The Value of an Extra Year of Control at the Trade Deadline

What determines which prospect gets included in trade packages for mid-season deals? A common misconception is that it is directly related to the quality of the impact player being acquired. In reality, there are many other factors that go into the decision to include a specific prospect in a trade, including needs of the trade partner, their rating of the prospect, the amount of salary of the acquired player, and the length of time the acquired player is under team control. An interesting historical example of the value of an extra year of control is Cliff Lee. He was traded twice near the trade deadline in successive years, as his contract was moving toward expiration. He was traded from Cleveland to Philadelphia in July of 2009, and traded again from Seattle to Texas in July of 2010, as he inched closer to his free agency at the end of the 2010 season. (Note: Cliff Lee was traded a third time in this one-year window, following the 2009 offseason, from Philadelphia to Seattle. I left this trade out of the comparison to create more of an apple-to-apples, mid-season trade match up)

For the first half of the 2009 season in Cleveland, Lee turned in a solid performance as it would have been unreasonable to expect him to sustain his Cy Young Award winning level of 2008. With an expected 40 to 45 regular season starts remaining until his free agency, the Indians traded him to Philadelphia, acquiring the #2 (Carrasco), 3 (Marson), 4 (Donald) and 10 (Knapp) top ranked prospects (according to Baseball America) in the Phillies system. When Lee was traded 345 days later from Seattle to Texas, with an expected 15 regular season starts remaining before free agency, the Mariners acquired the #2 (Smoak), and 17 (Beaven) rated prospects in the Rangers system, plus two unranked minor leaguers—Josh Lueke, who was pitching in Low A and infielder Matt Lawson in AA ball. (Mark Lowe was also sent to the Rangers along with Lee in this deal)

Based on Baseball America’s rankings, the contrast between the two prospect packages is dramatic. The 2009 trade that left the Phillies with three times as much time under team control yielded the far more impressive package. Lee’s performance was relatively stable over the window of these two trades, as there was no major injury or dramatic deviation in his performance expectations. It’s fair to say one major factor that differentiated the two groups of prospects was the amount of time the star player had under team control.

As the next few days wind down it will be interesting to see how “length of time under team control” figures into the trade market for starting pitchers. Below I’ve listed five names that are frequently mentioned as trade candidates and their remaining salary and length of time under team control. I’ve also added where they rank (for this season only) on my Starting Pitcher Rankings (SPR). I’ll discuss this metric further in a future post, but think of it as their ranking among the top 140 starting pitchers in MLB for this season. I like to think of the top 20 ranked pitchers as performing like staff aces this year, 21 to 45 as pitching like #2’s, and 46-75 as pitching like #3’s.

4 Comments

Hi Vince,
As we saw yesterday, Zach Greinke was moved from the Brewers to the Angels in exchange for LA’s #2 (Segura), #4 (Hellweg), and #9 (Pena) rated prospects according to Baseball America. As far as projections go, this can be a decent package for Milwaukee moving forward for a player with an expected 15-18 starts before pending free agency.

How does this compare to the package of prospects the Brewers received in exchange for Greinke when acquiring him from the Royals in December of 2010? With a projected 50-55 starts before free agency, the Royals agreed to a trade in which they received only 1 top-10 prospect in return for Greinke (Escobar) at the time. I know with the benefit of hindsight, it can be easy to say, but it begs the question if the Royals should have demanded more at the time?

Thanks so much

Troy–My initial reaction to the trade with the Angels is that the Brewers overpaid for Greinke, considering that he is a rental player. However, as I mentioned a few posts ago, adding a player to a team that has a chance at a Division Title is worth more than adding a player that only gives you hope for a wild card. It’s exactly the opposite rationale prior to the addition of the 2nd wild card, when just getting into the playoffs was the goal. They seem to have expectations of signing Greinke to a long-term deal and possibly letting some of their existing starting rotation walk away in their option years (Haren and E. Santana). In the Brewers/Royals deal involving Greinke there were a lot of moving parts, with Betancourt coming over with him to essentially replace Escobar in the lineup. When that deal was made, Odorizzi (who recently was the starting pitcher in the Futures game) was the Brewers #1 prospect and Jeffress was #3. The other consideration from the standpoint of the Royals is to try to time your key prospects so they all hit the majors within the same 3-5 year window. In other words, in the case of a team that is in a clear rebuild mode and several yrs from being competitive (like the Royals were 2 yrs ago), mid-level (but highly touted) prospects may be preferred to those that are Major League-ready, whose service time clock will start ticking too soon.

Vince:
Great analysis. Since the Angels traded prime prospects for a player who will be a free agent in a few months do you think they considered the chances of resigning him when putting together the trade package?
RB

Ron-
Sure. That may be the factor that pushed the Angels over the top and made them willing to give up their top prospect. The other factor to consider is Segura (the top prospect in the package) is forecast by some to be a 2B, not a SS. If that is the Angels perspective on him, he has considerably less value. This is reminiscent of the debate six-months ago regarding the then Yankee, now Mariner Jesus Montero–is he a catcher or a DH? There is a huge difference in his value, depending on which of those two positions he settles into. It may not be as extreme, but the same case can be made for SS and 2B.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: