Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

The Padres glorious off-season revisited


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, wopphil said:

Not to mention the guys they gave up aren’t going to spend 167 years in the big leagues. 

Teams don't think of control like that.

The value of control isn't really the actual years so much as the opportunity to see the value realized in any one of those given years, be it via actual production or trade.   A team like TB will retain that asset for four years, reap the benefits, then move it again for even more control. The fact that other teams have already begun to cash in on those years at a near 1:1 rate only adds to the disparity and sways it further in favor of those other teams.  San Diego will have lost more than 1/3 of their acquired controllable years already once this season ends.... It's less than ten for those other teams combined and might be as little as 5 years depending on the service time.   The final bit of the equation is that SD is also paying significantly more per WAR on their end than those other teams.

They went for it and I think everyone enjoyed/envied a team going at it so hard but as was the case with AP and our FA mistakes the downside to being that aggressive is rearing it's ugly head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Teams don't think of control like that.

The value of control isn't really the actual years so much as the opportunity to see the value realized in any one of those given years, be it via actual production or trade.   A team like TB will retain that asset for four years, reap the benefits, then move it again for even more control. The fact that other teams have already begun to cash in on those years at a near 1:1 rate only adds to the disparity and sways it further in favor of those other teams.  San Diego will have lost more than 1/3 of their acquired controllable years already once this season ends.... It's less than ten for those other teams combined and might be as little as 5 years depending on the service time.   The final bit of the equation is that SD is also paying significantly more per WAR on their end than those other teams.

They went for it and I think everyone enjoyed/envied a team going at it so hard but as was the case with AP and our FA mistakes the downside to being that aggressive is rearing it's ugly head.

But my point is that many of the guys the Padres traded will never sniff the big leagues, or will flame out early on. Consequently, the team control is to some degree merely theoretical. 

But the Padres got players whom they know, for certain (barring injury), will in fact play in the big leagues. So the team control is actual and less subject to risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wopphil said:

But my point is that many of the guys the Padres traded will never sniff the big leagues, or will flame out early on. Consequently, the team control is to some degree merely theoretical. 

But the Padres got players whom they know, for certain (barring injury), will in fact play in the big leagues. So the team control is actual and less subject to risk. 

Good response, I totally get the point you're making and I'm not at all attempting to disregard what you're trying to say.

Buuuuuut.... there is nothing theoretical about the actual control -- it exists on it's own merit.  What your'e arguing is that it's true value is entirely dependent on the players actually producing -- which is true so long as those players are never traded off and never contribute at the MLB level.   

Buuuuuut.... if that's how you want to value the importance of control (actual production). then it can be said the team trading for the established player is trading for the theoretical value of the performance they hope to obtain.  Snell and Darvish IMO can be said to have failed to deliver on that expected value -- and also a loss of control.  The table below is FG's attempt to categorize bWAR.  I'm pretty sure the Padres were looking to get more than "solid" performances when they traded four players including two top 100 players for Snell or 4 minor leaguers and a guy coming off a 1.4 bWAR season in 60 games for Darvish.  Both of those players have used a year of control, meanwhile all the of the players traded off who remain in the minors retain all of it, and in Patino's case he's not yet amassed enough service time to have lost any control.

Scrub 0-1 WAR
Role Player 1-2 WAR
Solid Starter 2-3 WAR
Good Player 3-4 WAR
All-Star 4-5 WAR
Superstar 5-6 WAR
MVP 6+ WAR

Like any trade, it's too early and really not worth arguing if anyone's won the trade.  I'm certain the Padres are happy to have Musgrove/Darvish/Clevenger/Snell in their rotation next year.   But as of 9/15/21, results show a nearly 1:1 bWAR in actual production/value for the players listed in that tweet compared to the players it took to acquire them -- that's a plus for the teams who gained the extra control.  In TB's case they should be throwing a party.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Blarg said:

By the way, the Angels traded for Dexter Fowler and included a PTBNL but I can't find any player that was the completion of the deal. Did that just get passed up because Fowler blew up three weeks into the season?

I believe it was worded “or a PTBN” and that usually means there will be no player, but they have to word it that way for some reason because you’re not supposed to just sell players for cash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 2:09 PM, jsnpritchett said:

Obviously they gave up a lot for guys that aren't necessarily producing what the Padres hoped for this year--but isn't the tweet a little misleading?  It almost seems to imply that they Padres only control those guys for this season and that 6.7 WAR is all they're ever going to get for them.  They control Musgrove through next season, Snell & Darvish through '23, Nola through '25, Adams through '24, Frazier through next season, Williams through '24, Clevinger through next season, Caratini through 2023, and potentially Marisnick through next season (mutual option).  That's not 167 years of control like they gave up--but you wouldn't expect the years of control to be equal when you're trading prospects for major leaguers.

Again, not saying these were all the right moves--but they're not quiet as bad as the tweet makes it seem.

I know, the Padres are pretty well set up for the future.  I was mad especially when they acquired clevenger.  But it’s not as easy as it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Maybe, but Tatis is growing into a Diva. (Maybe)

 

Yeah, when you take a 21/22 year old kid and put him in MLB the show commercials and constantly make him say in commercials "Yeah, i'm changing the game with my buckets of swag and we're bringing fun to baseball."

I mean...the result should have been pretty obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Yeah, when you take a 21/22 year old kid and put him in MLB the show commercials and constantly make him say in commercials "Yeah, i'm changing the game with my buckets of swag and we're bringing fun to baseball."

I mean...the result should have been pretty obvious.

That's why I say maybe. 

He interacts really well with fans, his passion for baseball seems genuine.  But there are times he seems to be trying to live up to the "excitement" everyone talks about...

Shit like that can suck the life out of a guy, make them miserable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Even if he was, he only made things worse overall.

If a supervisor starts flipping his shit at the potato cutter in the open to the point where you could hear it in the bathrooms, do you think to yourself. Hey, that supervisor was right.

No, but then again, I don’t make really bad comparisons, so if I did I might have a different answer.  Oh and by the way, if the “potato cutter” thought it was about him, he would be wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...