for Hader.

 

This is my point: if the Yankees were going to trade Deivi Garcia for Josh Hader, they're not going to throw in a bunch of other players. They'd be trading a 21 year old, major league ready, left handed starter with at least 5 years of team control. Since Hader is the better player right now, the Yankees could include some low level minor leaguers in the deal, but not their blue chip players near the major leagues.

 

With Brett Gardner coming out of contract, Frazier projects to be a starting corner outfielder for the Yankees. They'd be trading an everyday player with four years of control, I'm not sure how much more can reasonably be expected in a trade for a pitcher who may throw 75 innings a year, no matter how good those 75 innings are.

 

As for Andujar, I'm sure the Yankees would include him as a throw in. He's injured a lot, an impatient hitter and doesn't play defense. The real question here is why would the Brewers want him?

 

Garcia is a righty, and a very small, slight one at that. There is nothing to indicate that he will be any better than Freddy Peralta. The fact that he is considered the #1 prospect in what is a very weak system should have absolutely no bearing.

[brewmann04]

Stearns will need to solve certain open spots on this team #3rd C SP

[Soupbone]

I just don’t think Hader gets traded. Bullpens are the key to most teams and especially the Brewers. Maybe at the trade deadline if they are out of it because they have no offense.

[Madhawk23]

I just don’t think Hader gets traded. Bullpens are the key to most teams and especially the Brewers. Maybe at the trade deadline if they are out of it because they have no offense.

 

This is kind of where I'm at now as well. It just seems like most of the big trades for closers have been made at the July deadline, so I'm guessing we probably don't get the offer we're looking for this winter and hold onto Hader - at least for the 1st half of next season. If we're out of it by July, then you hope that he's having another strong season and you deal him then to a team that is desperate for a closer at the deadline.

 

I have a feeling that DS is going to have to fill the offensive issues again this winter with 1-year deals. The good news there is: there should be a ton of guys available considering the fact that it seems like most teams aren't going to be picking up team options on guys this winter, and there should be a bunch of guys that are non-tendered that make there way to the F/A market.

[wildcat2237]

The offseason has just started and teams are out to shed payroll.

 

I am very scared the Brewers might be out to trade Hader to shed his $4 million plus salary (likely well over $4 million after arbitration.)

 

Williams is your closer, Hader brings back a couple young players.

 

Not saying I want this to happen, just concerned that is where things are headed in 2021.

[Soupbone]

San Diego has been mentioned as a likely trade candidate for Hader. They have a real need in the bullpen and plan on contending. The prospect I am wondering about is CJ Abrams. SD has Tatis and Cronenworth at SS and 2B and Grisham (grrrrrr) in CF. Abrams has no place to play and is projected to arrive in the majors in 2022. We could trade/non tender Arcia. Let Urias play the entire season to get him experience at SS. In 2022 we will have the DH for Hiura to slot into. Abrams and Urias can be your middle infield . Thoughts?

[MrTPlush]

He may be blocked, but that doesn't mean they would make such a foolish trade. Abrams seems like too elite of a prospect to be giving up for Hader. He is already arguably a Top 20 prospects and could easily become the best or Top 5 in baseball in a year or two. He still has so much upward trajectory as a prospect left.

 

I think the Padres have a ton of prospect ammo without even giving up one of their Top 3 guys.

 

The trade simulator site must have updated values because Hader now only sits at $15.5mil. Unfortunately we don't have a guy like Trent Grisham ($45mil value) to help sweeten the pot.

 

Disclaimer: Yes, I think the surplus value on Hader is low (Suter is valued higher), but it is still a far cry from the value Abrams holds ($60mil or so).

[adambr2]

The $15.5M estimate for Hader isn't surprising to me. The cold reality is that Josh Hader probably just doesn't have the trade value that we think he should or want him to. If he did, I think he probably would be gone by now.

 

It's not that his 2020 was bad, but it's another year gone with less control, and the remaining years of control continue to get more expensive. He's probably looking at 7M this year which will only get progressively more expensive in arbitration. The Indians preferring to lose Brad Hand for nothing rather than pay him 9M kind of tells us exactly where teams are at on paying for even the best relievers.

