The ZDK Trade Proposal Extravaganza Thread To End All Threads #OhYeah

[Slateman]

I think he has 3 more years of arb as a super 2 this year.  Of course "cheap" is relative.  I would guess right now that that last year of arb will be comparable to Mookie's - $27MM or so. 

Cheaper than market value. Cheaper than Trout.

[Five Banners]

Soto and Trout aren't getting traded.

But Ohtani, Rendon, and Trout for Kieboom, Braymer, and Cavalli works in the trade checker

[Smithian]

If this season goes to hell and the Nationals have to sell, what do we have that makes sense other than Turner?

I'd like to keep Josh Bell. Soto is still under control for too long to think about moving him. Strasburg and Corbin are too pricy. Before you say Schwarber and Hand, if those two play well enough to get a package then it means the Nats are going to have a record where you don't want to sell.

You can obviously toss out players like Castro and Gomes for low A fliers. But I think Turner is only guy you could move and hope to get a fringe Top 100 prospect. He has high value, but not in a contract year on the eve of the labor apocalypse.

Scherzer might get a decent prospect to a team making a run for it.

I see no way this team sells a the deadline and puts in a dent in the massive talent deficit we have in our Farm System. And, due to that deficit, if we want to make a run for it the only way we add is taking on salary and I'm unsure our ownership will want to do that right now.

Not a great situation.

[Greg_SRT]

Why would you sell when you are fighting for a playoff spot 

I don’t think you move anyone that isn’t in need of a new contract personally. But a Corbin has too many years/$$$ belief? Plenty of Pitchers recently have been involved in a mid season trade that had multiple years and tens of millions owed.

If you are the Nats and selling by July 30th, you sell everything you can that has a contract ending after the season. And you move Corbin.

[Slateman]

If this season goes to hell and the Nationals have to sell, what do we have that makes sense other than Turner?

I'd like to keep Josh Bell. Soto is still under control for too long to think about moving him. Strasburg and Corbin are too pricy. Before you say Schwarber and Hand, if those two play well enough to get a package then it means the Nats are going to have a record where you don't want to sell.

You can obviously toss out players like Castro and Gomes for low A fliers. But I think Turner is only guy you could move and hope to get a fringe Top 100 prospect. He has high value, but not in a contract year on the eve of the labor apocalypse.

Scherzer might get a decent prospect to a team making a run for it.

I see no way this team sells a the deadline and puts in a dent in the massive talent deficit we have in our Farm System. And, due to that deficit, if we want to make a run for it the only way we add is taking on salary and I'm unsure our ownership will want to do that right now.

Not a great situation.

Schwarber and Hand, if healthy, are tradeable at the deadline. Both of them could have great years and if Strasburg misses 10 starts,  the Nats are still a sub .500 team. Hell, a good closer is the least indicative thing of a playoff team.

Scherzer if he wants to be traded.

Making those deals are how you revitalize a farm system. There may not be big names, but guys you find and develop for a coupme years, and then get something out of is what youre hoping for.

[Slateman]

Why would you sell when you are fighting for a playoff spot 

I don’t think you move anyone that isn’t in need of a new contract personally. But a Corbin has too many years/$$$ belief? Plenty of Pitchers recently have been involved in a mid season trade that had multiple years and tens of millions owed.

If you are the Nats and selling by July 30th, you sell everything you can that has a contract ending after the season. And you move Corbin.

Corbin has negative value at this point. You'd probably have to eat a lot of contract and/or include prospects to move him.

[Greg_SRT]

Corbin has negative value at this point. You'd probably have to eat a lot of contract and/or include prospects to move him.

No he doesn’t. You just don’t get anything back because they are taking salary from you.

[Slateman]

No he doesn’t. You just don’t get anything back because they are taking salary from you.

He's still owed over 100 million. He has negative value. Unless its some sort of salary swap, no one is giving anything for Corbin alone.

[Elvir Ovcina]

No he doesn’t. You just don’t get anything back because they are taking salary from you.

No, he does.  His contract is god-awful for trading because it was so backloaded.  Counting this year, he's owed $106 million for 4 years.  He wouldn't get close to that on the open market at age 32 - which he will be in July - especially not coming off a 4.66 ERA.  That's the definition of negative value.  And the longer you wait the worse it gets in AAV terms because the last year is $35 million. 

