I found a flaw in the database that hurts the Braves — minor leaguers aren’t included. That would hurt the Braves quite a bit, obviously, as the Smoltz trade doesn’t show up.
I’m attempting to fix the problem, and I’ll repost the table when I can.
Man if only we could find a way to duplicate the success of the Royals, White Sox, and Padres. Those guys have really got their stuff together.
Josh
on February 10, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Nice that those 3 trade well, but they don’t have a lot to show for it in the way of division, league or world championships.
nyb
on February 10, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Sorry, I forgot to put an “end sarcasm” tag on my orignial post.
Steffen
on February 10, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Does anybody else have a problem with this study? As I understand it, when a player is traded to team A, plays poorly there, then gets signed by/traded to another team and goes on to have a great career, team A will receive full credit for that, even though they didn’t get any value out of the trade. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Eric W
on February 10, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Steffen,
This is Studes post on Mike’s Baseball Rants. It should answer your question:
You can argue that Schilling’s win shares for other teams shouldn’t count for houston. But shouldn’t they count again Baltimore, who gave him and others up for Glenn Davis? The fact that Houston later traded Schilling doesn’t mean anything for the first trade.
In my article at the Hardball Times, I net out the impact of all trades, so in the overall scoreboard, the positive Davis deal is negated by the subsequent Schilling deal. That is another way to look at it.
But it doesn’t offset the fact that Baltimore just way overpaid for Davis.
Posted by studes at February 10, 2005 12:30 PM
Eric Roush
on February 14, 2005 at 7:47 pm
For what it’s worth, take out the Len Barker trade and the Braves are just below 0.
Use code “Journal” for a 5% discount.
I found a flaw in the database that hurts the Braves — minor leaguers aren’t included. That would hurt the Braves quite a bit, obviously, as the Smoltz trade doesn’t show up.
I’m attempting to fix the problem, and I’ll repost the table when I can.
Ah. Yes, that would change things considerably.
Man if only we could find a way to duplicate the success of the Royals, White Sox, and Padres. Those guys have really got their stuff together.
Nice that those 3 trade well, but they don’t have a lot to show for it in the way of division, league or world championships.
Sorry, I forgot to put an “end sarcasm” tag on my orignial post.
Does anybody else have a problem with this study? As I understand it, when a player is traded to team A, plays poorly there, then gets signed by/traded to another team and goes on to have a great career, team A will receive full credit for that, even though they didn’t get any value out of the trade. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Steffen,
This is Studes post on Mike’s Baseball Rants. It should answer your question:
You can argue that Schilling’s win shares for other teams shouldn’t count for houston. But shouldn’t they count again Baltimore, who gave him and others up for Glenn Davis? The fact that Houston later traded Schilling doesn’t mean anything for the first trade.
In my article at the Hardball Times, I net out the impact of all trades, so in the overall scoreboard, the positive Davis deal is negated by the subsequent Schilling deal. That is another way to look at it.
But it doesn’t offset the fact that Baltimore just way overpaid for Davis.
Posted by studes at February 10, 2005 12:30 PM
For what it’s worth, take out the Len Barker trade and the Braves are just below 0.