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. The problem is that I don't know the salaries of the players involved, nor how much money the Mets sent, but I still feel confident in calling it a Met win. Gus Bell for Frank Thomas and Rick Herrscher Term of Service Ended 5/12/1964 4/5/1966 1962 Term of Service Ended Win Shares 1.6 12.6 0 Win Shares $ $? $? $? $ Avg $ $? $? $? Avg $

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. does it matter if a guy contributes to a playoff team while the guys he was dealt for were still too young to help?

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? I can see that, but the problem with it is that I'd say that the Cone for Kent trade (let's ignore Thompson for now) was a very good one; they got a young player who ended up on a Cooperstown path. Should the fact that they later traded Kent in a bad deal reduce the quality of the original deal that imported him?

AG/DC Feb 04 2008 08:54 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 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? 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

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 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? I can see that, but the problem with it is that I'd say that the Cone for Kent trade (let's ignore Thompson for now) was a very good one; they got a young player who ended up on a Cooperstown path. Should the fact that they later traded Kent in a bad deal reduce the quality of the original deal that imported him? 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. Let's dial back to 8/27/92. David Cone for Jeff Kent and Ryan Thompson Term of Service Ended 8/30/92 12/18/2002 12/20/1996 Term of Service Ended WARP3 2.6 69.9 12.2 WARP3 $ (in Millions) $0.779168 $33.097483 $0.491983 $ (in Millions) Avg $ (in Millions) $0.198808 $15.946443 $3.578770 Avg $ (in Millions) WARP3/($/Avg$) 0.66 for 33.68 and 88.74 WARP3/($/Avg$) 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. I'm not sure I understand the money figures. On the "$ (in Millions)" line, it looks to me like Kent made $33 million through the end of 2002, and Ryan Thompson made $491,000 through the end of 1996. If that's the case, I don't see how his average salary is $3.5 million.

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. The Seaver trade, while practically destroying my childhood, probably won't work out that poorly on paper, since Flynn and Henderson were everyday players and Zachary wasn't all that horrible. Not saying it wasn't the darkest day of the franchise -- it was -- but I think did more damage morally than statistically.

RealityChuck Feb 04 2008 12:35 PM

Nymr83 wrote: 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. I agree. Just stick with on-field performance. If someone helps you win the World Series, it doesn't matter if you paid him the league minimum or $20 million a year. Adding the money only complicates trying to evaluate the trade.

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. But from a fan's standpoint, I am more interested in the impact on the field rather than the impact on the books. I can go either way on this. The dollars are definitely the thing that's skewing the Ryan Thompson score.

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. Blowing all of it on one guy keeps you from getting another better guy. Or lots of better guys. It also forces them to keep these guys around longer than they would have. David Cone was traded by the Mets for the sake of salary. The Jays didn't get anything more out of him due to salary.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2008 01:04 PM

I'm not sure how to correct the formula then. Maybe the Ryan Thompson numbers are an aberration that makes a good formula look faulty? Should we try a few more transactions and see how they turn out? Some possibilities would be the trade that brought Kevin McReynolds from the Padres, Steve Henderson for Dave Kingman, Jerry Koosman for Jesse Orosco, Matlack and Milner to Texas, Hebner for Espinosa, Reardon and Norman for Valentine, and Mazzilli for Darling and Terrell. (I was trying to pick a variety of trades that all involve players whose careers have ended. I don't know how far back salary information goes, however.)

RealityChuck Feb 04 2008 01:46 PM

AG/DC wrote: It's easy for us to say money doesn't matter. It does. Really? If a guy gets the league minimum and and 20 win shares, and another guy gets $20 mill and 20 win shares, there's a difference in the team's performance? ]Blowing all of it on one guy keeps you from getting another better guy. Or lots of better guys. But that's impossible to quantify. How do you know what better guys you could have gotten with the money? Maybe the money would have been spent on getting worse guys. ]It also forces them to keep these guys around longer than they would have. Sometimes. Sometimes not. Besides, that's length of contract, not salary. ]David Cone was traded by the Mets for the sake of salary. The Jays didn't getting anything more out of him due to salary. No. What they got out of him was wins and losses, which they would have gotten out of him no matter what the salary. If a player helps the team, he helps despite his salary; if he hurts the team, he hurts it no matter what the salary. Salary is a factor in trades since free agency, but so is "team chemistry," whether a player is a "good citizen," whether he show promise, etc. You might as well factor those in, too.

