JotCast | Ben Clemens Trade Value Series Chat -7/26/24

Ben Clemens Trade Value Series Chat -7/26/24

powered by

Prev Page View Full Chat Next Page

Ben Clemens

11:15

like, I'm not gonna name any specific teams obviously, but teams behave certain ways, their feedback is similar to the way they behave

the more analytically inclined, smaller-market teams like the big contracts less, so on and so forth

everyone, on both sides, was like 'why are you low on Skenes?'

11:16

and that made me really sit up and take stock of what my process was missing that two people whose views I usually use to balance each other saw the same flaw

Okra

11:16

re TJS pitchers & Strider, how do you square the feedback of them being untradable vs the industry standard 2yr contract for TJS rehabbers? Clearly teams see value here. I understand the information asymmetry but you get to review medicals before completing a trade.

Ben Clemens

11:16

eh, show me a TJ trade and I'll maybe reconsider. But also, I myself don't have good information there, and I definitely don't get to see the medicals (why would I)

11:17

and it's a case where the medicals could be extremely scary or benign

Guest

11:17

Strasburg in 2010 was also the #3. interesting https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2010-trade-value-5-1/

Ben Clemens

11:17

Lot of Stras comps on Skenes, that's for sure

Cody

11:17

I’m really interested in how a player like Wilyer Abreu is valued. Good pop, good eye at the plate, good outfielder with a cannon arm, solid baserunner, can’t hit lefties and strikes out too much. Seems like a guy with a pretty high chance of giving you 10 WAR over the next five years, even only getting 450 plate appearances each year, but the platoon split seems pretty insurmountable. I guess this is a long-winded way to ask if 1) being an all-around contributor can mitigate the value hit that big platoon splits will give, and 2) if big platoon splits are less of an issue for lefties, since they can still be extremely productive while getting the lion’s share of playing time at a position

Ben Clemens

11:18

I've moved players in this general mold down in recent years

Honestly that's been one thing I've demonstrably gotten better at as I've repeated the exercise

all-around contributors without high ceilings just don't have the value that a naive model would expect

11:19

good teams, the kind who are in playoff chases and thus looking to make trades to concentrate value in the present, are good at getting higher-than-replacement value out of their roster spots

so being a 2 WAR part-time corner guy, eh, teams are betting that they can make a 1.5 WAR part-time corner guy out of spare parts

Kiermaier's Piercing Green Eyes

11:19

How closely does the return for Randy match your evaluation (HM, luxury semi-rental) of him this year?

Ben Clemens

11:20

Honestly I haven't dug into these prospects that much

I was absolutely exhausted yday after finishing the writing for this

The writing is sneaky hard, I think it was like 18000 words or so in a week

Trey

11:21

I just cannot imagine a scenario where A Riley, L Webb, M Harris, C Carroll, and R Greene have a higher trade value than M Betts. If you are aiming to win a title in 5 years… sure. But for 2025, Id trade 2 of any of any of those guys for Betts yesterday. Is the philosophy here to place heavy emphasis on a down-the-road dynasty approach?

Ben Clemens

11:21

Yeah balancing the now and the future is obviously not easy

and I'm not sure I did a good job of it at all

11:22

but one thing that makes me think I did is that peopel are very convinced that Judge should either a)not be on the list or b)be higher

if everyone was one way, I'd feel worse

I think you're underrating Logan Webb, I definitely was

I remember I ran the raw numbers and he came out as the top pitcher by a mile

and I was like huh, f4, there must be some cell that is sticking and not calculating right

f2*

but no, he's just actually raelly great?

11:23

and yeah, 'if you are aiming to win a title in 5 years' seems to be the way front offices are operating, which feels smart to me

that's what I'd be trying to maximize, five-year winning percentage or whatever

5-year expected playoff spots weighted by byes

11:24

I think there's evidence to say that teams behave that way, and it's also what I'd do, so that's the way I lean in the rankings

Guest

11:24

I’m gonna take a crack at two guys I think could sneak on next year : Wells & Langeliers

Ben Clemens

11:24

Yeah, certainly in range

11:25

the truth is, player skill varies a ton, it's hard to predict, there are definitely tons of reasonable answers her

Okra

11:25

Any changes you would make to the list now after hearing all the reader feedback?

Ben Clemens

11:25

Oh good question. Mmmmm, maybe I'd swap in one Red Sox guy, either Duran or Houck, to the top 50 somewhere for optics' sake

11:26

Like, I certainly don't think I'm wrong in treating them in that mass of players who could easily be on or off the list

but I could do better in calibrating who, in that group of people I'm picking between, I pick as a tiebreaker

Connecting…

Register

Message History

On Off

On Off

On Off

Your current subscriptions

None

Register now to continue managing your subscriptions

E-mail Address	Chat Owner	Status	Remove

Enter your email address to be notified when Ben Clemens hosts a chat