Tweet
Agreed.
There are two different things in play:
- I think that one of the most important things that owners can do - and often don't - is monetize the value of a new closer. Axford's success will only make this play easier to make, actually. In fact, bring up his name in talks regarding these new closers in the off-season or future seasons.
The half-life of such players is not very encouraging, so flipping a guy who looks like he's locked into a role - like Salas around the 12-15 SV mark - for 2011 value for your contending team is crucial.
- Look, it's natural for any of us to enjoy seeing our dart toss in a crowded saves field pan out as a closer for months. Then he seems like a keeper, too, and suddenly it doesn't seem worth it to get an All-Star lame duck closer. Why bother, one might think? My new guy is pitching really well, too, AND he's got keeper value to help me again next year. But what often ends up happening is you miss out on current gains, and there are little or no future gains, either.
Salas has pitched very well, and potential lame duck swaps like Brian Wilson and Huston Street have gotten hurt, but usually moving the unestablished guy for the established one gives you better stats and more guaranteed performance. Is it ALWAYS true? No, but I say 'usually.' Salas has been a best-case scenario, pretty much, yet now if you're a contender you're wondering if he'll get the 5 or 6 SV you need down the stretch. And now that 2012 keeper value is in play, perhaps.
...............
- The different issue in the early season is who was going to get the job. Salas was not a huge star in the Cardinals' organization, La Russa's decision-making is, er, different, and yes, he liked Sanchez better. To ignore that because Salas hits on his first 3-4 SV chances would have been foolish. Obviously, when he gets to 8 or 10 ok and Sanchez's arm falls off, now we know that Salas was the correct play. We didn't always know it.
As for "I told you so," if that was my goal, could I have picked a worse thread to do it in? There are plenty of players this year that I practically begged people to sell high on at midseason. I'm not reviving those threads now that they, too have "crapped the bed."
I commented on THIS one because I think a lot of newer owners are still looking for commentary that reshapes how they think about "going for it." It's very difficult, human nature I guess, to trade what seems like a bargain that you found yourself. But that's the very thing that often wins leagues.
I should know from 2010 - a rival and now three-time winner took me down when he traded Jason Heyward at 10 right when he was at the peak of his value (as it turns out) for H-Ram and a lame-duck Pujols (other pieces involved). It's difficult to explain now, but at that point in time no other owner in our league would have dealt him for ANY package. He really was THAT impressive at that age at that point in time. He was the next Pujols, in many minds and for many reasons. (Again, if that sounds laughable now, that's mostly just current events playing tricks with our actual past perceptions.)
In the 26th-year owner thread, I noted that that that owner told me last month his three best keepers were 'untouchables.' He had a 10-pt lead, and figured he'd win this year (finally), and have a shot again next year. We'll see, but I settled for a deal with the runnerup, who now trails by only a point.
League parameters vary, of course, but I've found that a willingness to sell high on unestablished players - even ones with an upside as high as Heyward's - pays off more often that not (though not nearly "always." It's a percentage play). And nowhere is that issue more important than with closers.
Anyway, that's the point of what I'm trying to say. I hope that clears things up.
There are two different things in play:
- I think that one of the most important things that owners can do - and often don't - is monetize the value of a new closer. Axford's success will only make this play easier to make, actually. In fact, bring up his name in talks regarding these new closers in the off-season or future seasons.
The half-life of such players is not very encouraging, so flipping a guy who looks like he's locked into a role - like Salas around the 12-15 SV mark - for 2011 value for your contending team is crucial.
- Look, it's natural for any of us to enjoy seeing our dart toss in a crowded saves field pan out as a closer for months. Then he seems like a keeper, too, and suddenly it doesn't seem worth it to get an All-Star lame duck closer. Why bother, one might think? My new guy is pitching really well, too, AND he's got keeper value to help me again next year. But what often ends up happening is you miss out on current gains, and there are little or no future gains, either.
Salas has pitched very well, and potential lame duck swaps like Brian Wilson and Huston Street have gotten hurt, but usually moving the unestablished guy for the established one gives you better stats and more guaranteed performance. Is it ALWAYS true? No, but I say 'usually.' Salas has been a best-case scenario, pretty much, yet now if you're a contender you're wondering if he'll get the 5 or 6 SV you need down the stretch. And now that 2012 keeper value is in play, perhaps.
...............
- The different issue in the early season is who was going to get the job. Salas was not a huge star in the Cardinals' organization, La Russa's decision-making is, er, different, and yes, he liked Sanchez better. To ignore that because Salas hits on his first 3-4 SV chances would have been foolish. Obviously, when he gets to 8 or 10 ok and Sanchez's arm falls off, now we know that Salas was the correct play. We didn't always know it.
As for "I told you so," if that was my goal, could I have picked a worse thread to do it in? There are plenty of players this year that I practically begged people to sell high on at midseason. I'm not reviving those threads now that they, too have "crapped the bed."
I commented on THIS one because I think a lot of newer owners are still looking for commentary that reshapes how they think about "going for it." It's very difficult, human nature I guess, to trade what seems like a bargain that you found yourself. But that's the very thing that often wins leagues.
I should know from 2010 - a rival and now three-time winner took me down when he traded Jason Heyward at 10 right when he was at the peak of his value (as it turns out) for H-Ram and a lame-duck Pujols (other pieces involved). It's difficult to explain now, but at that point in time no other owner in our league would have dealt him for ANY package. He really was THAT impressive at that age at that point in time. He was the next Pujols, in many minds and for many reasons. (Again, if that sounds laughable now, that's mostly just current events playing tricks with our actual past perceptions.)
In the 26th-year owner thread, I noted that that that owner told me last month his three best keepers were 'untouchables.' He had a 10-pt lead, and figured he'd win this year (finally), and have a shot again next year. We'll see, but I settled for a deal with the runnerup, who now trails by only a point.
League parameters vary, of course, but I've found that a willingness to sell high on unestablished players - even ones with an upside as high as Heyward's - pays off more often that not (though not nearly "always." It's a percentage play). And nowhere is that issue more important than with closers.
Anyway, that's the point of what I'm trying to say. I hope that clears things up.
Comment