 

Looking at comparable trades from recent years is pointless because that's just not the reality we live in anymore. Our options are likely to either hang onto him and either utilize him or hope that the baseball business world and the reliever markets specifically look much brighter in a year or so, or trade him now for what I expect would be a convincingly underwhelming return in the eyes of most fans.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

[adambr2]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

 

The changing of the grades was explained in detail on this very forum and had zero to do with saving face or making the trade look better or anything like that. You literally said "rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact." Um, isn't changing them an admission that they did in fact have them wrong? If they knew they were wrong, why on earth would they stubbornly keep the same valuation? It's not like the player valuations just ended after the trade. They didn't value them "retroactively." Their trade value estimate changed based on the market.

 

If Kelley Blue Book says your car is worth $15K and one thousand cars of your type sell for $13K, the valuation will change because that is the price they are going for. It makes perfect sense that player values would be adjusted because of what the real trade market says they are worth and it doesn't have anything to do trying to make themselves look better.

 

The trade value site is a nice tool for those who take it for what it is, a best guess current estimate based on the knowledge they have, and don't expect it to be valuation gospel. I'd trust/respect them less if they didn't change their estimate based on some macho need to avoid "taking the L."

[sveumrules]

Say Hader's Arby's numbers are 6, 9 & 12 million the next three years. That comes out to 27 million.

 

Even if Hader puts up 2 WAR per season (no easy feat for a reliever), that would be 6 WAR. At say, 8 million per WAR that's about 48 million in value, or 21 million in surplus value.

 

Now adjusting any of the Arby figures, Hader's projection or the dollar per WAR changes the math around somewhat, so I don't think 15.5 is too far off.

 

Recent history has shown that teams are more likely to "overpay" for relievers at the deadline than in the offseason & that, combined with the paucity of data (especially as it relates to prospects) from the pandemic altered season, is why my gut tells me no Hader deal comes together this winter.

[PeaveyFury]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

 

I agree completely. They lost any credibility they had (which to be fair, as a fan-run trade estimator site, probably wasn't much to begin with) by doing that, and their explanations were flimsy at best. In the end, it's a fun tool to play with and come up with ideas. But anything beyond that is inherently flawed.

[adambr2]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

 

I agree completely. They lost any credibility they had (which to be fair, as a fan-run trade estimator site, probably wasn't much to begin with) by doing that, and their explanations were flimsy at best. In the end, it's a fun tool to play with and come up with ideas. But anything beyond that is inherently flawed.

 

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

I agree it's just a fun tool and no one should expect it to be perfect estimates.

[PeaveyFury]

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

Sorry, I just strongly disagree. They whiffed on the valuations, then had to adjust after the fact to 'save face'. But, just IMO, of course.

[brewerfan82]

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

Sorry, I just strongly disagree. They whiffed on the valuations, then had to adjust after the fact to 'save face'. But, just IMO, of course.

What are they supposed to do when they're wrong if they don't update their valuations? Just put an asterisk next the player noting that the value is wrong?

[adambr2]

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

Sorry, I just strongly disagree. They whiffed on the valuations, then had to adjust after the fact to 'save face'. But, just IMO, of course.

What are they supposed to do when they're wrong if they don't update their valuations? Just put an asterisk next the player noting that the value is wrong?

 

This is exactly it. Changing the rankings IS admitting you're wrong. It's not an ego thing. It's a fluid and constant estimate based on the information you have. The information they got is that the estimate they put on those players didn't quite match the actual trade market, so the estimates were adjusted accordingly.

 

I feel like if we were Padre fans rather than Brewer fans we would be way less miffed by their explanation.

[PeaveyFury]

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

Sorry, I just strongly disagree. They whiffed on the valuations, then had to adjust after the fact to 'save face'. But, just IMO, of course.

What are they supposed to do when they're wrong if they don't update their valuations? Just put an asterisk next the player noting that the value is wrong?

 

Valuation adjustments can work both ways, right? Why is Urias’s value adjusted down vs. adjusting Davies or Grisham’s valuation up? Arbitrary.

 

Also, sometimes a GM is going to make a bad deal. I don’t think it’s fair to automatically assume you had a guy like Urias overvalued when a quality GM like Stearns pulls off a trade. Just because one guy is willing to overpay and pay $18k for your car when everyone else agrees that the car is actually worth $12k doesn’t mean that the new valuation is $18k. It just means you found a sucker. THAT was the rations that the guy from the site fumbled with.

