More on Peavy

Paul DePodesta of the Padres front office comments on the team’s reason for trading Jake Peavy.

We are looking to get better.

It’s really that simple. We’re not trying to trade certain players, and we’re certainly not looking to move players just to move them. As with any off-season or trading deadline, we’re assessing the market value for our players to see whether or not that value surpasses their value to the Padres. If you have something you value at one million dollars, it would be foolish to refuse to consider selling it for twenty million dollars. On the flip side, it would also be foolish to sell it for anything less than one million. The thing that makes the market work is that each player has a different value to virtually every Club.

I have found that the market value for Peavy’s services for the average team exceeds what the Padres are paying him. And given the state of the team, it is likely that several teams value Peavy more than the Padres. DePodesta also doesn’t dismiss the idea of acquiring major-league players.

2 Responses “More on Peavy”

  1. Chris says:

    J.C., I have a risk assessment challenge for you. First, a little history. I stumbled upon your site a few months ago and have been a fairly consistent reader ever since. The one thing that entices me the most is your diligence in researching the topic in question. So, I thought who better than to propose a baseball risk related challenge to.

    A little bit about me and why i’m asking. I consider myself a big fan of baseball in general, obviously my favorite team is the Braves, but I wouldn’t call myself a fanatic so to speak. My passion is strat-o-matic and I spend a lot of time analyzing statistics. I value statistics highly, but I believe they are only part of the equation in evaluating players with regards to actual Major League teams (I stick purely to statistics in relation to strat-o-matic). Regardless of my love for statistics, the theory I am about to propose will likely require analysis that is way over my head. Hence, why I’m proposing the challenge to you.

    Here’s my theory. As you know, many Braves fans are openly debating whether or not we (i consider myself part of the family being such a huge fan and all) should part with one of our top prospects, specifically Thomas Hanson, in a trade for Jake Peavy. Some of the debates are all over the place but the majority of those against acquiring Peavy point to his proposed injury risk. The majority of those supporting acquiring Peavy point to the large number of “can’t miss” prospects who don’t always “pan out”. My question is this, is it possible to assess or quantify Peavy’s injury risk and compare that against the probability of Thomas Hanson reaching his potential? Maybe it’s not fair to directly compare the two considering there are many other factors in play regarding a trade, but I am very curious as to which is, well, less of a risk.

    I have no idea if you would be interested in this topic nor whether it falls within your expertise, but I figure it doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst you can say is no thanks, right? I anxiously await your response.
    Chris

  2. Cliff says:

    Chris,

    One of the contributors to The Hardball Times has developed a method of putting a major league expectancy on a propect based on his consensus overall prospect number, his age and level of Minor League Ball, and whether he is a pitcher or position player.

    The same contributor has also done some thing to estimate the factors for injury risk.

    Then he basically uses a methodology like JC’s (probably not as good) to look at the “value” of the talent in dollars going in each direction.

     After looking at these, I am afraid that the winner of the Peavy sweepstakes will have negative value.  That is, he obviously has slightly elevated injury risk (the last 3 or 4 “foremarm tightness” guys the Braves have had all have had one year plus off for “Tommy John” surgery).  Plus, although he is below market, it really isn’t “that much” (JC’s estimate is 3 million per year until the option year).  Further, as far as  the Braves are concrned, they have done a poor job of recognizing pitching injuries (Chuck James, Soriano, Blaine Boyer, on and on).

    So, for example, if Yunel Escobar were included in a deal, he is Major League minimum in 09, super two or minimum in 10, and arb in 011, 012, and 013.  The “excess value” of Yunel (as a premier defensive shortstop with somewhere from slightly above to significantly above average offensive projections) probably exceeds that of Peavy, without factoring the relative injury risk for a 25 year old shortstop as compared to a 27 year old pitcher with at least some sign of arm trouble.  

    Comparing Hanson.  To win the World Series, moving him might be good.  But my estimate is that Hanson has an 80% chance of being a Major League 5 next year (bring up in June after “super 2″ day) and reaching #3 status by his second full year and maintaining that.  In “value” (cost compared to what it would cost on free agent market to replace him) the upcoming yers of Hanson are worth more than the Peavy contract.

    The Braves would be better off to pay cash to Sheets, Lowe, or Sabathia and trade for a lesser starter than trading for Peavy with either Hanson or Escobar in the deal.