THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Roster space could be a possible reason. You only get 40 spots, 25 active spots, and 15-16 full time contributors.

I think there is some absurd offer that makes everybody “touchable.” Whenever someone says so-and-so is untouchable I always counter with “The Yankees just offered you their entire starting lineup, and they’re paying the salary on those guys.” Clearly, nobody is turning that down, right? Of course, that’s also something that will never happen.

Perhaps “untouchable” means “No realistic offer.” And that can, at times, make sense if you’re going to really hurt the fan base with the move. Is there a realistic offer the Cardinals could’ve made for Pujols 3 years ago (when he still had 3 years of control, wasn’t as likely to go elsewhere, etc.) that would’ve been good for them? Maybe in terms of WAR, but how badly would it have damaged attendance, for how long, and would it have been worth it? What about the message to other free agents that they’re not ready to win (sure, most money usually wins out, but the A’s are proof that’s not always the case)?

There are non-baseball reasons to say a guy is untouchable, though I can’t possibly quantify them.

I don’t really see a team gaining anything by telling teams player X is tradeable.  Now if you want to move a player or need to do that then obviously it is a good idea to shop that player around or make it known that you wish to trade.  But if you are perfectly happy with player X and don’t see any realistic trades possible then I can certainly understand saying that player X isn’t going anywhere.  That way if some team does want that player you are already starting from a strong position.  That team knows they have to make a wow offer to even get the door open on the possibility of a trade. 

It is just like all the old tips about buying a car.  You don’t tell the salesman your budget.

I also remember an old business practice I used to hear about.  Company X would fly into town to do some negotiations and company Y would stall not agree to anything until the last day when the people from company X were flying out.  Company Y knew when the deadline was so they knew that the people from company X would be much more desperate for the deal to be done on that day.  Afterall they didn’t want to return back to their company with nothing accomplished.

He’s selling next year’s season tickets.  What’s he supposed to say, “we’re going to trade Joey Votto for some AA guys who will be good in three years”?

Some of them might be saying it to keep the player happy, or the fans happy. 

Or it might be that some players are so good or popular that you can’t trade them, even for something supposedly better: maybe there’s loss aversion and endowment bias.  If you trade a player with 5 WAR for a player with 5.1 WAR, you win more games, but you miss the first guy too much to make it worthwhile.

To any of you married people reading this: is your spouse permanently “untouchable”?  I mean, of course, in your own mind, not publicly.

And not in the sense of, “I’d trade her for Angelina Jolie and a supermodel to be named later.” I mean, how do you consider the chances that someday you might meet someone you like better, enough to make a switch?

I can see at least five possible answers:

1.  My wife [husband] is absolutely untouchable, forever.

2.  If you forced me to think about it in a detached, rational way, you could probably convince me that my wife must be touchable, because other people who are as much in love as I am sometimes see their feelings change.  But, in my mind, she’s still untouchable and I feel uncomfortable thinking about thinking otherwise, even hypothetically.

3.  Every wife is touchable, including mine, but the chances are very small, and I hope to not ever have to make a trade.

4.  Yes, of course.  There’s a reasonable chance of it happening sooner or later.

5.  What are you offering?

I agree with mgl, and think that a front office that is open to any possibility gives itself a greater advantage than one that limits itself. This makes me wonder about the seeming implicit policy of certain teams not to trade with their rivals. The Sox and Yanks haven’t made a deal with each other since the early 90’s (God I hope I’m right about this!). Obviously there are practical reasons for this, but I’m guessing these front offices don’t even talk to each other about possible trades, which seems limiting.

I’d say that Cal Ripken Jr. the day before he broke the all time consecutive games streak is the definition of untouchable. I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d trade him that moment for any one if I am running the Orioles.

Phil #5:  Games are quantum and this year’s 5.1 WAR guy may not even project to more WAR than this year’s 5.0 WAR guy, let alone necessarily perform better.  No projection system is that precise and it would be close to a miracle if they all agreed to a tenth of a win that someone was better than someone else.  I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that you “win more games” by increasing WAR by .1.

As I said, I don’t think that there is much posturing going on when GM’s say this. I think they mean it.  And I also think there is a lot of room between an unreasonable offer that will never happen and offering 5.1 wins for a 5 win equity.

Let’s take Votto for example.  He has a 3 year 38 mil contract.  He’s maybe a 5 win a year player going forward (a loose estimate).  So, he is worth around 65 mil in FA dollars.  His equity, therefore, again, in FA dollars, is around 26 mil. 

