It is time to update the Tampa Bay Rays Trade Value Index in which we rank the top 45 players in the Rays organization based on their overall value to the team.

The TVI ranks every player on the 40-man roster and the top prospects. The rankings consider a number factors in addition to talent and good looks, such as potential, age, contract and depth of position in the organization.

Notes on how the rankings are compiled and a few specific players can be found after the table. Full calculations can be found at the end of this post…

Notes on the TVI top 45

  • The TVI is calculated using four variables: 1) talent (based on a reasonable projection of abilities); 2) age-value (based on age and years remaining until free agency); 3) position (based loosely on Bill James’ defensive spectrum) and 4) current level (i.e. MLB, triple-A, etc.). These values are all scaled 1-10 and given a weight of 2.0, 1.5, 1.0 and 0.5 respectively.
  • Evan Longoria is the clear #1. The next 4 players (Jeremy Hellickson, David Price, Wade Davis, Matt Garza) all fall in a narrow range. But 6 years of Hellickson gives him just a tad more value than 4 more years of Price or 3 more years of Garza.
  • At the other end of the spectrum we have mostly players that will be free agents at the end of the year. These players usually won’t command much in a trade.
  • Players were given a “bonus” based on their free agent status (Type A or Type B). Even though these players will likely be gone next year, they will command one or two draft picks in compensation. The bonus was loosely based on the values of draft picks in the second-half of the first-round and the supplemental round. Players that will be free agents following the 2011 season were given half the free agency bonus.
  • The one player that probably doesn’t fit this model is Carl Crawford. He has a low TVI value due to his pending free agency and he plays a non-premium position. But if the Rays were to try and trade him, he would probably command a steep price because he is considered a “difference maker.”
  • Feel free to let us know in the comments if you feel their is variable that should be included in the TVI calculations and if you think the relative weights should be different. This is evolving process. And while we try to remove as much subjectivity as possible, the nature of the beast will always require at least a little bit.

FULL CALCULATIONS AFTER THE JUMP

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
 
 

13 Comments

  1. Jim says:

    You have Jaso listed as having 0 options. That can't be right, otherwise why is there talk of him being sent down?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Kevin says:

    Good stuff here. Did you consider tying age value to talent level? For example a Longo and Jennings have the same age value but I'd rather have Longo's age and years remaining because he's more talented. Currently, each players age value contributes the same amount to their overall TVI (however Jenning's is a higher percentage of his total TVI). In a more extreme example Ekstom's total age value contributed to his overall TVI is just below that of Longo. But do you really value having a 2 level talent in his prime for many years to come?

    One option could be to take agevalue*(talent level/max talent level which is 10). I haven't done this with the file (couldn't find the excel) but it would accentuate locking up top talent in prime years and de-emphasis locking up poor talent in prime years.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. Brian H says:

    jennings lower than torres?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Mike says:

      Yea I don't get that either. I would have thought he would be about equal with Davis.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. Greg says:

    I wonder about whether triple-A and double-A should be separated at all since nowadays a number of prospects come right up from double-A. I'm thinking of the Marlins (Stanton rumored to be on the way soon). I'm not sure how much that difference is weighted in the calculation so it may not matter much. I like the post. Nice work. By the way, is anyone else a little worried about losing Sweeney if he's rule 5-eligible next season? Is that AFTER next season or BEFORE?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Cork Gaines says:

      Sweeney needs to be added to the 40-man this upcoming winter. He should be OK. I think the Rays should have plenty of spots available. The big league club could lose as many as 9 free agents. And that doesn't include Navarro whom I doubt will be back.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  5. Sledge says:

    Great analysis, professor. Should we assume the exclusion of A Rodriguez is a statement about where you think he currently ranks among the next wave of starting pitchers?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Cork Gaines says:

      well, to come up with the list of players for the analysis I used all players on the 40-man roster and the top 13 prospects according to the Meta-Analysis we ran earlier in the season. Aneury wasnt among the top 13.

      http://www.raysindex.com/2010/02/2010-tampa-bay-rays-top-prospects-meta-analysis.html

      Now, if everybody re-cast their votes for the top prospects, he would probably make the cut now.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  6. Sledge says:

    That makes sense. As excited as I am about how we are playing this year, I have found myself wondering who is the next Hellboy. Since it is hard to imagine a scenario where JH isnt with the big squad next year, which of the next wave is most likely to be in line for a spot after him? Nice problem to have.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leave a Comment