AG/DC Feb 04 2008 02:01 PM

In short. 1) Yes, there typically is. 2) No, it's not impossible to quantify. If money saved goes towards poor decisions, that counts against the evaluation of those poor decisions. We proceed on the assumption that money has an average value in wins, and good deals are when you exceed that. Bad deals are when you don't. 3) Salary without performance is a burden and a detriment to a team, over a year, over ten years. 4) I don't know what "What they got out of him was wins and losses, which they would have gotten out of him no matter what the salary" means regarding my position. What I tried to express was that they weren't able to get any more wins out of him due to salary demands which exceeded thier budget. He left the team as a free agent.

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'. but when you're trading for a player, you don't just want value - you also want total production! is there a solution? i dunno. maybe squaring the WARP3 would do the trick, thereby measuring total production X production rate. in this case, it might be more appropriate to do it on a year by year basis, and sum the results, as well. kent would be (i'll assume $2M avg salary here for expediency): {0.8 x [0.8 / (0.11/2)]} + {3.1 x [3.1 / (.19/2)]} + {5 x [5 / (.4/2)]} + ... = some number as compared to simply: 69.9 x [69.9 / (33.1/15.9)] = 2,347 for kent and 12.2 x [12.2 / (0.49/3.58)] = 1,087 for thompson the latter method is sure easier, but i think the former might be more correct, as you're not squaring the sum, but rather summing the squares. 3^2 + 3^2 = 18 (3+3)^2 = 36 i'm overall not sure if that'll make things better, or just more cumbersome, but if you've got the yearly salary numbers (i don't, necessarily) and the time (i don't really) and the inclination (not me), it might be worth an investigation.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 04 2008 03:58 PM

metsmarathon wrote: ...but if you've got the yearly salary numbers (i don't, necessarily) and the time (i don't really) and the inclination (not me), it might be worth an investigation. 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. basically, you would assume there to be three different types of players out there - pre-arbitration, mid arbitration, and post-arbitration - which have different wins/$ rates. the pre-arbitration list would be rookies, two year players, and three year players, right? so you figure, for a given year, what the total WARP3 for these players is, and their total salary, and divide to get a wins/$ rate for their salary. actually, to be more correct, you'd prolly do salary above league minimum (essentially replacement level) since you're looking at wins above replacement, and this might keep em on the same scale. for the mid-arbitration players, you'd look to all the players who are in their arbitration-eligible years, and do the same thing - total wins above replacement divided by total salary above league minimum. then repeat again with all players beyond their 6th year of service - all those who are eligible for free agency. these three populations get paid at markedly different rates, i'm sure you'd agree, making comparisons really only valid within the groups. then you could take any player in any given year, and figure out which group he belongs to, and figure out, based on his salary, how many wins above replacement you would expect him to have. the difference between this and his salary would tell you the approximate value you're getting from the chap. mind you, upon further reflection, i think this might be more of a measure of how effective and efficient your GM is as opposed to being able to measure the merits of one side of a trade against the other... but you tell me. i do know that this would be virtually impossible, i think, to figure out without working directly for baseball prospectus, and having access to their entire database instead of typing in one-by-one all the player names to get the WARP3 figures... (is such a thing available, btw, or is the manual entry 'DT cards' the only way to get at the WARP3 data?)... so the other way i've described sure looks better right about now!

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. the latter method is more a philosophical approach for somebody with far more time and access to attempt, and which may have already been approached by some out there, just not comprehensively, and not applied to the mets. i can start with kent/thompson for an initial sanity check.

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 07:17 AM

Here's B. Thank you, CBS. I'll guess that A is available at the MLBPA site somewhere.

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

year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 player total a$ 1.084 1.120 1.189 1.071 1.177 1.384 1.441 1.720 1.998 2.264 2.383 David Cone 1.72 W3^2(a/p) 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1.31 W3 2.6 2.60 p$ 4.25 Jeff Kent 348.19 W3^2(a/p) 6 55 68 28 10 23 26 17 40 37 37 18.66 W3 0.8 3.1 5 4.3 4.1 6.6 7.9 7.6 10.9 9.9 9.7 69.90 p$ 0.109 0.195 0.437 0.71 1.96 2.625 3.4 5.75 6 6 6 Ryan Thompson 244.53 W3^2(a/p) 8 62 135 40 - - - - - - - 15.64 W3 0.9 3.1 5 3.2 0 12.20 p$ 0.109 0.175 0.22 0.275 0.275 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. IMO, player evaluators are for the most part, usually judged on the amount of major league talent they are able to draft. For a GM with that tag (like Omar), i think the basis of judging the trade changes somewhat. Let's say for instance, we look at the Cedeno/Dotel deal for Hampton/Bell. My first instinct is to give SP very little credit for this deal. A.) he failed to sign Hamton after acquiring him, which should have been the point in the first place. That he broke down after signing with Colorado is a sympton of that terrible decision that Hampton made, not any insight of SP's. Derek Bell, after a solid first half, was a dreadful distraction in the second half that year. Conversely, the Mets dealt Dotel (who, arguable could have been their go-to releiver/closer in 2001, thereby perhaps sparing us the back-to-back Franco and Milk Baby blowups when the Mets were making their amazxing comeback that year. Plus, SP would have seen Cedeno first hand for the next two years, and would have realized that giving him a 4-year deal was laughable. Oh well, maybe not. :-)

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2008 09:07 AM

="Mark Healey"]Just speaking for myself, the math makes my head hurt. IMO, player evaluators are for the most part, usually judged on the amount of major league talent they are able to draft. For a GM with that tag (like Omar), i think the basis of judging the trade changes somewhat. I'm not sure where you want to go. We're judging trades, not drafts. ="Mark Healey"]Let's say for instance, we look at the Cedeno/Dotel deal for Hampton/Bell. My first instinct is to give SP very little credit for this deal. A.) he failed to sign Hamton after acquiring him, which should have been the point in the first place. 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. ="Mark Healey"]That he broke down after signing with Colorado is a sympton of that terrible decision that Hampton made, not any insight of SP's. The Colorado service isn't factored in, only 2000, just as the Jays get credit only for the time they controlled Cone. ="Mark Healey"]Derek Bell, after a solid first half, was a dreadful distraction in the second half that year. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. We count his productivity against his salary, and accept whatever we humbly get. ="Mark Healey"]Conversely, the Mets dealt Dotel (who, arguable could have been their go-to releiver/closer in 2001, thereby perhaps sparing us the back-to-back Franco and Milk Baby blowups when the Mets were making their amazxing comeback that year. 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. ="Mark Healey"]Plus, SP would have seen Cedeno first hand for the next two years, and would have realized that giving him a 4-year deal was laughable. 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

Mark Healey wrote: Conversely, the Mets dealt Dotel (who, arguable could have been their go-to releiver/closer in 2001, thereby perhaps sparing us the back-to-back Franco and Milk Baby blowups when the Mets were making their amazxing comeback that year. 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. year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 player total a$ 1.998 2.264 2.383 2.555 2.487 2.633 Octavio Dotel 582.31 W3^2(a/p) 65 225 224 35 32 1 24.13 W3 2.8 5.5 6.4 4.7 6 1.2 26.60 p$ 0.24 0.305 0.435 1.6 2.8 4.75 Roger Cedeno 8.08 W3^2(a/p) 2 6 2.84 W3 1.7 2.6 4.30 p$ 2.4 2.7 Mike Hampton 24.52 W3^2(a/p) 25 4.95 W3 8.4 8.40 p$ 5.75 Derek Bell 1.44 W3^2(a/p) 1 1.20 W3 1.9 1.90 p$ 5 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 hampton went 23:1 against he mets as well. and cone went 344:1 in favor of the mets. this could be a fun, albeit tedious project! whee!

