Phillies Acquire C J.T. Realmuto for 3 Players and Slot Money

allentown 2019-02-10 15:43:47 UTC #121

Here is another way of thinking of this. A team with 0 total WAR, essentially the equivalent of a roster of all replacement level players (with small positive and small negative WAR players cancelling out) is assumed to win 54 games. I count 90 wins as the number required to reliably make the playoffs (admittedly you can frequently do so with 88/89 wins, but can just as easily miss playoffs). This means a team needs a cumulative 36 WAR to reliably make the playoffs. If we value 'market WAR' at $10 million/WAR, that means it would cost $360 million to field the minimum playoff team built solely on FA -- this is almost twice the lux tax salary cap, and thus impossible. The difference is made up by lower cost, home-grown or traded-for, players within the 6-year period of team control, as with the huge bargain which was Nola last year. Although at the upper end of the salary range for the 6-year control period, Realmuto is available for less than the market price WAR value. A team has to derive something like 50% of its WAR from such non-market price players, with much of the advantage coming from guys like Nola earlier on in the 6-year progression, in order to both stay under the lux tax and contend, especially for a multi-year period of contention. With a $200 million salary cap, a team is limited to about $100 million/year of 'market level WAR' players. If the rest of the team's war comes from players relatively early in the arbitration process, it can devote a higher percentage of the budget to market WAR players. If the arb and pre-arb players players cost $4 million/WAR then $100 million to them buys 25 WAR, leaving $100 million to buy 10 market WAR and putting that team on the fence for playoffs. If the arb/pre-arb WAR costs an average of only $3 million/WAR, then $100 million buys 33 WAR and 10 WAR of market WAR puts you well over the win total to comfortably reach the playoffs.

NOTES:
I realize the period of team control is generally closer to 7 years

The $100 million budget for 'market WAR' players includes home-grown players, like Nola, after their 6-year team control period.

BostonRoss 2019-02-10 15:47:43 UTC #122

Great points by zambonir and andyb. A few responses:

I should not have ignored that for Lee and Pence, some of their future WAR came after their contracts expired. That clearly is important.
That said, it should be noted that there is an advantage to the team who has the free agent over everyone else when it comes to (re-)signing him. Halladay signed an extension immediately (of course, Realmuto has not done that yet but still could). Pence never became a free agent (until now, when he is near the end). Oswalt was also in garbage time by the time he became a free agent.
It probably isn't correct to simply compare WAR after the trade between both sides. It makes sense for a team who is contending to give up some future value for more present value. It doesn't make sense to give up way more (as was the case in the Oswalt trade).
Zambonir's note about the bad flips of Lee and Pence are valid, but hopefully Kelntak is not thinking that if he has to trade Realmuto next year that he can't get anything. Hopefully he is better than Amaro at that. (If anything, the flips are two more examples of good trades of prospects for stars, but Seattle and the Giants.)
It's also relevant, I think, that the traded prospects are very often moved again (D'Arnaud, Taylor, Cosart, Santana, Villar, Happ), meaning that the teams who acquired them didn't view them as foundation pieces. In these trades, it happened to every prospect who turned out to have value, except Carrasco.
It is true that three of the four trades were in midseason, and that does make a difference although the basic premise was the same: trade some of the future to try and win this year. Actually, I prefer to have the star player for an entire season.
An advantage to the Realmuto trade is that he is younger than Halladay, Lee, and Oswalt at the time of the trade (he's close to Pence in age). Yes, he is a catcher, but all of the others had quite a bit left in the tank when the Phils got them (maybe a stretch for Oswalt, but that was the worst of the trades).

I agree there is risk involved in these types of trades, and the fact that it's a prospects for star trade doesn't automatically mean it's a good risk (I'm old enough to remember Ferguson Jenkins).

tom81 2019-02-10 16:33:43 UTC #123

The qualifying offer also adds to the value of the team who has the free agent.

andyb 2019-02-10 16:39:10 UTC #124

While there probably is a tiny advantage in re-signing a player after you trade for him, I would put a very small value in that unless that player resigns with you for a discount. When the Phillies signed Lee for 5 years and $120 million it was not at a discount. If Realmuto adds 2 years at $15 million each then I would agree the Phillies are getting him at a discount. I think that is not going to happen though. He is going to want $25 million a year and that would be a full price for a 30-year-old catcher no matter how good they are.

