Overprotection of prospects?

by toonsterwu on Jul 11, 2008 11:19 AM EDT

I've been very curious on this topic.

So, it's been fairly clear in recent years that, with the changes in the economics of the games, teams have started to value their prospects even more. On the surface (as I haven't done any conclusive research into it), more teams are willing to give their prospects a chance, particularly at a time when the game is flush with money, making FA costs exorbitant for average talents.

That said, I've been somewhat surprised by the market so far this year. No one expected the Indians or the A's to land more than 1 top chip, so both did fine in that regards. That said, there was a very small market, by most accounts, for two of the most intriguing names. Sabathia, by most accounts, only had the Yankees/Phillies legitimately chasing him, with the Cubs/Dodgers/maybe Rays on the periphery. There was that report that the Red Sox pulled out when the Indians asked about Bowden and/or Reddick (don't remember the exact reports). Now, Stark reports that the Phillies wouldn't offer up Carrasco or Marson. Harden, on the other hand, seems to have been chased by only the Cubs.

Are we getting to the point that prospects are overvalued? I love following the minors as much as the next person on this board, but in the end, there is still a high miss ratio on prospects. We're getting to the point where borderline B+ guys are often protected, and some B guys as well.

Was curious what people thought.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting topic

few things i would “modify” in your post…

the A’s didnt land 1 top chip for Harden..they got more quantity than quality.

I dont think the reason for the lack of interest has to do with not wanting to trade away prospects…for example, last year, the braves and diamonbacks gave away MULTIPLE goodprospects for Tex and Haren..

this year it has more to do with the players, Harden is always hurt and CC is a rent a player..I think that is more the reason for the lack of interest than not wanting to deal prospects

and we are just starting to see teams value their own prospects..in 5 years, almost everyone will draft like the Rays did and put 5-10 million in the draft every year. Young players are taking over the game..that is more and more obvious.

by jsmall404 on Jul 11, 2008 11:29 AM EDT 0 recs

Not everyone...

can draft like the Rays. It’s easy to get the top players every year in the draft when you pick in the Top 5 every season and you don’t spend money on vets.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jul 11, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

i disagree on the A's trade, but it may be an issue of definition

I define a top chip as a B+ or better type chip, value wise, not talent. That can come in different types (the high upside kid, the “ready” player with good upside). Gallagher fits in the latter for me, as he has 2/3 type potential with his plus fastballs (throws a mid-90’s 4 seam, low 90’s 2 seamer), a curve that is inconsistent due to how the Cubs used him in the minors, but nasty, and decent change and slider.

I would argue that in the Haren and Tex trades, the receiving teams only got 1 top value. I love Brett Anderson, but he was a borderline top value. Salty was the only top value in the Tex trade, IMO, as the other two top chips were upside chips, unless you thnk Harrison is more than a mid-back end of the rotationt type pitcher,
__

All that said, certainly big trades can still happen, particularly when teams are going all-out for someone (or if they bid against themselves).

by toonsterwu on Jul 11, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think

It has to do with a number of things. One of the first things I notice is a strong move to release vets. Sexson, Edmonds, Borowski, are just a few. But I feel like before this year, these sort of players would either still be on the team until their contract runs out or be dumped for prospects. Now teams are taking the hit, and releasing them. What I think now is that almost all teams with a payroll under 100, are shying away from the big veteran, big contract trend.

I don’t think the value of prospects in a trade has changed much. I think the majority of teams are slower to dish out money for big names because they see a trend. The Yankees/Mets (who are the epitome of building a team from FAs/vets) haven’t made it to the WS in a while. While teams with plenty of homegrown talent--CWS, PHI, MIN, LAA, TB, MIL—-are doing well. That’s just my opinion

by sagecoll on Jul 11, 2008 4:01 PM EDT 0 recs

I disagree a bit

The releases you mentioned aren’t a sign of the times I don’t think. Edmonds (although he has had some clutch hits and regained a semblance of performance with the Cubs), was a 38 YO with a .455 OPS with the Padres, who hadn’t done much on the field other than get hurt in quite a while. The Padres were trying to catch lightning in a bottle a la the White Sox signing Erstad, hoping for something that didn’t happen, and cut their losses. Borowski has been atrocious for quite a while as well, despite the staggering saves total from last year. Sexson, while in recent years having good 2nd halves to slightly negate moribund first halves, just hasn’t shown any signs that he is still a major league 1B. The trend here is that these guys were all horrible, and liabilities to their teams. In addition, all 3 teams have had very disappointing seasons, as all had playoff aspirations coming into the season. Thus, I think they all have had motiviation outside of market trends to make these moves in effort to cut their losses and try out other players. None of them could be dumped for prospects, as there weren’t any takers. Finally, teams with lower payrolls by definition shy away with big veteran, big contract trends. That’s why they have lower payrolls.

by killa on Jul 13, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

My two cents

First, I’d agree with you for the most part: prospects are overrated somewhat. But the reason is that big league teams can receive a boom or a bust on a prospect for an incredibly low price versus the high price of a busted free agent (Barry Zito, anyone). Now, I’m no econ major , but when you’re talking about a situation that is low financial risk, high reward versus high financial risk, moderate reward (or high, or low, depending on the FA), it’s only logical to take the first option.

I do, however, think this should all even out. As teams stop going wild over mediocre free agents and (possibly) high end free agents, the price of a star should become slightly more reasonable and the two should be in some sort of balance. While rich teams could potentially just buy all the “prime” stars, this has significantly less room for profits and high returns.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 11, 2008 11:10 PM EDT 0 recs

Baseball is just like the stock market

There is always going to be overvalued and undervalued assets.

Remember like 6-7 years ago, when a team would buy an average rental player for the stretch run and give up their best talent? Best part was espn would report the trade as “Expos acquire Bartolo Colon for three minor leaguers,” they wouldn’t even list their names, which turned out to be Sizemore, Phillips and I forget. Now obviously the GMs knew who they were dealing, but fans, for the most part didn’t care. Nobody valued minor league talent much, except for some wise GMs.

Then, as teams started to realize that minor league talent is an immense help to one’s team most teams have overcompensated. Sure having a stud prospect is nice, but its more than likely he’ll bomb out. Teams just became afraid of dealing the next big thing.

I think baseball GMs, for the most part, are like market traders. There is a lot of group think going on. Moreover, the best guys are the one’s that take advantage of this. They go left when everyone else is going right. They valued prospects highly when nobody even cared about them and now they are picking up undervalued vets for peanuts.

Carlos Quentin's time has arrived.

by Team Moneyball on Jul 12, 2008 3:54 PM EDT 0 recs

Cliff Lee

was the other part. Granted, Stevens and Drew were in that deal, but most tend to not mention them.

by toonsterwu on Jul 12, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

Stevens

Lee Stevens was a salary dump to balance out Colon, since Minaya wasn’t able to add salary with the Expos being broke. So, he was really an “asset” going the way of Montreal in that deal, in the sense that he was no longer worth anything near his salary.

by BobbyMac on Jul 13, 2008 7:51 AM EDT up 0 recs