Evaluating trades: In-season vs. off-season

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Aug 10, 2005 12:59 PM PDT Comment 8 comments

During the horrific month of May, there were some ramblings from a number of baseball analysts and columnists who declared the Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder deals to be busts, many because the folks we got were stinking it up and Huddy and Mulder were doing A-OK.

As I recall, the response here at AN was, for a good part, critical of these public opinion makers. The reasoning: You can't judge those off-season trades as good or bad based on a month or two. Billy Beane made these deals for the long term success prospects of the Oakland Athletics. And as it turns out, so far at least, Danny Haren and Kiko Calero aren't too shabby, and the A's have Daric Barton in the back of everyone's mind. And some are willing to give Haren and Calero (plus Juan Cruz and Charles Thomas) time -- months or even years -- to really make the two off-season trades look like gold.

Now comes the two mid-season trades, with the A's getting Jay Payton, Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick. The general feeling about deadline trades is that for contenders, they're for the short term -- getting that piece a team needs for the stretch run. If I understand correctly (and I'm sure someone can correct me), all three are signed through this year, with a club option for Payton in 2006. The only way to know if any of the three are long term is if they get signed beyond this season.

But Beane always likes to look long-term, so any of the three could be in the A's long term plans. On the other hand, John Mabry and Ray Durham, who helped spark the 2002 run, was only in Oakland for that season. Jose Guillen, another July acquisition, stuck around until the end of 2003. Octavio Dotel actually stuck around after the '04 season.

As fans, are we less likely to give Payton, Kennedy and Witasick the break we're giving Haren and Calero, because we expect them to perform now? Payton's been this year's Durham and Guillen, and Kennedy and Witasick have pitched pretty well. It seems Beane's knack for the July deal is still very strong.

But it seems odd that we can judge these deals over the same amount of time, but we should shy away from judging the Hudson and Mulder deals over essentially the same amount of time (two months).

Personally, I think it's OK to place a little double standard. Deadline deals are essentially, as if by definition, for players you need to produce now. Offseason deals are for building the base of your club for the long term. So sure, give the thumbs up for the Payton trade now -- because he might not be around for judging later. But Haren will be.

What do you think? How do you judge offseason trades as opposed to in-season trades?

Poll

How do you evaluate trades?

I want all deals to produce immediate results.

0 votes

Offseason trades are long-term; deadline trades are for now.

25 votes

All trades should have long-term ramifications.

21 votes

46 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Long Term Ramifications

Of course, those being good ones.

Just remember that trading for a guy who is in the last year of his contract is also an exmaple of a Long Term Ramification, IF the guy is a Type A or B Free Agent.

May the wind always be to your back, and never from it.

by Zonis on Aug 10, 2005 1:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice Post

Trades ideally should answer short and long-term needs. But Beane's criteria varies and rightfully so. It will always depend on the position and whose playing it. Beane's insight into the trades was helpful and also helps the sophisticated fan (eg AN blogger) distinguish such baseball related issues from the obtuse fan (eg a "Morganite" or a "Krukhead") who gets their information from East Coast biased media cable outlets.

by Gerard on Aug 10, 2005 1:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Two different animals

It seems to me that the reason we choose to look for more than a two month sample size with the off-season trades is that we are talking about the beginning of the season. Some guys get started slowly and need a while to warm up. Other guys start like a house-a-fire and cool down. Either way you know that you will have them for the entire year and they should be judged after six months of playing time. With the in-season trades you should know what you are going to get. You can look at three months worth of stats and expect to get, roughly, that for the rest of the season. Everyone is in playing shape and they should have a smooth transition toward the rest of the year.

My answer to the question is that early season trades should be judged in the long term while mid-season trades can be judged based on immediate returns. Either way, they both need to equate to wins.

"Leaders don't sit in the clubhouse eating Snickers bars and running their mouth."

by bvank on Aug 10, 2005 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

different animals, yes...but for different reasons

It all depends on the players involved, and the situational details behind each transaction. We allow for more time with the off-season trades because the goods that we got are meant to be enjoyed over the course of the next 3, 4, or 5 years. If Haren, Meyer, and Barton struggle over the course of two months, who cares? you still have 3 or 4 years to judge their talents. For Payton, we gave an expendable middle reliever and we got someone who will be with us for the remainder of the year, and could possibly be back next year if we choose. But even if it's just for this year, he can already be viewed as a success as he's been great for one month, with only two more to go.

Bottom line is, you have to understand what you're paying for in the first place before you jusge whether you got a good deal. And an important part of that is knowing where your players' value lies, whether it's in the next few months, or a couple of years down the line.

by okteds on Aug 10, 2005 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No hard fast rule

I think the real value of a trade is based entirely on the need of the team and the player in question. If a July deal can net you a piece that you want long term, make it. By the same token many off season trades are for players that are in for a year at best (read instant dividends in solidifying a possition or trade package). The beauty of the way BB handles these is key. It's fun to speculate why we get certain players and when. Why? Because we often don't know until the other shoe drops, be that a turnover or long term deal. I don't think there is a rule about a trade time frame and a payoff time frame. If there were, we all know Billy would rewrite it.

Furiously working on a Vodoo, Zombie, Bender beat.

by Duke of left field on Aug 10, 2005 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm convinced that analyzing trades...

...player for player is futile. A GM wins some, loses some, and even breaks even from time to time on trades. What really matters is whether or not the team sustains its competitiveness and reaches (or nearly so) the post season, year after year.

In that regard, this team has been '@#$%in' A' good at dealing.

by LowcountryJoe on Aug 10, 2005 5:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

much like poker

or anything else that involves playing the odds ...

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Aug 10, 2005 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you

some people seem to think that a good GM has to win all deals, that is silly, both teams should benefit since both GM's are supposed to be smart and each has different needs. You cannot ever analyze a trade straight up because sometimes guys you get get traded again for someone else, or you get a draft pick, so one morphs into another.
By any standard BB does a fantastic job analyzing what he needs for his team, sometimes a good player is traded but that should be expected, you are not supposed to get Babe Ruth for Jeremy Giambi.

by china bob on Aug 10, 2005 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs