Savin Hillbilly said:
The trouble with this is the counter-argument has plenty of support, too. What could we have gotten for Ryan Lavarnway in January 2012? What could we get now? Lars Anderson, same deal. For all we know, Mookie Betts is right now at the crest of his value. I don't think that's true, and I certainly hope it's not true, but it's entirely possible.
Blanket statements about the value of prospects or the wisdom of keeping vs. holding them are likely to be false.
I'm not making a blanket statement in favor of keeping vs. holding prospects though. I'm simply saying that until our own needs are met we avoid giving away that which might meet out needs. Consider Lars Anderson. If Lars Anderson had actually lived up to his potential as a middle of the order 1B would we have traded him for anything in the world? No, that was a huge need for this club. So then it's no about maximizing a prospects value to the club, which can be done either through years of service or via trade, it's about filling the actual specific needs of the 25 man roster.
That's the case with Betts vis a vie Bradley and Bogaerts. The odds are good that Bradley will hit well enough to lock up CF full time. Don't mistake my caution for doubt here, I think Bradley is going to be an incredibly valuable player long term. But lets give him 2014 before we trade away our safety net for the negative outcome in Betts. Same with Bogaerts, though there we do have Marrero as well.
Now maybe Betts and/or Marrero scuttle their value with a bad 2014 in the minors, but then I'd say they're both at least as likely to increase their value. Betts was a fringe entrant into the Baseball America Top 100 this past winter. If he continues at even 80% of his current clip he's going to take a massive jump up that list. If Marrero's bat continues to look worthwhile in AA he's likely going to join that list as well as slick fielding SS with good contact, OBP, and base stealing ability tend to be pretty valued. We'll have more answers and it's a good chance they'll each move their value from the A-/B+ range respectively into the A+/A- range.
I thought the problem with UZR was its accuracy, not necessarily the basic notion of the value of defense relative to offense that it assumes.
I'd describe my problem with it as sitting firmly at the confluence between it's sample size demands and it's variance in degree, and seeing just how muddy those waters are. When applied over sample sizes smaller than what it works well for (multiple combined seasons) it gives out what I view to be exaggerated numbers to either side of the spectrum.
When we then put those numbers through an equation to total up the runs above average on a per season basis we get goofy things like Shane Victorino's positionally adjusted 2013 defense alone being worth more than Giancarlo Stanton's 2013 offense. Given that LF and RF have the same positional adjustment would any of us take a league average bat with Victorino's defense in LF over Stanton's bat? Hell no. And therefore we see that UZR based defensive RAR values (and the WAR values associated with them) simply don't pass the smell test.
Is defense important? Sure, but I feel like there's been something of an over-correction made along the way and now we're stuck with a lot of people trying to treat defensive value as the new OBP when it's not as cut and dry as all that. It matters, but so does the offensive side of the balance sheet and that is far more quantifiable at this point in time.
It's not something to force the FO's hand over in either direction. They shouldn't feel forced to trade anybody, but neither should they feel constrained from trading anybody. They should look at needs and try to fill them. If they can make a trade that they think is reasonable in terms of value for value, and it fills a need, they should make it.
I agree completely. There is no stipulation in either direction based simply on residence time in the farm system. There is real value in filling as many needs from the farm as possible when opposed to FA or trade though, since farm hands have far lower salaries and much greater roster flexibility.
I'm arguing for a more cautious hand in confirming our needs are met, not that we never trade prospects and try shoehorning them in all around the diamond in order to aim for some fantasy 25 man with all home-grown players. I don't want a roster as incestuous as the Cardinals, free agency and trades are democratic. But no one is going to let us win a trade for a SS, 3B, CF, or C in two years if we trade away our "redundant" guys now and the front runners fail to pan out.
I think the argument that elite power hitting corner OFs are easy to find on the free agent market, while CFs or Cs or skill infielders are nearly impossible to find, is simply false. Some years this is true, some years it isn't. Who were the big position player free agents this year? A second baseman, a CF, a catcher, a couple of shortstops (one of whom is still out there), and one corner OF (not an elite power guy, either). How about next year? Almost the only FAs even worth looking at will be third basemen. One of the biggest myths that gets perpetuated around here is that prolific power hitters playing LF or 1B are easy to find. In fact, just as at every other position, mediocre players of that type are always easy to find.
I'm not arguing that elite power hitters are easy to find, just that the next step down from that group at LF, 1B, and DH are more regularly available than the one step down from elite SS, C, 2B, 3B, and CF options are. Every FA class is different and we're likely to start seeing a reduction in the very good to elite players who make it through period as mid-market teams are adding new revenue pretty rapidly thanks to new TV deals and the like, but the trend has been for good bats with questionable defensive value to make it to FA and then sign reasonable deals more often than the guys who are better all around players. I'd rather focus on locking up our own up the middle core components and then trade any depth that might be left than go chasing a LF/1B/DH power bat type assuming the up the middle spots will work themselves out.
Don't get me wrong, as soon as there is good confidence in our harder to fill position guys being legitimate answers then I'm all for pursuing someone like Stanton, even at a mild overpay if that is what the Marlins would accept simply because his extension isn't going to involve a lot of post-prime years. But I'd rather know that SS, 3B, CF, and C are set and live with a Nick Swisher type in LF than have a Stanton in LF and give out the kind of deal Peralta got this winter from the Cardinals.