Re: Trade Rumors - Cards looking at Oswalt?
Posted: July 26 10, 3:38 pm
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that you were just making things up.cpebbles wrote: A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.
A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that you were just making things up.cpebbles wrote: A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.
I would say that I anxiously await Oswalt becoming the latest in a string of a dozen or so big-name, big-money pitchers being traded for packages that most fans laughed at, but I'm all too aware of Ed Wade's M.O. He's eventually going to be fired with Oswalt still in Houston because he isn't going to take a fair trade.Vidor wrote:Well, let's offer to trade Ryan for Oswalt straight up and see what happens.
$100 million minus 25 replacement-level salaries is $90 million. That is 20 to 27 wins on the open-market (Final 2010 free-agent values are not in yet). A replacement-level team is estimated at 44 wins. So actually it's a 64 to 71 win team.taxman wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't understand that you were just making things up.cpebbles wrote: A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.
That argument has been made countless times, and even statistically supported. It's not a massive factor though. As a ~4 win player, Oswalt can be expected to increase the chances of the Cardinals winning a World Series by something miniscule like 2%.AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Couldn't you maek the argument that a win to the Cardinals/Phillies/Rays/Reds/Any Contender is worth more than a win to the Astros who are aimlessly amassing wins while contenders are either trying to make it to the playoffs or assemble teams that will be capable of making deep runs once in the playoffs. The money is 16 million a year. That is a sunk cost. But, if he brings you a WS title instead of missing the playoffs completely, obviously that is going to skew the value of his contract to a team.
Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com reports that Roy Oswalt will not approve a trade unless his $16 million option for 2012 is picked up by his new team.
We already knew this last week, however Oswalt's recent comments on "restructuring" has confused the matter. According to Crasnick's understanding, Oswalt might be willing to defer some of the funds, nothing more.
Source: Jerry Crasnick
Related: Phillies, Cardinals
Except that the total opening day payrolls for MLB were $3.69B. Therefore, with 2430 total wins available, each win is worth $1.518M, give or take a little rounding.cpebbles wrote:$100 million minus 25 replacement-level salaries is $90 million. That is 20 to 27 wins on the open-market (Final 2010 free-agent values are not in yet). A replacement-level team is estimated at 44 wins. So actually it's a 64 to 71 win team.taxman wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't understand that you were just making things up.cpebbles wrote: A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.
Market value of a win is based on AVAILABLE players -- those who change teams. Not every player is available; the cost of those you can't have is irrelevent.taxman wrote:Except that the total opening day payrolls for MLB were $3.69B. Therefore, with 2430 total wins available, each win is worth $1.518M, give or take a little rounding.cpebbles wrote:$100 million minus 25 replacement-level salaries is $90 million. That is 20 to 27 wins on the open-market (Final 2010 free-agent values are not in yet). A replacement-level team is estimated at 44 wins. So actually it's a 64 to 71 win team.taxman wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't understand that you were just making things up.cpebbles wrote: A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.
So, either:
1. Your estimate of the value of a win is incorrect ($90 million / $1.518M = approximately 59 wins); or
2. The market is compensating players improperly... but that can't be possible, since you've clarified that every front office knows how to value a win.
jeeshtaxman wrote: 1. Your estimate of the value of a win is incorrect ($90 million / $1.518M = approximately 59 wins); or
2. The market is compensating players improperly... but that can't be possible, since you've clarified that every front office knows how to value a win.
BINGO!skmsw wrote:
Market value of a win is based on AVAILABLE players -- those who change teams. Not every player is available; the cost of those you can't have is irrelevent.