Master Index of Archived Threads
Mets and Trades through time
AG/DC Feb 03 2008 05:40 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 04 2008 08:58 AM |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The first trade in Mets history was something of a steal. On Novmeber 28, 1961, They got Frank Thomas and a player to be named later for cash and a player to be named later. The player that completed the trade for the Mets was Frank's outfield-mate and procreative likemind Gus Bell, who went over on May 21, 1962. The Mets got back Rick Herrscher.
|
Nymr83 Feb 03 2008 10:23 PM |
what are your criteria? is it what the guys do for their new teams? what they do for the rest of their careers no matter where they play? these questions need answering.
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 05:50 AM |
My criterion is win shares through the term of service under which the player is dealt. If they continue to re-sign while under contract, they are eligible to continue piling up win shares towards the trade, even if having been traded again. If they are released or leave as free agents, the books close.
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 08:37 AM |
So you're saying that in the trade that sent David Cone to Toronto for Jeff Kent and Ryan Thompson, we'd only look at what Cone did for the Blue Jays and what Kent did for the Mets?
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 08:54 AM |
|
No, we'd look at what Kent did through the end of his term of service, which would take him through the 2002 season when the Indians lost control of him. Note that I wrote above, "even if having been traded again." And I tracked Frank Thomas through his release in 1966.
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 09:02 AM |
Ah! I see. That makes sense, then.
|
vtmet Feb 04 2008 10:28 AM |
|
I don't know how I'd really score that trade...With the way that things went for Kent as a Met/Indian, I don't know if he would have turned out as good as Kent the Giant if he remained on the Mets, he just never fully seemed to fit in here...Kent/Everett had talent, but fit the adage that it's hard to be a young player in NY....And while Cone's Mets weren't exactly producing a good record at the time, he still was a very effective pitcher (7 complete games, 5 shutouts, 2.88 ERA, 214 strikeouts in under 200 innings in his 27 starts as a Met in '92 prior to the in-season trade)...I'd have to vote that we lost miserably in that trade, based on Cone's performance as a Met, Kent's performance as a Met, and Cone's performance post-Methood...
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 11:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 04 2008 11:47 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks, but it's just not working.
As expected, the idea that all win shares are equal hurts this measurement, as Cone provided win shares that perhaps helped put Toronto over the top. Are they then worth more? He then threw 22 solid innings for Toronto in the post-season. More distorting (and distrubing) is the overvaluing of the relative value of modest prodution of a guy like Ryan Thompson at near big-league minimum salary. I wonder if we can craft such a thing as a replacement-level salary that we can compare them to instead of the average salary, since we're comparing them to a replacement-level player. The Mets won this trade, but not that well.
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 11:14 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 08:39 AM |
Regarding vtmet, I just think it's pointless specuating on what we feel would have happened. What was gained on one end and what was gained on the other are knowns that we're trying to measure.
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 11:38 AM |
Yeah, I think that if your formula shows that Ryan Thompson brought more value than Jeff Kent, then something is clearly wrong with the formula.
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 11:45 AM |
Those are the earnings of the average Major League player during that period.
|
Nymr83 Feb 04 2008 12:06 PM |
i just don't think it makes much sense to take money into account in this way with the Mets. clearly the Mets have tons of it, so just because A produced more wins per dollar than B doesn't make A for B a bad trade for the Mets, it might even be a good trade if B produced more wins even at a far higher cost. i'm not sure how i'd do it though.
|
metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2008 12:19 PM |
I weep at the thought of the Staub for Lolich trade.
|
RealityChuck Feb 04 2008 12:35 PM |
|
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 12:37 PM |
I can see that. But the problem is, a lot of times money is the underlying reason for the trade. So factoring in the money helps judge the overall success of the transaction.
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 12:39 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 08:40 AM |
It's easy for us to say money doesn't matter. It does.
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 01:04 PM |
I'm not sure how to correct the formula then.
|
RealityChuck Feb 04 2008 01:46 PM |
||||
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 02:01 PM |
In short.
|
metsmarathon Feb 04 2008 03:53 PM |
i think the problem with the formula that i didn't recognize at first is that it is only measuring production versus cost of the players involved in the trades - essentially 'value'.
|
A Boy Named Seo Feb 04 2008 03:58 PM |
|
Love it.
|
metsmarathon Feb 04 2008 08:55 PM |
perhaps another method, and i've seen snippets of this across the internet, would be to come up with a wins above contract type of figure.
|
AG/DC Feb 04 2008 09:16 PM |
Run with it. I obviously can't make my formula work.
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 07:08 AM |
if you can tell me where to find a) minimum league salary by year and b) average league salary by year, i can run through my first method, which is merely an attempt at improvement of your formula.
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 07:17 AM |
Here's B. Thank you, CBS.