[adambr2]

And that's why the valuation got closer, it didn't go all the way to even. The site still valued Urias/Leuer considerably more than Grisham/Davies after the trade. They didn't know if they were wrong, nor did they know if DS just found a sucker. The grades evolving reflected both of those possibilities.

 

And yes of course it's arbitrary. It all is when it comes to that kind of thing. But all four players were adjusted because they were all involved in the deal and thus all had to be reevaluated in light of the deal.

[PeaveyFury]

And that's why the valuation got closer, it didn't go all the way to even. The site still valued Urias/Leuer considerably more than Grisham/Davies after the trade. They didn't know if they were wrong, nor did they know if DS just found a sucker. The grades evolving reflected both of those possibilities.

 

And yes of course it's arbitrary. It all is when it comes to that kind of thing. But all four players were adjusted because they were all involved in the deal and thus all had to be reevaluated in light of the deal.

 

Sorry, again I think your logic, especially the second paragraph, is inherently flawed. No adjustment was required. It was just done to save face. Again, IMO.

[adambr2]

And that's why the valuation got closer, it didn't go all the way to even. The site still valued Urias/Leuer considerably more than Grisham/Davies after the trade. They didn't know if they were wrong, nor did they know if DS just found a sucker. The grades evolving reflected both of those possibilities.

 

And yes of course it's arbitrary. It all is when it comes to that kind of thing. But all four players were adjusted because they were all involved in the deal and thus all had to be reevaluated in light of the deal.

 

Sorry, again I think your logic, especially the second paragraph, is inherently flawed. No adjustment was required. It was just done to save face. Again, IMO.

 

And you're entitled to that opinion, of course. I'm just a little surprised because I see you as a poster that is almost always rational and bases opinions on logic, not emotion. Wouldn't you admit that you'd likely feel differently about it if a Padres fan?

It just feels like a little like some Brewer fans are sore about the adjusted valuation because they don't like the perception that the site is admitting based on the results of the actual trade that perhaps their grades were in fact flawed.

 

Your premise that it was done to "save face" doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like people don't know that it was adjusted. There's no saving face. Everyone knows what the pre-trade rankings were. It's not like it makes them look better after the fact. It's not even like they did it quietly and tried to hide it. They were completely transparent about it. The administrator of their site literally even came to this very site to discuss openly why it was changed.

[brewerfan82]

The point of the "trade value" website is to estimate how much value general managers will place on their players as trade assets. If two general managers make a real life trade and the previous values assigned to those players don't add up, they would be foolish not to re-assess those players' trade values as seen by general managers in the league.

 

In the end, we're arguing about a toy. I understand the frustration if people were accepting the values on the site as gospel, but I don't think anyone is. As armchair GM's, it's a fun starting point to discuss potential trades that potentially involve 1000's of players that none of us have the time to research individually. It's fair to argue that you think player A or player B is valued too high or too low on the site, but it's silly to constantly bash the site as a whole based on how they handled re-evaluating a few guys after a single trade (a trade btw, in which the first year certainly didn't feel completely lopsided in favor of the home team).

[PeaveyFury]

And that's why the valuation got closer, it didn't go all the way to even. The site still valued Urias/Leuer considerably more than Grisham/Davies after the trade. They didn't know if they were wrong, nor did they know if DS just found a sucker. The grades evolving reflected both of those possibilities.

 

And yes of course it's arbitrary. It all is when it comes to that kind of thing. But all four players were adjusted because they were all involved in the deal and thus all had to be reevaluated in light of the deal.

 

Sorry, again I think your logic, especially the second paragraph, is inherently flawed. No adjustment was required. It was just done to save face. Again, IMO.

 

And you're entitled to that opinion, of course. I'm just a little surprised because I see you as a poster that is almost always rational and bases opinions on logic, not emotion. Wouldn't you admit that you'd likely feel differently about it if a Padres fan?

It just feels like a little like some Brewer fans are sore about the adjusted valuation because they don't like the perception that the site is admitting based on the results of the actual trade that perhaps their grades were in fact flawed.

 

Your premise that it was done to "save face" doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like people don't know that it was adjusted. There's no saving face. Everyone knows what the pre-trade rankings were. It's not like it makes them look better after the fact. It's not even like they did it quietly and tried to hide it. They were completely transparent about it. The administrator of their site literally even came to this very site to discuss openly why it was changed.

