Lubanski the Bargain?
This blog follows the Cubs and suggests Chris Lubanski as the #5 potential minor league deal that represents a market inefficiency.
Agree? I dunno. - TL
6 months ago
timlacy
32 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Market inefficiency might be a little strong
This author is trying to identify fallen prospects that are worth taking a flier on. These kind of minor league pickups are always going to be there, so I don’t think they rise to the level of market inefficienies. They’re worth noting though. GMDM has picked up a few of these, Bryan Bullington most recently comes to mind.
What, then, is your definition of a "market inefficiency"?
It seems that if you have a strategy for picking out (or up) undervalued minor league talent (as you note), then you have exploited a market inefficiency. It feels like you have successfully defined, in your post, a specific strategy. Saying something’s always going to be there doesn’t disqualify it from being an exploitation point for a GM. …Also, saying GMDM does it doesn’t mean—-because you may dislike him—-that it’s not a market strategy. – TL
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Didn't say anything disparaging of GMDM here
I see this as a list of career underachievers. They are not a market failure, but are individual failures as baseball players. Worth noting and taking a flyer on occasionally, but they aren’t a source for a way to strategically obtain talent through market efficiencies. An example of that would be determining that high-OBP guys or groundball pitchers are undervalued, and buying those guys while their average market value is low.
Typing too fast at work
Aren’t a way to obtain talent through market inefficiencies, not that it really makes a difference.
I'm not sure...
…I believe this is just a collection of individuals. They are a collection of players that “people in the know” believe haven’t been properly seasoned or coached. If it’s systematic, then it appears to be a market inefficiency.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Yeah this isn't a market inefficiency.
Every team takes fliers on these type of guys by inviting them to ST and promising to give them a look. Obviously the Cubs are in a situation where they can more easily do so than the Royals or Yankees or other teams whose lineups are essentially set already, but this isn’t a situation where the Cubs would be ahead of the market by signing some of these guys.
Killing time until time kills me
It seems to me that this...
…is a market inefficiency because the GM feels that some of these, that this class of players, hasn’t been given proper exposure to the major leagues—-proper time to make adjustments. So that’s not the same as taking a flyer on a singular player.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
I think it can be a market inefficiency
Many teams may just be filling out rosters, or just signing guys a scout is familiar with, or maybe a coach is familiar with. Other teams may look at this as a way to get cheap replacement level or better talent because the player has demonstrated on-base skills, or does well in defensive metrics, or even on the scouting level, has a flaw in his delivery/swing that can be corrected. I think minor league NRI can definitely be strategic.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 14, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you.
This is exactly what I was getting at. When you hear that Theo Epstein and “the crew” are considering players as a class, you have to feel (or at least I feel compelled to feel) that some strategy is at work.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Yes, it can be strategic.
but “market inefficiency” implies that some teams take advantage of this, while other teams don’t. EVERY team gives ST invited and takes “fliers” on AAA guys like this who will accept their invite. EVERY SINGLE TEAM. It can’t be a market inefficiency when every team will do it given the chance. Again, obviously the Royals won’t be doing this as much as the Cubs b/c the Royals roster is pretty much set, but that’s b/c of circumstance, not b/c the Royals aren’t smart enough to try it. Back when the Royals sucked balls, they took shots on these type of guys all the time. All teams do.
So, yes, it is strategic..but not a market inefficiency.
Killing time until time kills me
Signing minor league free agents in and of itself is not a market inefficiency
But how you use it certainly can be. Just like every team also makes trades – trading players is not a market inefficiency. But using trades to acquire players undervalued by the market can be a market inefficiency. And I think how teams use minor league FAs are rife with inefficiencies. They are cheap, many are at least replacement level, and every year there are a handful who go on to be decent contributors, particularly in the pen or off the bench. Wise teams can certainly exploit inefficiencies to fill out their rosters and maybe even land the next Ryan Ludwick or Carlos Pena.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Nov 15, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
Semantics
But I still don’t view it as an inefficiency in the market, because they are essentially defective products that are freely available to all teams for virtually nothing (minor league deals w/ invites). They may be used differently by teams in roster construction, which is a front office strategic choice, but that is not indicative of a market inefficiency.