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 08:00 AM |
cool. the league minimum isn't as important to me... i suppose there's just no real reliable salary data available prior to '89?
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:09 AM |
I'm sure there is somewhere, but that certainly gives you the years you need to test any approach on the Cone-for-Kent/Thompson trade.
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 08:27 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 08:47 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
so, here's what i show. for each player, i found their wins above replacement, their salary, and the average salary in the MLB at that time. i calculated, for each year following hte mets trade until such time as the player was either released, left his team via free agency, or retired (a player who is granted free agency but returns to his previous team is not considered to have left his team), the players' production times the players value. production is defined as wins above replacement player. value is defined as wins above replacement, divided by the ratio of the player's salary to the average league salary. this turns into, for each year, WARP3^2 * average MLB salary / player's salary. i've summed this for each player - the number immediately to the right of the player's name. the number below this is the square root of the above sum, which is an easier scale to look at, but is likely meaningless. the bottom number is the sum of the player's WARP3's, or total production. you'll note that the bulk of thompson's production-value comes in 1994, where both he and kent produced 5 wins above replacement, but he did it at half the cost. right now, this puts kent:thompson at 1.42:1 (an excursion i just did, with warp3 cubed, puts it at 2.17:1, but i have a harder time framing that logic.) and maybe this does tend to drive home the point that part of a trade is getting or giving away cheap talent...
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:29 AM |
I can't sort through the math right now, but that seems more like it.
|
Mark Healey Feb 05 2008 08:39 AM |
Just speaking for myself, the math makes my head hurt.
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 09:07 AM |
||||||
I'm not sure where you want to go. We're judging trades, not drafts.
Such a formula is designed to reflect that. Hampton's term of service ends with the Mets after 2000. Dotel and Cedeņo continued to earn win shares within their term of service beyond that.
The Colorado service isn't factored in, only 2000, just as the Jays get credit only for the time they controlled Cone.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. We count his productivity against his salary, and accept whatever we humbly get.
And we'd count the impressive figures that Dotel put up on modest salary within the term of service the Mets dealt away right up until the end of 2005. Speculating on what might have happened is pointless. We're measuring the guys the Mets gained against the guys the Astros gained. I don't know what's with the Milk Baby thing and I'm guessing I don't want to.
I don't get this either. He did see Cedeņo. What are you hoping to factor in here?
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 09:03 AM |
|
i think you've got a long long way to go if you're going to try to frame any sort of argument wherein the mets, had they kept octavio dotel, and had the season unfolded in exactly the same way, would have pulled armando benitez from those braves games in favor of an unproven octavio dotel, who likely would never have had any save opportunities in the prior year, due in large part to the dominance of the actual closer. (and who posted a 5+ ERA in the real world with houston the prior year, netting only 16 saves) if they did still have dotel, there's simply no rational argument to be made that he would have been handed the keys to the 2001 season over armando benitez, who, to that point, had helped carry the mets through august and most of september, closing big game after big game. but, really, that's a [silly] argument and a beaten-dead horse for another thread entirely.
|
Mark Healey Feb 05 2008 09:11 AM |
I'm just saying that for me, that trades should be judged on the talent evaluation aspect, not terms of service or salaries.
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 09:24 AM |
I don't really know what that means. How do you judge evaluation of ability except in subsequent display of ability?
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 09:34 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
so, not production and cost of production, but flawed, anecdotal reckoning? go for it, i guess.
dotel provided a terrific level of production-value, especially in '01 and '02. houston definitely came out as winners here. keeping hampton wouldn't've helped even out the trade, as his production plummetted after the contract, while his cost skyrocketed.
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 09:36 AM |
i'm starting to wonder if there's an inherent flaw, or perhaps if we're just uncovering an inehrent truth, that trading away cheap production for more expensive, albeit potentially greater, production doesn't seem like the way to "win" a trade...
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 09:50 AM |
the frank viola trade (i'll post a chart later) comes out 832.3 to 36.1 against the mets. 23:1 against the mets
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 09:56 AM |
Well, those extreme ratios seem to suggest you're using the wrong exponent. What is the figure next to "p$"?
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 10:59 AM |
on the left, total warp3. on the right, yearly player salary in millions.
|
Gwreck Feb 05 2008 11:46 AM |
Are we sure about those Kent numbers? Cot's Contracts says he signed a 3 year deal with the Giants in 1999. Wouldn't that mean that the Mets only "controlled" him through the '98 season?
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 12:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 01:11 PM |
Well, that's an absolutely valid point. We can measure these guys until the end of their current contract (or their reserve clause servitude for younger players), as you suggest, or through the end of the tenure that their current team is able to extend from that, as I've opted for.
|
Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2008 12:31 PM |
I agree. Especially about Point 2. If the formula can be refined, AG's second point is where the magic kicks in.