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. i think the problem is in the salary scale. if a player makes league average money ($3M for roundness) and produces 1 win above replacement, he would be considered a tenth as valuable as a player who produced 1 win above replacement, but for the league minimum ($300k for roundness), and eight times more valuable than a player who produces 1 win above replacement and makes the league maximum ($24M for roundness). this means that production for production, a rookie produces has 80 times the value of an arod, thereby blowing up the scale to kingdom come. this is driving the numbers to silly extremes moreso than the exponent used. if i pull out the exponent, so that i'm looking at year-by-year value [warp3/(player$/avg$)], summed, i get 36.2:1 for the viola trade, 207.5:1 for the cone trade, and 31.61:1 for the hampton trade... cubing warp3 gives me 16.2, 743, and 15.5, respectively. and, finally, and i think i might like this better, as it drives down the dynamic range on the salaries, if i take the square root of the salary ratio, then sum the values, i get 12:1, 67:1, and 9:1, respectively. um, that means calculating for each year [WARP3 / SQRT (player$ / avg$)]. so now a league average player is about 3 times less valuable than a league minimum player per warp, and is also about 3 times less valuable than a league maximum player.

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. I decided to go with the latter. The Mets signed Piazza with the hope of extending him --- and they almost didn't, as happened with Hampton. That they were able to extend one and not the the other feeds into the wisdom of the trade and therefore the subsequent evaluation. Kent's contract with the Giants is an extension of his term of service that took him from the Blue Jays to the Mets to the Phils to the Giants. That he got extended by the Giants may not seem that relevant when we analyze the Cone trade, but it is, because (1) if the Giants got him (at a relatively cheap price) to extend, it's specualtive to think he wouldn't have with the Mets or Indians (or, at least more speculative than concluding that he wouldn't have), and if we're going to give the Mets credit for win shares earned under Piazza's subsequent seven-year contract, we have to subtract win shares earned under extensions by players they traded away; and (2) much more importantly, those win shares are going to be taken away from the Mets when we examine the trade that sent Kent and Vizcaino to the Indians for Baerga, so it would be unfair not to credit those shares to the Mets in judging Kent's acquisition.

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... - - year 2007 player total a$ 2.944556 Jose Castro - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ - Sean Henry - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ - Jeff Conine (0.12) W3*sqrt(a/p) (0.12) - (0.10) W3 (0.10) - - p$ 2.00 Jose Castro & Sean Henry for Jeff Conine 0 : -0.12 mets lose drew butera - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ - dustin martin - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ - luis castillo 1.07 W3*sqrt(a/p) 1.07 - 1.50 W3 1.50 - - p$ 5.75 drew butera & dustin martin for luis castillo 0 : 1.07 mets win Brian Bannister 16.42 W3*sqrt(a/p) 16.42 - 5.90 W3 5.90 - - p$ 0.38 Ambiorix Burgos 1.86 W3*sqrt(a/p) 1.86 - 0.70 W3 0.70 - - p$ 0.42 brian bannister for ambiorix burgos 16.42 : 1.86 = 8.83 : 1 mets lose Henry Owens 4.18 W3*sqrt(a/p) 4.18 - 1.50 W3 1.50 - - p$ 0.38 Matt Lindstrom 8.35 W3*sqrt(a/p) 8.35 - 3.00 W3 3.00 - - p$ 0.38 Jason Vargas (1.11) W3*sqrt(a/p) (1.11) - (0.40) W3 (0.40) - - p$ 0.38 Adam Bostick - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ - Henry Owens & Matt Lindstrom for Jason Vargas & Adam Bostick 12.53 : -1.11 mets lose Heath Bell 16.58 W3*sqrt(a/p) 16.58 - 6.00 W3 6.00 - - p$ 0.39 Royce Ring 1.67 W3*sqrt(a/p) 1.67 - 0.60 W3 0.60 - - p$ 0.38 Jon Adkins - W3*sqrt(a/p) - - - W3 - - - p$ 0.38 Ben Johnson (0.28) W3*sqrt(a/p) (0.28) - (0.10) W3 (0.10) - - p$ 0.38 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

metsmarathon wrote: 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... 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

]The Yankees were simply better that year. 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. 2) I never claim that the Mets inability to sign Hampton beyond 2000 hurts the deal. I do underscore the reality of the deal at the time it was made. Three things happen: a) they resign him at an unGodly amount that makes the good he can bring in come at a dear price b) they resign him at an unGodly amount and his career goes in the tank exactly as it did c) confronted by these first two possibilities, they fail to resign him. Confronted by these three, the deal has its limitations going at the time it was made. The Mets had to get their returns fast. Now we have to weight the returns. The flaws in being unable to weigh sufficiently different types win shares is challenging. I think first we have to nail down the formula to compare under the initial assumption that all win shares are equal. You've got to start somewhere. This is a flaw with win shares in general, in my opininion. Bill Mazeroski's homer against the Yankees is worth what? Fifty win shares? But it's not in his career total.

