Omar Narvaez to Brewers for minor league right-hander Adam Hill and a Competitive Balance draft pick.

[Soupbone]

To 3and2Fastball I'm not disagreeing with maybe the Rangers made a poor pick. It seems it is hard to find major league talent that late in the draft. Are there guys every year that do make it? Sure but it is hard to consistently draft mlb players that late. We get a positions of need right now who is a major league player. And we get him for 3 years. I think that is a fair trade off.

[monty57]

I like the move, and that we didn't give up a lot. It will certainly help our offense.

 

I do worry about his defense, as it sounds like we're going to see a lot of passed balls/wild pitches. Hiura is horrible with the glove, it sounds like Urias is probably going to be below average at SS (above average 2B, but won't be starting there), and Braun isn't a good defender. Throw in what sounds like one of the worst fielding catchers in the league, and our pitching staff is going to have it's hands full getting more than 27 outs every day.

 

As to the cost, I want us to build the farm, but I'm less concerned when we get guys with multiple years of team control.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don't think this deal moves the needle much in either direction. Narvaez can hit but the defense is atrocious. I think we really have to be concerned about the up the middle defense besides the Gold Glover Cain in CF. Narvaez, Urias, and Hiura have to make this one of the worst teams defensively up the middle.

 

I honestly can't believe we have people clamoring for JD Davis for third base which would further weaken what looks like a terrible defensive club. With this average at best pitching staff we should't be looking to be below average or worse at catcher, shortstop, and second base.

 

Certainly Stearns has earned our trust but this defense is potentially going to be terrible especially if we acquire Davis or McNeil to play third and put Braun at first. I don't understand why we are willingly pretty much ignoring defense especially at key positions like catcher and shortstop.

 

Perhaps the Brewers have identified over-inflated defensive value as a market inefficiency? The moves so far do point in that direction. This is a team that is always going to be thinking outside the box, and these may very well be another way of doing that. I mean, we are talking about a team that has put two lumbering 3B at 2B two years in a row, and they were just fine.

[xisxisxis]

Then every single trade is even by definition.

Yes, by definition trades are even. The argument is how each side values what they traded and what they received (or what fan's in general perceive). While the "Trade Values" site is "nice" almost all of the data on value is subjective.

[reillymcshane]

New 3B for 2020.

 

[Lahoud]

Remember Grandal in the 2018 NLCS when he was a Dodger-that was a poor defensive receiver

[MadThinker88]

New 3B for 2020.

 

 

Best of luck with that...

 

Still has too much of that 'ola bulls**t' in the opinion of Lou Brown (may he RIP)

[SRB]

 

That Zillow analogy makes no sense. Then every single trade is even by definition.

Huh? It's not like one of the numbers has to be actually 100% correct and one of them has to be 100% wrong. The most likely scenario when there is a large discrepancy between those numbers is that BOTH are off by a bit. Still, Zillow is an ESTIMATE or PREDICTION...Same as the Trade value ESTIMATE or PREDICTION. The actual trade is the actual market value (or actual value agreed upon by the two parties in the transaction, anyway). It is a sound analogy.

 

So are you estimating projected value based on WAR and $/WAR, or are you estimating some nebulous concept of "market value" whatever that means by slapping a number on a player's actual transaction history.

 

Does Eric Hosmer have a higher "market value" than Yasmani Grandal based on their respective contracts, such that the White Sox would win a one-for-one trade?

 

Does anyone think that a 27-year-old catcher with Narvaez's track record would settle for a 3-year/$5 million contract if he was a free agent tomorrow?

 

The obvious answer to both is no, because the numbers they are using are ostensibly projected performance based on stats and (for prospects) scouting evaluations of talent. How should those change based on a trade? As I mentioned in the previous thread, the most you can infer is that one GM (if you want to treat him as a scout) thinks the players are closer in talent.

[MadThinker88]

If you sign a player who was offered the qualifying offer, you have to give up your third highest pick, right? Would that be the Comp B pick that we just traded away? If so, it seems like we got value for something we might have been planning on losing.

 

At one point the Comp picks had been exempted from that count/ calculation. Unsure if that has changed. Either way, if a signing happens now, Brewers lose their 3rd round pick (& the equivalent bonus pool money).

 

The Comp B has a rough value of $900k

The Comp A traded last year (#41) had a value of $1.6M. The Texas selection ended up signing with a bonus of $1.81M

[Oxy]

 

So are you estimating projected value based on WAR and $/WAR, or are you estimating some nebulous concept of "market value" whatever that means by slapping a number on a player's actual transaction history.

 

There is a lot that could be unpacked here. You do both. WAR is a counting stat dependent upon playing time and the situational context of how that players skills were used by a team's manager. If a different team thinks they can get more value from that players skills than how he was used previously, then they will value his $/WAR differently than "the market." If his original team has a cheaper up and coming player to replace the other players production, then that will decrease his value to the original team, making him more expendable. Basically "market value" is an average of how all team's would value the player, but obviously every team will place a different value upon the player, that's what makes trades possible and beneficial for both parties.

