THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Is it fair to consider the possible draft pick(s) the Yankees would get if they offered Vazquez arbitration and he declined or if he accepted arb then add a second year of Vazquez production to the mix?  Plus, I think you are being too conservative on the Vazquez WAR for 2010.  And while the Braves are paying Melkey bigger salaries in 2011 and 2012 due to arbitration increases, the Yankees will be reinvesting Vazquez’s contract that will have likely come off the books.
vr, Xei

The Yankees also get exclusive negotiating rights with Vazquez for the next year. That’s worth something though I would not want to try and quantify it.

I also think I prefer to receive my WAR in one lump sum rather than a distribution. Again, I’m not the man to try and put together a WAR amortization table.

Brian: and in return for the one-lump-sum WAR, it costs you prospect (#2? #3? #4?) Vizcaino.

That’s the price to pay for your risk aversity.

If you’re the Yankees, getting your WAR all in one go in 2010 is probably a good thing, because they are big favourites to be the best team again, and they’re in good position to replace Vazquez’ value if he leaves after 2010.  For the Braves, lumping the value into 2010 is probably not that useful.  Getting wins in 2011 and 2012 (and beyond from Vizcaino) probably fits better into their hopes of contending.  They also may be using the money freed up on the 2010 payroll to sign someone else (the move may have been necessary for the owners to approve signing Glaus, for example).

So to the Yankees, the deal probably makes sense because they strengthen a juggernaut, and Vizcaino is young enough that he’s not likely to give any short-term return anyway.  They might even get prospects back with their compensation picks who aren’t that far behind Vizcaino in terms of development if Vazquez leaves after 2010 and if Vizcaino wasn’t on the fast track with the Yankees.  To the Braves, it makes sense because they can essentially restructure their return to push more of it back into coming years when their young players and prospects will hopefully mature, which also allows them to add more production now on a separate deal to make up some of the lost 2010 production.  They are basically buying wins in the future at a discounted cost (they won’t have to buy the wins from Melky or Vizcaino on the open market) at the cost of some production in 2010.  If they’re high on Cabrera and/or Vizcaino, this seems like a pretty good return for Atlanta.

Xei: yowza, I forgot about that (which is weird, because it’s a similar situation with Lee and Halladay).

So, yes, you have the two comp picks partially offsetting Vizcaino.

@ Tango #3:

The Yankees should be risk averse when it comes to time and risk seeking when it comes to money, which is reflected in this trade. They have less time to wait on Vizcaino to develop than they do cash to spend on Vazquez.

And if Cabrera is putting up 2 WAR in 2011 and 2012 which Vazquez is pitching somewhere else, the Yankees can fish some WAR out of the Free Agent pool.

Of course they can “fish” it out… if they pay for it.  That’s the case for any team.

That’s like saying that you are going to lease a 1 year deal on a lamborghini, knowing you can lease a 3 year deal on a lexus afterwards.

You get what you pay for.

One problem with analyzing a trade is that a fan’s point of view isn’t necessarily the same as the GM’s. As Tango has pointed out, if one is a GM or analyzing a trade as business deal, one must consider net asset value. However, that’s not the point of view of most fans. They are going to ask themselves if this will lead to putting a stronger team on the field, especially now. From that point of view, I would maintain that the answer is no. I don’t see how putting Melkey Cabrera on the team and losing Javier Vazquez is going to lead to more wins in 2010.

The Braves also have much better than replacement level pitchers who would replace Vazquez, probably above average even, so they actually get a really good deal here.

If you look at the Braves options: (1) Going into the season with 6 quality starters and not enough offense (assuming they are on some sort of budget), (2) Trading Derek Lowe for pretty much nothing, and (3) Trading Javy, I think they made the right call.

Lowe is likely to be better than he was last year, and Javy worse, so (3) is pretty clearly better than (2). Lowe and Melky might be about equal to Jazy’s contributions in 2010.

With (1), you’re not using your resources optimally, and might come out behind on talent relative to (3) anyway assuming the Braves use some of the money saved to improve in other areas.

I guess you could make the arguement that Atlanta should have looked to trade Javy for a player that would help a little more right now than Melky will, but without knowing what offers were available that’s hard to make a judgement on. As it was, the return was solid to good.

As an aside, thanks for coming up with the house/mortgage analogy Tango. I’ve used that several times in the past when explaining these kinds of deals to people.

"I don’t see how putting Melkey Cabrera on the team and losing Javier Vazquez is going to lead to more wins in 2010. “

No one is arguing that it makes them better this year, any more than selling your 14MM$ house for 12MM$ and buying a 4MM$ for 2MM$ makes you “better” to live in.  You bought a much worse house, but now you have 10MM$ in your pocket.... to buy potentially a NEW house.  Or, to pay off 10MM$ in debt, or risk bankruptcy.

So, it is frankly ridiculous to even discuss this on a level where you just look at the asset value, and not the cost of that asset.  If fans want to do that, fine.  But, I can’t have a serious discussion with those fans, any more than they’d want to discuss trading down on their house, without also talking about the 10MM$ they’d pocket.

It’s as if fans become teenagers when it comes to this stuff…

It’s because the fans don’t care about the $10M their team’s owners will “pocket,” nor should they, really.  Fans only care about the money that goes into the team, not the money that goes towards Mr. Burns’s new ivory backscratcher.

Tango,

Long time reader.

The braves were a potential wildcard team for 2010, with Javier Vazquez. That window was real.

The goal is to reach the playoffs, isn’t it?

Why can’t you have a discussion with that mindset?

Don’t patronize the fans. Braves fans know better than any team that “anything can happen in a short series”.

