radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) (07/17/85)
The Mets recently acquired Tom Paciorek from the White Sox for a minor league prospect, Dave Cochrane. In Paciorek, the Mets get a 16-year veteran in his late-30's with perhaps a handful of homestands left in him. In Cochrane, the Mets give up a promising 23 year-old third baseman who socked 69 home runs in his previous 3 pro seasons [he has been injured most of this year]. Obviously (?) the Mets are gambling that Paciorek will help them win it all now, while at the same time betting that Cochrane will not turn out to be the incarnation of Mike Schmidt. This kind of trade goes on all the time. It is the enactment of a baseball bromide that claims that if you have the opportunity to win it all this year, and you can get a veteran player to help you do it, then it's OK to give up a prospect in return for the veteran, even though that prospect may make as significant a contribution to your ballclub in the future. My problem with this is: if you don't win it this year, then you're left holding an aging veteran instead of a pennant, and you've effectively given away a prospect. And if you do win it (hooray!), you still have to write off the veteran, and you're still without the prospect who MAY HAVE contributed to your team being a contender or winner for yet another several years. GM's that embrace this attitude seem to be admitting: "Let's go for it now, because we aren't going to bet on -- or don't care to bet on -- being contenters in a few years, anyway". It seems to me to be the classic case of an immediate, short-term payoff versus a delayed, long-term payoff. Contending clubs that consistently gamble on the future, such as the Dodgers and Orioles, are contenders for DECADES. [The Dodgers' recent acquisition of Cabell from division rival Houston, however, is definitely out of character for them.] On the other hand, clubs that reach contention and gamble on the present never seem to have more than a season or two in the sun. What do you fellow netters think? --------
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/22/85)
> What do you fellow netters think?
Oh, wow. My opinion was solicited...
I think, in general, it [the proposition that a team in a pennant
stretch trade away some prospects for immediate help] is a sound
idea. If you always look to the future, and never make the deal
that helps today but hurts tomorrow, you're going to wind up like
the Tigers of the post-WWII era: you're going to be THE top team over
a period of a decade or whatever, but you're consistently going to be
beaten out by teams willing to make the move for that particular year.
If you're the Orioles of the '60s and '70s, you can get away with never
making such trades, because you have SO much more talent coming
through your system than anyone else in the league. However, if you
are not in that position, than you can't do that, and must deal.
Winning teams give up more talent than they get, as they are looking
for specific kinds of talent; losing teams get more than they give up,
as they're looking to maximize talent, and can use it most
everywhere. The Mets, while they have probably the most productive
farm system in the NL at the moment, are still in the same class as
the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Phillies in producing talent; they cannot
assume the isolationist attitude that Baltimore and Los Angeles have
sometimes taken in the past.
My criticism of the Paciorek-Cochrane deal is not the general one of
trading away the future, but the very specific one of not having
gotten enough for the present. The warning sign is that the White
Sox, the other team in the deal, are NOT a non-contending team looking
just toward the future, nor do they possess an overabundance of the
quality Paciorek supposedly represents: bench offense. Now, I've
heard all the stuff about the Paciorek-LaRussa feud, but I doubt they
were very material; instead, I suspect the White Sox have decided he
is over-the-hill.
Paciorek replaces Christiansen on the Mets' roster. He must produce
more than Christiansen would have, or the deal is manifestly in
error. I think it is likely that it will prove to have been in error,
as I see no reason to expect Paciorek to produce much more in New York
than he did in Chicago, and I see many reasons to expect Christiansen
to improve on his first half.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidbob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/22/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <690@spuxll.UUCP> radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) writes: { Argument against trading minor league prospects for oldish vets } >What do you fellow netters think? > >-------- I agree completely, but as a long term Met fan, I can attest that this sort of bozo trade is hardly out of character for them. This trade makes little sense examined as a one-for-one deal. In the global picture, it makes no sense. The meets have at least 5 major league outfield prospects, some of whom have played in the majors this year.( Christensen, Blocker, Dykstra, Beane, Abner ). Also, of the outfielders they currently have, only George Foster is in his 30's, so they will be around awhile. In the mean time, they are weak in the infield in general, and by my count, the infielders have hit a TOTAL of about 17 homeruns. And then you trade a power hitting infield prospect for an aging outfielder ? It defies logic. Bob Weiler.
jhr2@houem.UUCP (J.ROSENBLUTH) (07/23/85)
> The Mets recently acquired Tom Paciorek from the White Sox for > a minor league prospect, Dave Cochrane. In Paciorek, the Mets > get a 16-year veteran in his late-30's with perhaps a handful of > homestands left in him. In Cochrane, the Mets give up > a promising 23 year-old third baseman who socked 69 home runs in his > previous 3 pro seasons [he has been injured most of this year]. > Obviously (?) the Mets are gambling that Paciorek will help them > win it all now, while at the same time betting that Cochrane > will not turn out to be the incarnation of Mike Schmidt. > This kind of trade goes on all the time. It is the enactment of a baseball > bromide that claims that if you have the opportunity to win it all this year, > and you can get a veteran player to help you do it, then it's OK to give up > a prospect in return for the veteran, even though that prospect may > make as significant a contribution to your ballclub in the future. > My problem with this is: if you don't win it this year, > then you're left holding an aging veteran instead of a pennant, > and you've effectively given away a prospect. And if you do win it (hooray!), > you still have to write off the veteran, and you're still without the > prospect who MAY HAVE contributed to your team being a contender or winner > for yet another several years. > What do you fellow netters think? That's a really good subject, and I have no idea what the answer is. However, shouldn't research of such trades in the past shed some light? Maybe someone else would like to find all trades in the last 30 or so years that a contending ballclub gave up a prospect for a proven but aging veteran. Then a number of answers could be found: Does the contender win this year? Does the contender fall apart within 5-10 years? Does the other team come on in 5-10 years? Which teams follow which policies? How often does the prospect bloom? How often does this type of trade occur? I find it hard to believe that anyone can pass judgement on this issue without examining the record. Josh Rosenbluth (...!houxm!houem!jhr2)
gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) (07/24/85)
> In article <690@spuxll.UUCP> radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) writes: > { Argument against trading minor league prospects for oldish vets } > >What do you fellow netters think? > > > >-------- > . . . The meets have at least 5 major > league outfield prospects, some of whom have played > in the majors this year.( Christensen, Blocker, Dykstra, Beane, Abner ). > Also, of the outfielders they currently have, only George Foster is in his > 30's, so they will be around awhile. The Mets probably have one of their best chances ever this year to win the National League East. The acquisition of Tom Paciorek will provide something that is hard to see as a fan--leadership. Christensen and Blocker are both outstanding prospects, but neither of them is hitting particularly well this year. The Mets are an extremely young club and it is the veterans such as Keith Hernandez and Tom Paciorek who will help keep the youngsters playing well. Foster's days are numbered at this point and even though Paciorek's range in the outfield is poor, he catches anything he gets to. Paciorek can also hit for higher average than Foster. Paciorek also offers pinch hitting ability and gives the Mets some depth on the bench that they need. Given that the Mets have so much young talent already, who is going to miss completely unproven minor leaguers? I think the Paciorek addition is a good one and may give the Mets the kind of boost that they need to overtake the tough Cardinals. -- Al Gates BDM Corporation {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates 7915 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 (My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the BDM Corporation)