The key here is value at a certain point in time. The Phillies are betting that the extra 2 WAR over Alfaro the next 2 years is going to be more important than any WAR that Alfaro and Sanchez offer after that. If those extra 3 years of Alfaro are worth 5 WAR and Sanchez gets hurt it is clearly worth it. If Alfaro is worth 10 WAR and Sanchez 15 WAR then it is really only worth it if the Phillies go far in the playoffs (i.e. not just the wild card).

California_Dreamin 2019-02-10 16:41:49 UTC #125

Let's be honest here. We can talk about potential WAR's till we are blue in the face but in the end if Realmuto is the final puzzle peace to acquiring Harper then it is well worth the risk. If it doesn't, then Realmuto will have to go it alone and be judged entirely on his production.

I have always believed one of the reasons the Phils went the extra mile for Realmuto was because Harper is a BIG fan of his and this might be the extra incentive to get the slugger signed. I know that the Padres felt this way and said so here in SoCal. They went hard for Realmuto because they believed it would help in their recruitment of Harper, a player they wanted.

So I believe we can't simply look at this trade in a vacuum, let's wait till it all plays out. I think it is almost the universal consensus in the baseball industry that of all 30 teams it is the Phillies who still seem likely to have about 3 more moves to make before the season starts.

And so much of those 3 moves involve signing Harper/Machado first.

zambonir 2019-02-10 17:26:46 UTC #126

It's fun (or not fun) to value trades this way but it is all built into the process. Whether or not Sanchez has a 0 WAR career or a 15 WAR career will allow us to look at the deal in hindsight, but right now, it's understood that either thing is possible and he had considerable value. And they still thought the short-term gain was worth it.

Harder to value the re-signing factor - I think it's true that the Phillies do not view this as a two-year acquisition. If Realmuto doesn't hit the open market (unlike Lee though he also wasn't even on the Phillies at the time) then having him in hand clearly added some value, even if the discount isn't steep. In Lee's case he was not in hand and there was no discount though obviously his familiarity/sentiment, and the Phillies' ability to land him, was based on his previous experience.

(btw I have seen several articles lately saying that Cliff Lee turned down more money from the Yankees to come back to Philadelphia. That's not how I remember it).

My guess is the Realmuto trade will look a lot like the Lee/Indians trade. Alfaro will probably have real value, as Carrasco has (after a few bumps). And Sanchez could have the career that Knapp never did. Or the same exact outcome. If Knapp had become an ace I don't think we'd regret the Lee trade in hindsight (we just regret the Phillies trading him).

Revisiting the Lee trade and the Oswalt trade and even the Pence/Victorino sales just reminds how cheap and luxury tax-averse that ownership group still was. The 2012 and 2013 non-rebuilds still could have worked if they'd been willing to spend the money instead of trying for stopgap fixer-uppers (Delmon Young, Revere, Burnett - who wasn't even cheap!) as Howard, Lee and Halladay declined but were still on payroll.

BostonRoss 2019-02-10 18:30:18 UTC #127

One thing to remember when comparing projected WAR is that the projections are more certain for established players. Realmuto's expected value is a lot more of a sure thing than Sanchez's and is more certain than Alfaro's too. There is more of a value to certainty to a contending team than to a building team like the Marlins, who have to take risks.

allentown 2019-02-10 18:43:19 UTC #128

Cleveland fell in love with Knapp -- even declared him the centerpiece of the deal. He was a lot more of a risk than Sixto is, being only 18 when he was traded (vs 20) and having pitched only 117innings (vs 221) and having advanced only as far as throwing 85 innings for Lakewood in Low-A (vs 74 in high-A). I remember that there had been reports of some arm woes with Knapp, just as we now have with Sixto, although both were deemed pitch-worthy when traded. Knapp was pitching at the time of the trade and pitching well, while Sixto was shut down for most of last season and pitched competitively since the injury at time of trade. Both huge health risks, but I think Knapp was the bigger risk. Saying Sixto is less a health risk than Knapp is damning with faint praise, as Knapp only pitched 27 low-A innings (and 12 rookie rehab innings) in his tenure with the Indians.

zambonir 2019-02-10 18:46:32 UTC #129

My recollection is it felt lucky that the Indians loved Knapp so much, and his arm troubles were know (but vetted). Obviously he was not the Phillies' #1 prospect at the time.

