Lester vs. Hamels

I don't really see Lester and Hamels as all that different other than Lester will probably get paid more.

And still Betts getting 3 WAR would have to be replaced by someone probably in free agency (not this year, but in future years when we don't have 18 outfielders).  Which is how much more than just overpaying Lester a little?

It comes down to how good you think the prospect is.

If you (a GM) think Pederson is a 3 WAR player, then he's probably more valuable than Hamels at (we'll say) 4 WAR given their contracts and the available pitchers right now.

If he's closer to a 2 WAR player in your eyes, I'd agree that he's easy enough to replace and therefore a fit for a Hamels trade.

Value isn't linear as you've alluded to, but this is what makes trades complicated and far more inexact. How much does marginal value increase for each 1 WAR jump?

I'm really worried that agents and GMs are going to be licking their chops if we whiff on Lester, knowing that we'll be a little more desperate and that prices will go up.

Ok, hypotheical here. Let's suppose a team has four 3 WAR $500 K players: two pitchers, a right-fielder, and a shortstop. They can acquire a 5.5 WAR pitcher who costs $20 million for one of the pitchers and the right fielder. They can replace the RF with a $5 million journeyman free agent who can provide 2.0 WAR. Money is not an issue.

If they don't make the move, they have spent $2 million dollars for 12 WAR. That's extremely efficient. The team that makes the move spend $28 million for 13.5 WAR. That team is MUCH less efficient per win but is also a better baseball team.

...and opportunity costs are very well what it might come down to for the Sox as they scout for a second pitcher - assuming they do get Lester back. I can't seen them getting another of those high-rent guys off the free agent market, but I can see them trading for someone even if it isn't Hamels. How much will they be willing to "overpay" for the opportunity to be that much better - maybe good enough to push them into the playoffs?

What happens to the evaluation of the potential trades when the 3 WAR, $500K players have the potential to provide much higher WAR while the pitcher they are trading for is pretty much set at where he is?

I hope to god we don't trade Betts or Bogaerts unless we are getting a sure fire superstar back. Trade them for a Hamels type is a Yankees move and while it might work in the short term, in the long term we end up looking like the Yankees now, old, overpaid and barren farm system.

I'm still trying to figure out why Amaro would trade Hamels without getting a player like Mookie or Xander. There's no need or urgency right now for him on Hamels. It would have to be a prospect overpay to make him move. And even then, it's Amaro.

Now, if a team was dumb enough to take Howard and half his salary too, then Ruben might - might - listen.

I have two problems with $$/WAR.

Problem one is that WAR is overly reductive and not especially helpful in terms of projection. Now, don't get my wrong - I'm not some head-in-the-sand flat-earther who thinks advanced stats are bunk and that we should rate hitters by RBI. I think WAR is a very, very useful and interesting retrospective tool. But in terms of near-term team building "replacement value" is a useless measure, so measuring value over that doesn't make a lot of sense. What matters is the actual replacement. If Jon Lester is a 5 WAR player next year, what does that mean? He might be worth six wins more than who he would replace in Boston, but only three wins more than who he would replace with the Nationals. But by getting bogged down in $$/WAR, we miss that.

Problem two also sounds a bit get-off-my-lawn-ish but bear with me: You don't win a title for wins over payroll. By a $$/WAR calculation, the 2009 Yankees were pretty inefficient. They spent a ton of money to get good seasons from Sabathia, A-Rod, Jeter, and Teixeira. The 2009 Red Sox got huge contributions from low-cost players like Youkilis, Pedroia, Lester, and Papelbon. But, so what? The Yankees spent more than made sense on a $$/WAR to sign Teixeira and it paid off in the short term because their other options at first base were bad. If the money is there in the budget to make an upgrade, don't get caught up in in being slightly less efficient. So you're paying $8 million per win instead of $7 million? Maybe that seems sub-optimal but not if you can't make that money work for you elsewhere.

Obviously I think getting low cost contributions from players is extremely, extremely valuable, to the point where I don't even know that it needs to be said. Being reasonably confident in a productive season from Mookie Betts for such a low cost would allow the Red Sox to focus their ample resources elsewhere. They won in '07 because they were confident in Youkilis/Pedroia/Papelbon, etc. that they were able to overpay in prospects to get Beckett and in dollars to get Drew. On the flip side of that, the fact the Yankees get almost no contribution right now from low cost players is the reason they are mediocre despite their astronomical payroll.

Why do you think Amaro would be crazy to trade Hamel without getting a Betts or Xander? Look at Grantlands trade value number 41, 40 and 39 are Xander, Betts and Hamels.  Unless Amaro is going to accept a one for one trade, you can't include those two.  Amaro needs to rebuild the Phillies, he needs a 4/5 for 1 trade that gets him a 2-3 starting players.  If I'm Amaro I would say I know you won't trade Betts and Xander, so how about Swihart, Owens, Barnes/Johnson, Cecchini and Brentz/Coyle. From the Phillies point of view this would make a lot more sense.  All of those players could see time in the majors next year.  I'm sure the Red Sox would say no, just making the point that a trade package without Xander and Betts make sense for the Phillies. 

That's fine and well, but the writers at FanGraphs disagree strongly, and they've put forth actual reasons, whereas Jonah's reason seems to be "it makes for a good story".

It's a free country you can think what you want. I agree with the rankings. I think Betts and Xander value is equal to that of Hamels. Now I wouldn't trade them straight up for Hamels, but that is another story. All three have great value for different reasons. I take it you think Betts and Xander value is greater then Hamels?