Consider that Darvish - who is right now a better pitcher and is owed a lot less money (1 fewer year and approximately $7 million less per year) - was traded for very little, and you'll see the problem. 

[Greg_SRT]

No, he does.  His contract is god-awful for trading because it was so backloaded.  Counting this year, he's owed $106 million for 4 years.  He wouldn't get close to that on the open market at age 32 - which he will be in July - especially not coming off a 4.66 ERA.  That's the definition of negative value.  And the longer you wait the worse it gets in AAV terms because the last year is $35 million.

Sure. And the Nats pay some of that in a move.

[Elvir Ovcina]

Sure. And the Nats pay some of that in a move.

Right, so if you're paying someone to take him off your hands, that's negative value...

[Slateman]

Right, so if you're paying someone to take him off your hands, that's negative value...

Thank you.

[bluestreak]

Right, so if you're paying someone to take him off your hands, that's negative value...

I don't think it's that simple. If you send money and someone sends back something of value (prospects), is that negative? Like Did Verlander's contract have negative Value?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

No, he does.  His contract is god-awful for trading because it was so backloaded.  Counting this year, he's owed $106 million for 4 years.  He wouldn't get close to that on the open market at age 32 - which he will be in July - especially not coming off a 4.66 ERA.  That's the definition of negative value.  And the longer you wait the worse it gets in AAV terms because the last year is $35 million. 

wait -  His AAV stays constant - $23.333MM the length of his contract.  Contract ends in 2024. You are about right in what he's owed in actual cash.

[Greg_SRT]

Right, so if you're paying someone to take him off your hands, that's negative value...

Pretty sure many teams eat some cash in deals like that. Thought that was common knowledge

[Elvir Ovcina]

I don't think it's that simple. If you send money and someone sends back something of value (prospects), is that negative? Like Did Verlander's contract have negative Value?

But if you're starting with the principle that you need to pay, then it is.  You're assuming you need to eat $X per year just to get nothing back.  Sure, you can eat $X+Y to get Y value in prospects back, but that doesn't mean X disappears. 

The question with the Verlander trade - where the Tigers ate $8m/year for 2 years but got back 3 very good prospects - is really what those prospects would sell for.  If you could have sold those 3 prospects for more than $16 million, then the Tigers were just buying additional prospects.  Basically: if the Tigers had offered Verlander for a pair of used batting gloves, would the Astros have taken it?  And I think the answer there is of course.   Detroit ate some salary to buy additional prospects, but Verlander had some value that went into purchasing those prospects too.   I'd normally have taken the fact that Verlander passed through waivers first as an indication that he did indeed have a negative valuation - nobody would take him for free if they had to pay his contract - but his situation was complicated by the existence of a full no-trade clause.  Teams usually don't claim such players because the typical pattern is claim, pulled back...and then nothing, because you can't really negotiate then.

wait -  His AAV stays constant - $23.333MM the length of his contract.  Contract ends in 2024. You are about right in what he's owed in actual cash.

The AAV on the remaining term isn't constant, though, which is what you're asking someone to take on.  The AAV over the whole length is irrelevant now because 2 years are already history.

Pretty sure many teams eat some cash in deals like that. Thought that was common knowledge

Yes, it is common knowledge.  But if you're eating more cash than the value of what you're getting back from the other team, that's negative value. 

Think of it this way: if the Nats put Corbin on waivers tomorrow, would any team claim him knowing that doing so would mean they'd owe him a guaranteed $106 million over the next 4 years?  Almost certainly not.  That means Corbin's value is, at absolute maximum, zero in trade terms.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

The AAV on the remaining term isn't constant, though, which is what you're asking someone to take on.  The AAV over the whole length is irrelevant now because 2 years are already history.
 

I think you and I are using AAV differently.  I think AAV is usually used for CBT hit, which is how I'm using it. His CBT hit is based on his entire contract, not jus what remains to be paid.  I  think you are using it as the sum of remaining payments divided by the remaining length of the contract.  The cash he's owed, divided by 4 years, is over $26MM a year, which is higher than the average for his whole contract (which I believe is how AAV is calculated).

Realistically, off of the market, and crediting him with some likely reversion to 2019 form, to me it looks like there's about $45 million overpay in actual cash for the remainder of that contract. 