A good or service has no value
if nobody wants it.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
But somebody does...
…potentially want it. And it’s a class of players (AAAA or whatever) that a GM believes under-realized talent.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Nobody wants 4-A players
Sure, it’s worth giving guys a shot in spring training and trying them out in the minors and all, just to see what might happen, but have no illusions. If the Royals need a 4-A guy, we already have Mitch and Yamaico and C-Rob and Piña and Suppan and Boom Boom, so there’s no need to buy any more.
Now, if Dayton wants to throw the dice on a few ex-prospects, no problem, since he’s risking next to nothing. But the reward is most likely going to be nothing at all. It’s like buying a junk bond or a scratch-off lottery ticket.
NOTE: PLEASE BUY SPANISH GOVERNMENT BONDS NOW WHILE THE INTEREST IS HIGH
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
Precisely. I Would
Bet there are people in every organization monitoring these kinds of players. If they can be had for a minor league deal, most any of them are worth a shot.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 14, 2011 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah. If one of them should turn out
to be a decent fourth outfielder or reliever, you say great. If not, you’ve lost very little.
Reminds me of the Spanish investing joke. “Buy stock in Bodegas Riojanas. If it goes up, you’re smiling, and if it goes broke, you can have a hell of a party with the inventory.”
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
Note: I am no investing genius
I did not play the stock market or anything like that: kept what I had in a conservative no-load mutual fund. Not that I have too much to invest anyway.
The one thing I did that worked was about ten years ago when they had the mad-cow scare in England and everyone in Europe freaked out. I bought some stock in Pescanova, which is the world’s largest frozen fish company, traded on the Madrid exchange. It did go up and I sold after a couple of years, not for a fortune but enough to pay the rent for a while.
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
Market inefficiency would be when these guys should be on ML squads but aren't
For some reason like they all have red hair or something (as a ridiculous example).
by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 14, 2011 12:28 PM EST reply actions
But nobody..
….makes a list with these particular players unless they believe there’s a consistent under-appreciation or under-utilization. If you have a program to correct a particular flaw (i.e. McClure and arm angles), then you look for that among AAA/AAAA underperformers and exploit that market weakness.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
No
These are simply players who were hailed for their skills at one point and, for various reasons, have failed to become contributing major leaguers. This is the scrap heap that is always there.
Here’s a hypothetical market inefficiency to illustrate. GM A believes that veteran right-handed relievers over 30 years old are being undervalued by the market, and can be signed under market value if given multi-year deals. GM A signs one or two such relievers every year at what he feels is 50 cents on the dollar, and flips them for prospects at the trading deadline. That would be a systematic method of capitalizing on a market inefficiency that would dry up once other teams started signing 30-year old right handed relievers at a higher price, so they wouldn’t have to trade prospects for them mid-season.
They've all been Huberized.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Nov 14, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
I Will Always
Remember this day.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 14, 2011 1:01 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Why?
Are you a Lubanski fan?
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
It's An Art
Stewart thing.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Nov 14, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Old running joke on the board
From a recap I did awhile ago on draft days, where Art Stewart was quoted as watching Lubanski swing and remarking to Allard “you will remember this day for the rest of your life.”
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I don't even remember the day I got laid the first time
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
by Juancho on Nov 14, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Got it.
How did I miss that? Funny.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
http://royalsretro.blogspot.com/2008/06/draft-daze-draft-is-quite-crapshoot-and.html
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Now it can be an...
…iteration of being considered by The Greatest GM In The History Of The World (as some attribute Epstein, for whatever reason—-not that I hope he fails—at all—-the Cubs being my NL team).
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
These players are Yugos
Everyone knows they suck, which is why they are cheap, but you’re more than welcome to pay $500 and take your chances that they will last for a few years making grocery runs. Every one in a 100 or so, you’ll find that someone along the line installed a CD player with a nice sound system, and you become pleasantly surprised.


