Supposedly the Marlins love Stewart, wanted him more than any other pitcher in the system. (Whether it's true that they originally tried to get a position player, who knows.)

andyb 2019-02-10 18:46:41 UTC #130

As I remember it the Yankees offered more years and thus more total dollars, but the Phillies had the higher AAV when the option buyout was considered. Regardless, we paid market value or close to that for Lee.

I do think players will sign for "a bit" less if they like being somewhere. That might mean $300 million instead of $315 million in the case of Harper or Machado. They are not going to sign for $200 million though.

andyb 2019-02-10 18:52:33 UTC #131

Is it though? Any player can get hurt, especially a catcher. Of course Sanchez has a variability of outcomes as a minor league prospect. But he also is the best pitching prospect we have had in 15 years and has a really high floor if healthy with number one starter potential. He is not Knapp. He is much better than Knapp even with the same injury risk.

I guess I think it is lazy analysis that equates any prospect as risky. There are differences in prospects. Sixto is different. The risk is there. The reward is greater though. I also think veteran catchers like Realmuto often plateau and regress as their physical skills diminish. Look at that list of age 27 comparable players and virtually all them get worse, becoming merely good and not great. And then we have the two year factor. Yes he is a better bet to be more valuable the next two years. He is also certain to be worth nothing in the 3rd year unless we pay market value.

BostonRoss 2019-02-10 19:28:10 UTC #132

You don't agree that projections based on several years of MLB performance plus a few years in the minors are less risky that projections based on one full MLB season, or only minor league performance?

Of course there are differences in prospects. But I don't see a case to be made that Realmuto's future is more risky than Alfaro's or Sanchez. Alfaro is more likely to either regress or to go up a notch. The projections for Realmuto (the B-R projection is for him to have a similar season to 2017) already consider his age and position. I don't think the injury risk is much greater for JT than for Alfaro, maybe slightly higher because he's two years older. They play the same position.

flyers19rw 2019-02-10 19:43:43 UTC #133

As a rule, organizations do not make their good prospects available for trade unless they feel that there's something wrong with them that they feel makes them less than what they had hoped. Some may view Sixto as the next Pedro Martinez. If the Phillies did, there's no way that they'd entertain discussions about dealing with him. Right now he looks like a good prospect but at the same time he is a good suspect. (1) Slight build throwing very hard. Could be an arm issue in the future. Some predictions out there that he'll need arm surgery w/in two years. (2) He already has had some health issues. (3) Was converted to the mound after starting out as a MIF so he doesn't have the grounding in the position or the innings thrown in development. He is a hard thrower but hasn't developed breaking balls as of yet. Perhaps what we see is all that he'll ever be. (4) He has had great stats in A ball and below but no one ever got to see him perform against higher level players. (5) He had been shopped all winter long; discussed as being included in the Segura trade and other proposals.

allentown 2019-02-10 19:44:24 UTC #134

Agree, clearly the minor league pitchers we included in the deal have the highest risk. Coming off injury, I see Sixto's risk as very high. He carries the highest risk of any player in this trade. On the other hand, his ceiling is also by far the highest of any player in the trade. He isn't as risky as Knapp and he has a higher ceiling, but he is very risky. Yes, catchers are more prone to injury than the average position player, but I see Realmuto as the least risky player in this deal and Alfaro as the next lowest risk. The biggest risk from Realmuto comes from the temptation to give him a $100M/5-6 year extension. That will be risky.

zambonir 2019-02-10 20:03:03 UTC #135

Unless the free agent landscape in MLB changes significantly over the next two years I am not too worried about what kind of contract the Phillies might give Realmuto. IMO the only way it touches five years is if A) Year 5 is an option or B) Year 1 is 2019. No position player FA has even signed a three-year deal this year besides our OF (and then I guess Pollock finally broke that streak).

