What Would it Take To Get You to Trade Votto?

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'm agreeing with a cardinals fan....ACK!...must....take...penicillin.

Just kidding. I think Mike's spot on here. I see that WAR counts Longoria and Votto as equivalent....but I'm just not seeing that...at all. Evan strikes me as an all-star caliber player without a doubt, but Joey is a DOMINATING force on the field. Worlds apart IMO.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

I'm agreeing with a cardinals fan....ACK!...must....take...penicillin.

Just kidding. I think Mike's spot on here. I see that WAR counts Longoria and Votto as equivalent....but I'm just not seeing that...at all. Evan strikes me as an all-star caliber player without a doubt, but Joey is a DOMINATING force on the field. Worlds apart IMO.

Votto is the better hitter and I'd even argue his glove is undervalued. But the WAR is simply compensating for the fact that it is easier to replace a 1B than a 3B. I'd rather have Votto than Longoria on the Reds the next few years. But long term, given age,contract,and defensive position...I can see Longoria being the better value for a team...which I gotta think is what it is all about.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Votto is the better hitter and I'd even argue his glove is undervalued. But the WAR is simply compensating for the fact that it is easier to replace a 1B than a 3B. I'd rather have Votto than Longoria on the Reds the next few years. But long term, given age,contract,and defensive position...I can see Longoria being the better value for a team...which I gotta think is what it is all about.

Value is relative though. I like to take into account things other than on the field, including marketing. I think Votto is more marketable than Longo and a club might get more bang for their buck long term with Votto. Sorry, the economist in me comes out in these kind of discussions.

Also, as I said before, I think WAR vastly underrates the value of an elite defensive 1B. I certainly believe they have at least more starting value than a corner outfielder, which currently WAR doesn't believe.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

Value is relative though. I like to take into account things other than on the field, including marketing. I think Votto is more marketable than Longo and a club might get more bang for their buck long term with Votto. Sorry, the economist in me comes out in these kind of discussions.

Also, as I said before, I think WAR vastly underrates the value of an elite defensive 1B. I certainly believe they have at least more starting value than a corner outfielder, which currently WAR doesn't believe.

Fair enough.

But the economist in me can't ignore the fact that Longoria is getting paid ~60% of what Votto will make.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Fair enough.

But the economist in me can't ignore the fact that Longoria is getting paid ~60% of what Votto will make.

Longoria has been hurt quite a bit over the past couple of years. That might factor into a decision on his future. Maybe he has to move across the diamond in a few years or be a DH.

[AtomicDumpling]

Votto's trade value right now is just about zero. He is a great player, but he is owed $250 million dollars! That is a huge burden for any team to take on. Votto is being paid every last bit of what he is worth, maybe more. I don't think any team is going to offer the Reds a haul of talent and take on that quarter billion dollar commitment.

Guys like Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Votto, Greinke and A-Rod have contracts that only one team was willing to pay. Those teams would not have bid that amount to sign those free agents if they also had to give up multiple good players as part of the deal.

If Votto were signed to a budget-friendly contract he would have tremendous trade value. But that contract commitment negates any and all trade value.

If the Reds want to trade Votto they will have to take back somebody else's huge, burdensome contract as part of the deal.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Votto's trade value right now is just about zero. He is a great player, but he is owed $250 million dollars! That is a huge burden for any team to take on. Votto is being paid every last bit of what he is worth, maybe more. I don't think any team is going to offer the Reds a haul of talent and take on that quarter billion dollar commitment.

Guys like Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Votto, Greinke and A-Rod have contracts that only one team was willing to pay. Those teams would not have bid that amount to sign those free agents if they also had to give up multiple good players as part of the deal.

If Votto were signed to a budget-friendly contract he would have tremendous trade value. But that contract commitment negates any and all trade value.

Not everyone can afford Votto, but I disagree with the premise he has zero trade value.

[Tom Servo]

Not sure why you concluded your post with a picture of Votto and Dickie V, but that is quite a glorious beard.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Guys like Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Votto, Greinke and A-Rod have contracts that only one team was willing to pay. Those teams would not have bid that amount to sign those free agents if they also had to give up multiple good players as part of the deal.

One team?

That makes no sense.

Since FMV is determined based on what the market will pay for services, you have to assume that other teams would have paid, more or less, the same amount. Otherwise, each of those teams made a inexcusable mistake in signing a player for well more than any other team would have paid.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

One team?

That makes no sense.

Since FMV is determined based on what the market will pay for services, you have to assume that other teams would have paid, more or less, the same amount. Otherwise, each of those teams made a inexcusable mistake in signing a player for well more than any other team would have paid.

It makes perfect sense.

Yes, only one team outbid the others, which means they thought the player's value was higher than any other team thought it was. Likely one other team came somewhat close in order to drive the price up. But in the end the player's maximum value was set by the free market. What makes no sense is the opinion that a team would be willing to pay the mega-salary that they opted not to pay when they had the chance during the free agent bidding process and give up lots of talent too.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Not sure why you concluded your post with a picture of Votto and Dickie V, but that is quite a glorious beard.

Yeah it had nothing to do with the post, but I saw the photo while I was typing my post and thought I would throw it in for poops and giggles.

[jojo]

It's one thing to pay a player market value. It's another thing to pay for the right to pay a player market value.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by jojo

It's one thing to pay a player market value. It's another thing to pay for the right to pay a player market value.

In a vacuum you are right. But let me bring up three things.

1) With deals like the Swisher deal going down, at some point I'd wager the Votto contract will be more team friendly vis a vis market value. A forward thinking GM who needed a 1B would consider that.

2) I wouldn't give up much for a market value player. But there are probably some GMs who would, especially for debatably the best bat in the league.

3) Reverse your point you made. Since Votto is on the books for market value, should the Reds look to deal him for a player with a below market deal?

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

In a vacuum you are right. But let me bring up three things.

1) With deals like the Swisher deal going down, at some point I'd wager the Votto contract will be more team friendly vis a vis market value. A forward thinking GM who needed a 1B would consider that.

2) I wouldn't give up much for a market value player. But there are probably some GMs who would, especially for debatably the best bat in the league.

3) Reverse your point you made. Since Votto is on the books for market value, should the Reds look to deal him for a player with a below market deal?

Let me add...

Not really arguing much here, but if the Reds were to dangle Votto at an ideal point in the next 365 days I think they'd get a modest return.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

In a vacuum you are right. But let me bring up three things.

1) With deals like the Swisher deal going down, at some point I'd wager the Votto contract will be more team friendly vis a vis market value. A forward thinking GM who needed a 1B would consider that.

2) I wouldn't give up much for a market value player. But there are probably some GMs who would, especially for debatably the best bat in the league.

3) Reverse your point you made. Since Votto is on the books for market value, should the Reds look to deal him for a player with a below market deal?

Paying a player market value salary wise while giving up additional resources to do so is a significant overpay. So it comes down to the ability to leverage the production the player brings....I.e does it significantly increase the chances of significant post season revenue etc. for instance, it probably didn't make much sense for the Reds of the lost decade to trade minor league Votto and Cueto for AROD.

Concerning point 3, there's an argument for trading Votto for Trout + the estimated $100M of payroll difference even though the Reds seem poised to contend over the next several seasons. But I don't think a scenario where the Reds trade down (get less production for substantial savings) makes much sense right now. You collect promise when you're lost in the desert not when you're at the edge of the river Jordan.