Tango, I get your point, but sports teams want to have their cake and eat it too. Yes, they’re operating under financial constraints and have to make decisions in light of those constraints. That might mean that they won’t contend every year, or even most years. However, the teams still expect the fans to spend their money by coming out to watch the teams. I live in Atlanta and I’ve heard ESPN commentators say that it’s a horrible sports city because the fans don’t come out when their teams aren’t winning. I think that shows remarkable good sense. If my favorite restaurant hired a new chef because they couldn’t afford the salary demands of the old one and the food wasn’t as good as a result, I’d stop going to that restaurant. Anyone with sense would. I will follow the Braves early next season. If it becomes clear that they aren’t in real contention, I’ll stop paying much attention to them in favor of a better run franchise. It seems like an eminently rational thing to do.

I don’t think you can just consider the money pocketed, though.  Reports are that they’ve already taken some of that money to sign Troy Glaus, who addresses a huge need at first.  They could still be looking to upgrade the lineup further with that money.  If they reinvest the money they saved in 2010, they aren’t taking themselves out of the playoff picture.  They’re freeing up money to use elsewhere. 

They probably won’t be able to completely cover the lost production in 2010, but the the trade off is that they also bought cheap production for years to come.  Instead of having 2 draft picks in 2011, they now have a productive if not stellar outfielder (which they need) to help the team contend when Hanson and Heyward are hopefully emerging as centerpieces, and they have that at a reduced cost so they can spend more money to address other needs.  They also have a very good pitching prospect who can potentially become another solid contributor in a few years.  They also have a chance of getting a compensation pick back for Glaus if he bounces back this year, and potentially either any other free agents they sign with the money saved or possible compensation picks for them as well.

Is the drop in playoff chances they get from taking the money from Vazquez’ contract and instead putting it into a bit less production in the lineup so bad that it’s worth chastising the Braves for even if they are also improving their chances of competing after 2010?  I don’t think it is.  They had some chance, probably not great to reach the playoffs in 2010 before the trade.  They still have a chance, probably a little worse, to reach the playoffs in 2010, and they improved their chances of reaching the playoffs in future years.  I don’t see how this trade is much of a negative for the Braves from a mindset of making the playoffs, unless the *only* playoffs you care about are the 2010 playoffs.

Kincaid,

As a braves fan. It isn’t just the Vazquez trade.

They didn’t offer arbitration to either kelly johnson or Ryan Church. The signed Wagner and Saito for more money than Javi’s salary.

The potential Glaus signing is very good… but other than that, the braves have not handled their resources well in the offseason.

Every braves fan was hoping they could get rid of Lowe’s contract. Even if that meant, eating 30% of the contract.

And… “a productive if not stellar outfielder”.

On what are you basing that argument? _I would venture that “stellar” is not an appropiate adjective for Melky Cabrera.

And, i disagree that the braves potential wild card chances for 2010 was some sort of fan’s fantasy.

I am basing the argument of Melky being “not stellar” on the fact that I do not think stellar is an appropriate adjective for Melky either.

I don’t think their potential 2010 WC chances were a fantasy before the trade, nor do I think they are a fantasy after trade.  They still have a chance at the playoffs in 2010.  It’s not like those chances shriveled up into a fantasy with this trade.  Add in the expected production over what they had from Melky and Glaus, and then consider that they still have money left for 2010 to make moves, and that’s potentially not that far off what you lose by trading Javier, especially if the Braves have better replacements for SP than for 1B or OF.  Then add in that the Braves improved their chances of making the playoffs in the years following 2010, and it seems like a good trade-off to me.

ATL wild card chances will depend on Lowe - if he bounces back at least a bit, any dropoff from Vazquez (who should be worse this year) will be more than compensated by Cabrera (average CF, more than they had in OF last year), Glaus and other potential signings. Braves were in unique position of having 6th starter who should be league-average or better. Now, if they suffer serious pitching injuries, they will be in trouble, but would you like to open the season with around $10M starter in bullpen, just for emergency?

Tango, why are you deducting 0.5 WAR per year for 25 year old? Shouldn’t he keep, or even increase his value at least until 28?

Good point.  I just probably deduct about 0.25 or so.  I’m so used to the 0.50.

On a “rate” basis, Melky will increase, but his playing time is usually expected to decrease, even at a young age.

Kincaid,

Im sorry i misinterpreted your Melky description.

My overall point is that this isn’t just about one trade, it’s about this offseason. Granted, it’s still not over. But until now:

Wagner + Saito > Vazquez + 1.5 million???

Cabrera > Kelly Johnson or Ryan Church ???

I know i am overreacting, but the braves are depending on a 39 year old closer (Wagner), a 40 year old setup man (Saito), a 32 “first baseman” who player 14 games last year (Glaus), a hall of fame third baseman who is on his decline phase (Chipper) and a potential super rookie who may or may not be productive in 2010 (Heyward).

Sure, it could happen. I just wouldn’t bet on it.

I was on a false impression that the braves were going to go for it in 2010. Being Bobby Cox’s last season. And a Vazquez, Hudson, Hanson, Jurrgens, Lowe, Kawakami rotation was a big part of that assumption.

Why not ride it out until the trade deadline? Why not eat a big chunk of the Lowe contract? Why not wait until Gonzalez and Soriano arbitrations are settled before you go for 2 free agent relievers?

I know this blog is not for venting against the fan’s “X” team, but i couldn’t help myself. Thanks…

I think if you look at it globally as you are doing, you have an excellent point…

Something that hasn’t been mentioned: the Yankees also have a player very similar to Melky in Bret Gardner. That’s kind of like the Braves having an above average replacement for Vazquez ready. There is also the aspect of consolidating the most value in the fewest roster spots for the Yankees. I think the trade makes sense for both sides.

I tried to look at playoff probabilities to get a sense of the global part discussed in #20 over at BtB http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/12/28/1221681/the-braves-off-season-playoff