[Elvir Ovcina]

I think you and I are using AAV differently.  I think AAV is usually used for CBT hit, which is how I'm using it. His CBT hit is based on his entire contract, not jus what remains to be paid.  I  think you are using it as the sum of remaining payments divided by the remaining length of the contract.  The cash he's owed, divided by 4 years, is over $26MM a year, which is higher than the average for his whole contract (which I believe is how AAV is calculated).

Oh, I was literally meaning average annual value, not the CBT term of art.  Yes, we're using it differently.

[Greg_SRT]

But if you're starting with the principle that you need to pay, then it is.  You're assuming you need to eat $X per year just to get nothing back.  Sure, you can eat $X+Y to get Y value in prospects back, but that doesn't mean X disappears. 

The question with the Verlander trade - where the Tigers ate $8m/year for 2 years but got back 3 very good prospects - is really what those prospects would sell for.  If you could have sold those 3 prospects for more than $16 million, then the Tigers were just buying additional prospects.  Basically: if the Tigers had offered Verlander for a pair of used batting gloves, would the Astros have taken it?  And I think the answer there is of course.   Detroit ate some salary to buy additional prospects, but Verlander had some value that went into purchasing those prospects too. 

The AAV on the remaining term isn't constant, though, which is what you're asking someone to take on.  The AAV over the whole length is irrelevant now because 2 years are already history.

Yes, it is common knowledge.  But if you're eating more cash than the value of what you're getting back from the other team, that's negative value.

My man...

Patrick Corbin is a 31 year old LH SP that came up big in the biggest situations. 67 regular season games (12 starts) since then.

If you as a GM hold a Patrick Corbin, you don't see him as negative value.

And don't talk right now, because no team knows right now that they are in the playoff hunt. Many teams are content with playing their current roster out and seeing what pieces they need come July.

[Slateman]

I don't think it's that simple. If you send money and someone sends back something of value (prospects), is that negative? Like Did Verlander's contract have negative Value?

Verlander only had two and a half years on his contract and was a better pitcher. The Tigers also agreed to pay 8 million per year.

Also, Verlander was a Cy Young and MVP winner. That season he was traded was probably the worst of his career and its what youre probably going to get out of Corbin if you're lucky

So the Nats would have to eat about a third of the contract to get anything of value.

[Elvir Ovcina]

My man...

Patrick Corbin is a 31 year old LH SP that came up big in the biggest situations. 67 regular season games (12 starts) since then.

If you as a GM hold a Patrick Corbin, you don't see him as negative value.

My man:  if you're the GM of one of the 29 other teams and Rizzo waives Corbin tomorrow, do you claim him, knowing that you will immediately owe him $106 million for 4 years?

Realistically, off of the market, and crediting him with some likely reversion to 2019 form, to me it looks like there's about $45 million overpay in actual cash for the remainder of that contract.

That sounds about right to me as well.  Maybe a little less than that given the weirdness of last year's offseason.  I'd say $35-40 million or so, but that's in the park.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Verlander only had two and a half years on his contract and was a better pitcher. The Tigers also agreed to pay 8 million per year.

Also, Verlander was a Cy Young and MVP winner. That season he was traded was probably the worst of his career and its what youre probably going to get out of Corbin if you're lucky

So the Nats would have to eat about a third of the contract to get anything of value.

my swag was about $45 million, which is a bit more. 

[Greg_SRT]

My man:  if you're the GM of one of the 29 other teams and Rizzo waives Corbin tomorrow, do you claim him, knowing that you will immediately owe him $106 million for 4 years?

Answered above. Many teams are content to play out there current rosters. And as proof, take a look at what has been available via free agency and wasn't signed to start the season or well into the season.

Come July 30th, a LH SP has value by default.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Answered above. Many teams are content to play out there current rosters. And as proof, take a look at what has been available via free agency and wasn't signed to start the season or well into the season.

Come July 30th, a LH SP has value by default.

on the  other hand, if Corbin and Lester are performing nearly the same, Lester would be more valuable in trade even though he's older because he helps for the playoffs without the albatross contract.

[Slateman]

You're not understanding value. Literally no GM is claiming that contract. Every GM in baseball had the chance to get an elite LH reliever for 10 million in the offseason and none of them did it.

Corbin brings negative value to any trade.