 

Does Eric Hosmer have a higher "market value" than Yasmani Grandal based on their respective contracts, such that the White Sox would win a one-for-one trade?

 

Does anyone think that a 27-year-old catcher with Narvaez's track record would settle for a 3-year/$5 million contract if he was a free agent tomorrow?

 

I'm not sure how either of those are relevant. Narvaez (and for that matter, Adam Hill and the comp pick) are not on the free market. Hosmer and Grandal signed 2 years apart so of course their values are going to be different now than when they signed.

 

 

The other aspect, and probably more important aspect, is that the estimated market value is always seen from the outside while trading partners see things from the inside. There might be reasons outside of WAR that Hosmer (or Urias or Narvaez or Adam Hill or whoever) is valued or devalued that only the owner of that player can know. Thus, after a transaction occurs that seems to belie the previously ascribed "market" value, it would be wise to adjust that market value accordingly (not COMPLETELY, but at least a little bit)

[RollieTime]

I don't think this deal moves the needle much in either direction. Narvaez can hit but the defense is atrocious. I think we really have to be concerned about the up the middle defense besides the Gold Glover Cain in CF. Narvaez, Urias, and Hiura have to make this one of the worst teams defensively up the middle.

 

I honestly can't believe we have people clamoring for JD Davis for third base which would further weaken what looks like a terrible defensive club. With this average at best pitching staff we should't be looking to be below average or worse at catcher, shortstop, and second base.

 

Certainly Stearns has earned our trust but this defense is potentially going to be terrible especially if we acquire Davis or McNeil to play third and put Braun at first. I don't understand why we are willingly pretty much ignoring defense especially at key positions like catcher and shortstop.

 

Perhaps the Brewers have identified over-inflated defensive value as a market inefficiency? The moves so far do point in that direction. This is a team that is always going to be thinking outside the box, and these may very well be another way of doing that. I mean, we are talking about a team that has put two lumbering 3B at 2B two years in a row, and they were just fine.

 

Plus, with the addition of Lauer (a higher strikeout guy than Davies) and Woodruff who strikes out a lot of guys, the amount of ground balls infielders see continues to decrease. Maybe we are targeting a big name pitcher that strikes out a lot of guys as well? Launch angle, more fly balls, more home runs, more strikeouts, defensive positioning all come together to point towards getting by easier with weaker infielder defenders. Turning double plays is becoming more uncommon because guys just don’t get on base. It’s home run or strikeout. Yes of course there are guys that walk a lot. That will probably be followed up by an additional walk, a strikeout, or home run though (numbers wise) with the infielders having no outcome on that play.

 

The opportunities of infielders needing to be athletic has been decreasing a ton the last few years. This could be the Brewers trying to find another unique way to win by having a below average defensive infield and an outfield of very good defenders that cover ground like Cain, Yelich, and maybe an additional of a guy like Avisail Garcia, all while getting Braun more time at first.

[A Swing and A Drive]

Stearns sometime this morning...

 

“Hey Jerry you like to trade right? Ok cool. Wanna trade? Great, just meet me over there, behind that woodshed.”

[PeaveyFury]

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

 

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

 

The Zillow analogy doesn't acknowledge the possiblility that the homeowner doesn't properly know the value of what they actually had relative to the market, and made a poor decision to sell the asset for less than it's actual worth as a result. That's what many people think the Padres did. Adjusting the value down and saying 'we had it wrong' doesn't keep your neighbor from selling his house for the $500,000 that it was actually worth...

[adambr2]

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

 

That Zillow analogy makes no sense. Then every single trade is even by definition.

 

Exactly! It's a cop out in my opinion.

 

I really believe you guys are misunderstanding the concept here.

 

Every single trade is not even by definition. In the Zillow example, Zillow doesn't just cut your estimate from 500K to 300K based on that single sale. It's one piece of evidence that is applied across the board to that and similar homes on the market. So there's a slight adjustment. Maybe the market for that home is really changing, or as Peavy pointed out maybe that particular owner made a bad sale. But it's still a change in the market that needs to be accounted for.

 

Likewise, the trade values from baseballtradevalues.com weren't adjusted to make things even on both sides. If you even look at it now, it still shows us getting about double the value that the Padres got even after the adjustment. But an adjustment was necessary because the market dictated an adjustment. It showed them that under their previous valuations, Grisham was likely undervalued and Urias was overvalued so they had to adjust to the market. If Urias turns into an All-Star and Grisham turns into a 4th outfielder, those valuations will once again be adjusted to reflect that new information.

 

Any market-based valuations operate under those same concepts. Look at Kelley Blue Book for another example. If they publish that a 2017 model of a certain car with 50,000 miles on it is worth $15,000, and then that next year ten thousand similar transactions take place with an average price of $12,000, are they going to stomp their foot and stand by their $15,000 valuation? No, they are going to adjust their valuation to account for what the market tells them they were worth.

