mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026 09:54 am
It should be understood that with any of these young players/prospects, you have two attributes of "value" which are running opposite each other:
(1) years of team control remaining and
(2) how "proven" the player is at the ML level
The trend seems to be that "value" sort of peaks after 2 or maybe 3 seasons of "proof" of high level performance at the ML level, but with then only 3-4 years of team control left.
For a similar prospect, "value" is lower with six years of team control, but no seasons of "proof" of ML performance.
And for a similar player, "value" is lower if you have 5 years of "proof", but only one year of team control remaining.
Don't disagree.
Just want to add how sad it is, that in thia day and age GMs place more emphasis on "control" than actual production. Winning baseball used to just be about production on the field. I understand the need now with players making outrageous money in free agency l, but seems to me that a lot of owners would rather have "controllable years" (even if those controllable years are pretty awful - looking at most of the Carinslas here) to actual on-field talent.
I still think its crazy that GMs trade contracts rather than players. (With a nod to understanding Financials have to make sense for some teams). Where did they go wrong???
I think that all trades start with production as the basis of the
trade. Then the haggling over what that production is worth.
Maybe, but also think a lot of GMs (including STL) keeps some guys because they still have lots of control even though the talent/production is clearly not there.
I expect that the prospects with many years of team control, but not demonstrated production at the ML level, are prioritized and kept because the team sees attributes/skills in them that they believe will turn into demonstrated production at the ML level.
The team may, or may not, be right about its assessment, but that is why guys are kept and given, in some cases, multiple chances to demonstrate ML success.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2026 09:54 am
It should be understood that with any of these young players/prospects, you have two attributes of "value" which are running opposite each other:
(1) years of team control remaining and
(2) how "proven" the player is at the ML level
The trend seems to be that "value" sort of peaks after 2 or maybe 3 seasons of "proof" of high level performance at the ML level, but with then only 3-4 years of team control left.
For a similar prospect, "value" is lower with six years of team control, but no seasons of "proof" of ML performance.
And for a similar player, "value" is lower if you have 5 years of "proof", but only one year of team control remaining.
Don't disagree.
Just want to add how sad it is, that in thia day and age GMs place more emphasis on "control" than actual production. Winning baseball used to just be about production on the field. I understand the need now with players making outrageous money in free agency l, but seems to me that a lot of owners would rather have "controllable years" (even if those controllable years are pretty awful - looking at most of the Carinslas here) to actual on-field talent.
I still think its crazy that GMs trade contracts rather than players. (With a nod to understanding Financials have to make sense for some teams). Where did they go wrong???
I think that all trades start with production as the basis of the
trade. Then the haggling over what that production is worth.
Maybe, but also think a lot of GMs (including STL) keeps some guys because they still have lots of control even though the talent/production is clearly not there.
I expect that the prospects with many years of team control, but not demonstrated production at the ML level, are prioritized and kept because the team sees attributes/skills in them that they believe will turn into demonstrated production at the ML level.
The team may, or may not, be right about its assessment, but that is why guys are kept and given, in some cases, multiple chances to demonstrate ML success.
Your first paragraph is nicely put. Seems to be a strategy.