With Ramos not even crossing into eight figures and Grandal only getting one year, it will be in Realmuto's interest to take security over hitting the open market at 29, but if he does, no reason to think teams will suddenly be dishing out big $ for him. The only x factor is the CBA and possible NL DH.

At this point his reported ask of the Marlins is about as meaningful as the amounts J.D. Martinez and Arrieta wanted last off-season (doubly so because he didn't really even want to play for the Marlins anymore).

Taudawg 2019-02-10 22:09:58 UTC #136

I like option A and B combined. Make 2019 year one of 4 year guarantee, with team or mutual option year 5. Give him a raise on 2019 and 2020, and Grandal(ish) money for 21, 22 and the option year. He might be playing 1b or DH in 22/23.

zambonir 2019-02-10 22:48:14 UTC #137

I think that's probably right, if they step up and try to do it now with a decent bump for '19 and '20, he'd probably take it and it wouldn't even bother me if it was 5 years guaranteed, you've probably still got a tradeable DH or a 2-3 WAR catcher at age 32, even if the bat is slowing from that burden.

If they decide to let this season play out he might be more willing to wait, especially with a QO setting the benchmark for 2021.

I just don't see any risk of them wanting to give him 4-6 years guaranteed come 2021. Even if Sixto is ROTY by then.

andyb 2019-02-11 00:39:54 UTC #138

There is certainly a wider range of outcomes with the sample size including minor league performance. What I disagree with is that Alfaro is more likely to regress.

Realmuto had his career year. Players that do that are often candidates for regression. Alfaro's performance was in line with his minor league career with growth in a few areas that are skills based (framing, BB and K rates improved in the second half of the season).
In terms of age, the odds are Realmuto is at his peak. Alfaro is still getting better. So the odds are probably 60-40 based on age that Realmuto regresses and 60-40 based on age that Alfaro improves. They are also both catchers so the higher risk of injury will weigh on both of them.

There can be a high probability that Realmuto will be better than Alfaro the next 2 years side by side with the likelihood that Realmuto will regress a bit and Alfaro will improve a bit. There is probably a higher probability that Alfaro is a complete bust, but that can co-exist with the higher probability that Realmuto will have a slight decline because of his age. It is all gradations in probability. The big difference is still we are talking 5 years of Alfaro versus 2 and there is probably a strong chance there will be more value in those 5 years compared to Realmuto's 2 even before we assess Sanchez.

And on the projections, BR has Realmuto going from an 825 OPS last year to .785 and his dWAR had already dropped to 0.1 last year. So the projections DO have Realmuto regressing a bit. Because he had a career year and is now beyond age 27. Note I assume he'll get a new projection with a higher non-Miami OPS but that current projection is on the page now. Fangraphs also shows a slight drop. They have Alfaro up slightly at .751. So the offensive projections give Realmuto a 785 to 751 advantage for next year. The expectation is that the difference will narrow between the two based on the all the data we have.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-11 00:50:26 UTC #139

Actually, we can't say he has had his career year until his career is over. We are projecting by saying that last year was his career year. Was it his best so far? Yes, but he has been on a linear path of improvement and we should not say it is his career year as long as his path is still upward. My money says this year bests last year. What do you say?

julio 2019-02-11 00:51:04 UTC #140

Even if this proves to be the case, it's not obvious that the five-year choice is the correct one. Winning is about how much value - how many wins - you can concentrate into a single year's roster. Yes, if Realmuto is only here for two years, the organization will have to address the catching position again for 2021. But it's not clear this is a problem, and not clear that it's not a better choice to opt for the higher short-term value (this from a guy who argues one should always keep long-term goals in mind!). To throw in some hypothetical numbers: Posit that Realmuto generates 4.5 WAR in each of the next two years; the Phils get a total of 9 WAR from him. Alfaro generates 2 WAR in each of the next five years - a total of 10 WAR. Would the Phils have been better off to stay with Alfaro in this case? I would say no - not if maximizing the production of each season's roster is the goal; controlling mediocrity for lots of cheap years isn't a winning strategy.