[SRB]

 

So are you estimating projected value based on WAR and $/WAR, or are you estimating some nebulous concept of "market value" whatever that means by slapping a number on a player's actual transaction history.

 

There is a lot that could be unpacked here. You do both. WAR is a counting stat dependent upon playing time and the situational context of how that players skills were used by a team's manager. If a different team thinks they can get more value from that players skills than how he was used previously, then they will value his $/WAR differently than "the market." If his original team has a cheaper up and coming player to replace the other players production, then that will decrease his value to the original team, making him more expendable. Basically "market value" is an average of how all team's would value the player, but obviously every team will place a different value upon the player, that's what makes trades possible and beneficial for both parties.

 

Does Eric Hosmer have a higher "market value" than Yasmani Grandal based on their respective contracts, such that the White Sox would win a one-for-one trade?

 

Does anyone think that a 27-year-old catcher with Narvaez's track record would settle for a 3-year/$5 million contract if he was a free agent tomorrow?

 

I'm not sure how either of those are relevant. Narvaez (and for that matter, Adam Hill and the comp pick) are not on the free market. Hosmer and Grandal signed 2 years apart so of course their values are going to be different now than when they signed.

 

 

The other aspect, and probably more important aspect, is that the estimated market value is always seen from the outside while trading partners see things from the inside. There might be reasons outside of WAR that Hosmer (or Urias or Narvaez or Adam Hill or whoever) is valued or devalued that only the owner of that player can know. Thus, after a transaction occurs that seems to belie the previously ascribed "market" value, it would be wise to adjust that market value accordingly (not COMPLETELY, but at least a little bit)

 

Ok, I mean, if you want to declare that any time there's a trade you will adjust one side's value up some arbitrarily defined amount and the other side down by some arbitrarily defined amount, more power to you but I question why even attach a numerical value to what is entirely subjective.

 

You havent addressed the main issue, which is that projected WAR and "market value" (as distinct from $/WAR based on a going market rate) should not be conflated and that it is actually somewhat misleading to do so. From a sabermetric standpoint, Eric Hosmer did not become a better player when he got a huge contract, and Urias should not have become a worse player just because he was traded, at least if we assume scouting reports and projection systems have any real purpose.

[3and2Fastball]

Wonder if the Mariners can now be added to the Marlins as 2 teams that will never trade with the Brewers again. Probably not, as DiPoto is a trade addict. I’m pretty sure that the Marlins just hang up on Stearns every time he calls them...

[adambr2]

Well, they've got Hosmer pegged at a cool -$107M in surplus value at the moment, so I think they are in agreement with you that it was a terrible deal.

 

As far as Urias goes, it's not about Urias becoming a worse player when he was traded. It is about a player at his position, with his track record and control, and his career trajectory being worth a different value to MLB teams than what they previously thought at this point in time and having to adjust for that. And again if Urias breaks out and becomes a star his value will be adjusted to reflect that. As it will if he ends up being a bust, in the other direction.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

As far as Urias goes, it's not about Urias becoming a worse player when he was traded. It is about a player at his position, with his track record and control, and his career trajectory being worth a different value to MLB teams than what they previously thought at this point in time and having to adjust for that.

 

The problem I have with that statement is that it assumes that all MLB teams value particular players similarly, and that simply isn't true. I mean, isn't it just as likely that, for some reason, Preller and the Padres either value Urias much lower, or Grisham (or Davies I suppose) much higher than conventional wisdom dictates? Changing the numbers after the fact eliminates, or at least lessens, the idea that lopsided trades happen all the time in MLB. Why should Preller get a pass if conventional wisdom dictates that he got hoodwinked? In hindsight the deal may turn a few years down the road, but that wouldn't change the current valuations.

[bork]

Defensively, how much are we going to see Urias at 3B and Arcia at SS? Until/unless we get a 3B.

[liveforoctober]

Defensively, how much are we going to see Urias at 3B and Arcia at SS? Until/unless we get a 3B.

 

If our roster remains the same then I think Urias IS the 3rd baseman. However, I don't believe for one second that we will not add a true 3rd baseman or 2 or 3 at some point in the next few months and more than likely in the next few weeks and therefore I think the projected answer is we won't

[dacrew101]

Ugh not a fan of this one. We should’ve brought Grandal back

[patrickgpe]

Ugh not a fan of this one. We should’ve brought Grandal back

YES! and we should have given Moose 4 years and we should sign Cole, MadBum, and Wheeler to complete the rotation. that team would be awesome!

[tdcarney22]

Does anyone know the list of Top 30 prospects well enough to tell me who the new addition is to replace Adam Hill? I noticed he has already been taken down off the MLB list.

[patrickgpe]

Does anyone know the list of Top 30 prospects well enough to tell me who the new addition is to replace Adam Hill? I noticed he has already been taken down off the MLB list.

, well it would just be whoever is 30th on there.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Ugh not a fan of this one. We should’ve brought Grandal back