Would it be unreasonable for a big-spending team to offer something to CIN that would provide 40 mil in equity to CIN for Votto?  What if the Yankees offered Montero and Nova for Votto.  Let’s call them both 3 win players.  That’s 6 wins a year with both players making the MLB minimun (I assume).  So just for the first 3 years, the Reds would be getting over 75 mil in equity.  How could they possibly turn that down.  Even one of those players would be a steal for CIN.  There are a million reasonable deals that would be a large net gain for the Reds.

Again, I think these GM’s are sincere when they say certain players are untouchable.  They either are just not thinking when they say that, or they are not very smart. (Yes, I think there is SOME posturing!)

There are popularity factors, but we have discussed this many times before and the consensus seems to be that a player’s popularity is just not worth that much.  The principle thing that matters is his win value (including the win value of any intangibles he may possess over and above his on-field performance projection).  Even if popularity were a factor, surely that has a value too.  Does anyone think that Votto’s popularity would be worth 25 mil a year or even 10 mil?

I have a different spin on this.  One might think that making a player sacrosanct would have no upside.  There is a very real upside without resorting to intangibles: Even bothering to have discussions about such players has nonzero cost in terms of time (front-office salary, opportunity cost for trades not discussed).  Any time the expected (not maximum) payout for trading a player drops below the value of that time, it makes sense to declare that player off the table.

Declaring Votto not a subject of negotiations. . .
Loses: Profit from trading Votto (possibly positive) x probability of profitable trade (small).
Gains: Time for trade discussion (probably nonzero—must be polite to potential trading partners) x number of discussions (probably positive) x value of front-office time (small, but nonzero).

It’s easy to see how in some cases this profit could be positive.

As an aside, I’m highly amused at the thought of someone saying their wife is “touchable”.

what’s more, sometimes GM’s say that they want players like votto to be on their team forever! that’s ridiculous, no player is going to stay on a team forever. first that would imply that the player is immortal, and second that science has somehow managed to sidestep the second law of thermodynamics.

how absurd. GM’s should realize that everything they say is taken literally and never engage in hyperbole. ever.

Phil/5 noted two possible benefits to declaring a player untouchable.

Neither apply to fantasy baseball, where I regularly say (unlike some other owners) that I could trade anyone at some price, with the caveat that often there’s no offer at a price I’m willing to accept.

At *some* price, even trading Cal Ripken the day before he breaks Gehrig’s record could make not only baseball but also economic sense for a franchise.

But Phil alludes to another point: even if you’re *guaranteed* a gain of .1 WAR, or even perhaps 1-2 WAR from a trade in a given season, that trade might have a negative economic impact on your team if the fans are turned off by trading a star. What is best for the team on the field may be at odds with what is best for the bottom line.

MGL/10 - I agree Montero and Nova for Votto would be a steal for the Reds. But it’s not realistic for the current Yankees’ team, so it’s a moot point.

Perhaps saying a player is “untouchable” simply means you don’t envision a serious offer that would convince you to move him. That’s much more realistic.

But you’re right that you can estimate the value of the player’s popularity and connection to your fan base, in addition to his likely on-field performance, and weigh that against the salary and projected value of whomever you might acquire. And don’t forget that sometimes a young player becomes quite popular for the team that trades to get him, so even if you’re giving up popularity now, you may get even more down the road. The Cubs’ trade for Sammy Sosa (giving up former AL MVP George Bell) actually created a fan icon.

I’d only add that Votto’s value is likely more assured than Nova’s or Montero’s, so to bear the risk that one or both of them don’t pan out, you’d want a little more expected total value in return. Whether that should be more baseball or economic value is a judgment I leave to others.

I’m NOT talking about the advantages or disadvantages of POSTURING that your player is untouchable. I’m talking about that statement assuming that it is sincere and is NOT posturing.  You are all giving me some of the advantages of a GM declaring that publicly but not really meaning it. I’m quite sure that there are, or at least we can reaasonably speculate about it.

I truly feel that most of these statements are sincere and that these GM’s seriously do not fully understand how the value of players works. Or they make what they consider sincere statements without thinking, which we all do at times…

No player is so valuable that he can’t be traded. Having stipulated that, some are so valuable that it’s difficult to see another team being able to match that value. Cost-controlled, high-WAR players on a win-now, high payroll team like the Yankees or Red Sox are extremely valuable. These are teams that are motivated to get as many wins as possible from each position, so it makes no sense for them to take back two lesser players. For instance, what trade could be made that would entice the Red Sox to give up Ellsbury and (here’s the key) still benefit the trading partner?

"For instance, what trade could be made that would entice the Red Sox to give up Ellsbury and (here’s the key) still benefit the trading partner?”

If a team like the Angels is willing to take on Vernon Wells contract, why wouldn’t some team offer Boston a trade such they receive substantially more equity than Ellsbury provides?