 

I’m honestly surprised that there are people here defending the site and how they handled it, as the aftermath can only be indicative of two things: that 1) their valuations can be comically off, and/or 2) that they not only don’t stand by their valuations, that they don’t allow for the possibility that a trade can inherently be lopsided for whatever reason. Neither of those looks good. For them to come here to try and justify it was perhaps commendable, but that’s about all the credit I’ll give them on their handling of it.

 

I’ve already noted that it’s a fun what-if tool for us fans, by far too many people take that site as some kind of authority as trades are discussed.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

 

The changing of the grades was explained in detail on this very forum and had zero to do with saving face or making the trade look better or anything like that. You literally said "rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact." Um, isn't changing them an admission that they did in fact have them wrong? If they knew they were wrong, why on earth would they stubbornly keep the same valuation? It's not like the player valuations just ended after the trade. They didn't value them "retroactively." Their trade value estimate changed based on the market.

 

If Kelley Blue Book says your car is worth $15K and one thousand cars of your type sell for $13K, the valuation will change because that is the price they are going for. It makes perfect sense that player values would be adjusted because of what the real trade market says they are worth and it doesn't have anything to do trying to make themselves look better.

 

The trade value site is a nice tool for those who take it for what it is, a best guess current estimate based on the knowledge they have, and don't expect it to be valuation gospel. I'd trust/respect them less if they didn't change their estimate based on some macho need to avoid "taking the L."

 

So, by your logic, it appears you don't believe one team can come out way ahead of another team value-wise when making a deal? In my opinion, that's what the site should have done.

[HiAndTight]

I thought their explanation made plenty of sense and I still question why people don't understand the fact that the results of a real-life trade will result in some modifications of player estimated trade value based on the new knowledge.

 

Sorry, I just strongly disagree. They whiffed on the valuations, then had to adjust after the fact to 'save face'. But, just IMO, of course.

What are they supposed to do when they're wrong if they don't update their valuations? Just put an asterisk next the player noting that the value is wrong?

 

 

Kinda. Yeah. I'd respect that more than "well, now that they're traded we need to re-address their valuation."

[adambr2]

It is also quite obvious that the trade value site is terrible. When you go in retroactively and revalue players following a trade, as they did with last year's Urias/Lauer for Grisham/Davies swap, you lose all credibility, with me at least. Rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact, in order to make the trades look more even. That's a major no-no in my book, and it is hard to take anything they have seriously now.

 

The changing of the grades was explained in detail on this very forum and had zero to do with saving face or making the trade look better or anything like that. You literally said "rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact." Um, isn't changing them an admission that they did in fact have them wrong? If they knew they were wrong, why on earth would they stubbornly keep the same valuation? It's not like the player valuations just ended after the trade. They didn't value them "retroactively." Their trade value estimate changed based on the market.

 

If Kelley Blue Book says your car is worth $15K and one thousand cars of your type sell for $13K, the valuation will change because that is the price they are going for. It makes perfect sense that player values would be adjusted because of what the real trade market says they are worth and it doesn't have anything to do trying to make themselves look better.

 

The trade value site is a nice tool for those who take it for what it is, a best guess current estimate based on the knowledge they have, and don't expect it to be valuation gospel. I'd trust/respect them less if they didn't change their estimate based on some macho need to avoid "taking the L."

 

So, by your logic, it appears you don't believe one team can come out way ahead of another team value-wise when making a deal? In my opinion, that's what the site should have done.

 

That's not what I said. There were two possibilities -- that their grading had been off, or that the Brewers came out way ahead. The adjustment accounted for both of those possibilities, because even after the adjustment Urias and Leuer were still ranked SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of Grisham/Davies. And that's a point peiple keep disregarding. The site DID stick by its original assessment that Urias/Leuer were considerably more valuable. The adjustment accounted for the partial possibility that they were simply wrong, and as more time goes by, it does indeed look like they were wrong as were all experts who loved that trade for the Brewers.

 

I thought the main problem was that Grisham was criminally undervalued/underrated.

But not just by the site. By pundits, by fans, by prospect rankings when he was breaking out in AAA. He seems to be proving that to be true. And there's never going to be a perfect balance even in analytics, you're always going to have players who are overrated/underrated by a system or writer.