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 02:10 PM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
i decided to start with the 2007 trades and work my way backwards...
Jose Castro & Sean Henry for Jeff Conine 0 : -0.12 mets lose
drew butera & dustin martin for luis castillo 0 : 1.07 mets win
brian bannister for ambiorix burgos 16.42 : 1.86 = 8.83 : 1 mets lose
Henry Owens & Matt Lindstrom for Jason Vargas & Adam Bostick 12.53 : -1.11 mets lose
heath bell & royce ring for Jon adkins & ben johnson 18.25 : -0.28 mets lose again! the number next to the player's name is his sum value, while the number below that is his total production, in warp3. to answer the question of who won the trade, you add up who the mets sent away, and if its higher than who the mets got, the mets lost the trade.
|
Vic Sage Feb 05 2008 02:51 PM |
|
well, i think this is the inherent flaw in this line of thinking. GMs aren't trying to "win a trade"... they're trying to win championships. Yes, the Mets "lost" the dotel/Hampton trade... but as a direct consequence of that trade, Hampton led the 2000 Mets pitching staff to the world series. So was it really a bad trade? Depends on how you define "bad", i guess. But would the Mets have gone to the WS with Dotel in the rotation in 2000? He put up an ERA over 5 for Houston in 2000. How about more starts for Pat Mahomes? Would that have given us the 15 wins /200+IP /142 era+ that Hampton gave us that year? And considering his performance since 2000, did the failure to re-sign Hampton for the mega-dollars he wanted (and got) really hurt the deal's value further, or does it help it? Yes, Dotel has had a few good major league seasons, but not that many. And considering Hampton was a frontline SP coming off a career year in Houston, I'd say we paid remarkably little for him, and were able to do so exactly BECAUSE he was unsigned beyond 2000. The deal accomplished precisely what it was intended to. It got us to the post-season. The Yankees were simply better that year. And any formula that considers the acquisition of Hampton in the winter of 1999 a "bad deal" needs to be reconsidered. Furthermore, in establishing whether trades, in general, help more or hurt more, you need to look at each GM's record separately. Lumping Cashen in with Joe McDonald, with Jim McIlvaine, with Steve Phillips, together with Minaya is meaningless. they were operating in different environments, with different assets, and with different philosophies, and different owners. I'd be interested in evaluating the moves made by Frank Cashen from 1980, when Doubleday/Wilpon bought the team until he left in 1990. The best team in Mets history was built with 1st round picks Gooden & Strawberry, and was impacted by the following trades (some bad, mostly good): 1981: - Reardon > Ellis Valentine 1982: - Greg Harris > George Foster - Mike Scott > Danny Heep - Mazzilli > Darling + Terrell 1983: - Neil Allen + Ownby > Keith Hernandez - Carlos diaz + Bailor > Sid Fernandez 1984: - G.Young, M.Lee, M.Cook > Ray Knight - Terrell > Hojo - Hubie Brooks +Winningham,Youmans,Fitzgerald > G.Carter 1985: - Jose Oquendo > Salazar, J.Young - Schiraldi +Gardner,Christensen,Tarver > Ojeda 1986: - Beane + Latham,Clink > Teufel after that year, Cashen's deals included: 1986: - Kevin Mitchell+abner,Jefferson > McReynolds 1987: - Hearn+Anderson, Gozzo > Cone - Orosco > Tapani, Whitehurst 1989: - Aguilera +Tapani, West,Drummond > Viola - Dykstra + McDowell > Juan Samuel - Samuel > A.Pena + M.Marshall
|
metsmarathon Feb 05 2008 03:18 PM |
fun ruiner.
|
Nymr83 Feb 05 2008 03:24 PM |
|
i say "luckier", starting with the ball that cleared the wall that wasn't a homerun and payton(?) forgetting how to run the bases other than that i agree with your post
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 05 2008 05:07 PM |
Timo.
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:43 PM |
1) I fully acknowledge going in that we have an additional challenge going forward of being able to weigh some win shares --- those that put a team into the playoffs, those in the post season --- as greater.
|
Rockin' Doc Feb 05 2008 08:47 PM |
Payton?
|
AG/DC Feb 05 2008 09:02 PM |
A quick guess says.
|
metsguyinmichigan Feb 05 2008 11:53 PM |
|
Sweet Animal House tribute!
|
AG/DC Feb 11 2008 09:31 AM |
Not that I've taken the time to understand the marathon forumula, but it seems an exponent is needed here.
|
metsmarathon Feb 11 2008 02:25 PM |
i'd suggest that the way to do that analysis would be to look at wins above average, not replacement.
|
metsmarathon Feb 11 2008 02:27 PM |
oh, i don't like my earlier method, btw. it needs negative numbers. i don't not like this new one yet, but give me time...
|