Rockin' Doc Feb 05 2008 08:47 PM

Payton? Forget it, he's rolling.

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 09:02 PM

A quick guess says. 1981: - Reardon > Ellis Valentine Mets lose. 1982: - Greg Harris > George Foster This is actually Alex Treviņo, Greg Harris and Jim Kern for Foster. This is one that I guess the Mets win on win shares but the money spent on him per win share throws this back to Cincy. Mike Scott > Danny Heep Congratulations Houston. And congratulations to Met fans for not treating Danny Heep like crap over this. Mazzilli > Darling + Terrell Mets stomp Texas. Neil Allen + Ownby > Keith Hernandez Mets stomp Whitey Herzog. Carlos diaz + Bailor > Sid Fernandez Mets. What was Los Angeles thinking? And where did Diaz disappear to after 1986. He was alternating good year/bad year and then the record stops after 1986. - G.Young, M.Lee, M.Cook > Ray Knight This is definitely one that the Mets kind of lose on raw win share numbers, as Young and Lee had the kind of long modest careers that can add up, but the Mets clearly won on Knight's 1986 post-season. - Terrell > Hojo Mets. - Hubie Brooks +Winningham,Youmans,Fitzgerald > G.Carter This deserves a close look. I bet it's pretty damn close. I don't believe for a minute the Mets can't win in 1986 with Hubie at short, but that's not what happened. When Carter signed, he briefly became baseball's highest paid player. - Jose Oquendo > Salazar, J.Young St. Louis wins here. We gave up on Oquendo too young. Too bad Whitey rarely had a place to play him. - Schiraldi +Gardner,Christensen,Tarver > Ojeda I'll say Mets on 1986 win shares for Ojeda and loss shares for Schiraldi. - Beane + Latham,Clink > Teufel Bam! Mets. - Kevin Mitchell+abner,Jefferson > McReynolds San Diego wins. The salary helps. - Hearn+Anderson, Gozzo > Cone Mets smash hit. - Orosco > Tapani, Whitehurst Terrible deal for the Mets. - Aguilera +Tapani, West,Drummond > Viola Mets probably lose. - Dykstra + McDowell > Juan Samuel Mets are dumb. - Samuel > A.Pena + M.Marshall Mets are desperate. Probably still lose.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 05 2008 11:53 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: Payton? Forget it, he's rolling. 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. Assuming you trade six guys for one. The money is even --- the one guy makes as much as the six combined --- if the one guy gives you 9 win shares above replacement and the six guys each give you 1.5, it would appear to be a wash. But it's not. The six guys are giving you your nine WARP pints but taking up six roster slots --- and a much bigger proportion of your plate appearances/innings pitched. Either each win share above replacement should be given an increasing exponent, --- such as 1.0 for the first, 1.2 for the seconed, 1.4 for the third --- or the WARP3 should be divided by appearances some how that's fair for hitters and pitchers.

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. also, the other needed piece is how to adequately calculate value. right now, we've got low value as a positive number between zero and one, and high value as a positive number between one and positive infinity. low value should be negative. high value should be positive. average value should be zero. i'm stepping back from the notion that players should be grouped into various salary pools. when you're building a team, you're not required to have any number of players from each pool, just 25 (40?) players total. how you mix those roster spots up between the player pools is up to the team, as is how much each player should be paid. so i would suggest that the appropriate thing would be to look at player salary compared to average salary. i would define value as WAA(actual) - WAA(expected) where WAA(expected) = expected WAA for a player who makes n times the average league salary, and n = salary(player) divided by salary(league average)

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...