Trading The Future For Short Term Success

[The Brain]

In 1987 the Detroit Tigers were in a pennant race and were looking to add to their starting rotation for the stretch run. They made a trade with the Atlanta Braves giving up a young pitching prospect to acquire veteran pitcher Doyle Alexander. The trade paid off as Alexander went 9-0 for the Tigers with a 1.53 ERA. They went on to win the division by two games and it’s reasonable to think they would not have won it without Alexander. Obviously a great trade for the Tigers right?

Not so fast. That young pitching prospect that was shipped to Atlanta was a guy by the name of John Smoltz. You may have heard of him. He went on to be an 8 time all star, win a Cy Young Award, win over 200 games while saving over 150 and striking out over 3000. He also became one of the best postseason pitchers ever. Smoltz will surely end up in the Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible. After 1987 Alexander would go 20-29 in two seasons before retiring. Obviously a great trade for the Braves.

When looking at the names it would be natural to say Atlanta got the much better end of the deal. Is that really the case? Detroit’s sole purpose of the deal was to get a pitcher that would get them into the playoffs. That’s exactly what Alexander did. However, after 1987 the Tigers would not reach the playoffs again for 19 years. Might they have had more success with Smoltz on their team? Of course we can’t know the answer to that, but no one can take the 1987 division title away from them. Strange as it may sound when looking at the names I’d have to say this was a good trade for both teams. The Braves spent the late 80s in last place and could certainly spare the aging Alexander. You never know how a prospect is going to pan out, and there are a lot more who don’t make it than do. You can’t hold it against a team for making a trade to strengthen their current roster while fighting for a division title. The Tigers did not make a mistake with this deal.

I’m just curious what the general thought is for a trade like this. If you were a Tigers fan how would you feel about it? Do you like the idea of trading a potential long term future star for short term success?

 

[MVP12]

yeah I agree I dont really like those trades either, they are a good thought though. If I were a tigers fan i wouldn't really be upset, well yes I would but not at the GM, just at how it all played out. The GM was just trying to get them a championship and thought that was the piece that could do and most likely play for more years to come. It reminds me of the Eric Gagne trade, my favorite team the red sox made. Though Doyle did 182742847 times better than gagne did, but the thought they had was to find the missing piece they needed to help win them a championship that year.

Here are some more recent trades that I could think of that were good at the time but didnt pan out in the long run.

Braves trade - Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and Beau Jones, Matt Harrison
Texas Trade - Mark Teixeira, Ron Mahay

That was such a bad trade. Elvis Andrus is a gold glove caliber short stop and a future allstar. Neftali Feliz is their closer now and throws high 90's to 100's. Those two players alone make that trade a horrible one, being that they are future allstars and are finally coming into their own.

Here is my last one, and this one is very small amount of players, one for one.

Dodgers trade - Carlos Santana

Indians trade - Casey Blake

Now how does that trade make sense? Trading a catching prospect who is now the Indians starting catcher, for an old Casey Blake. Casey Blake isn't even that great of a player, and to trade a guy who is looking to be a future allstar for a guy that hits a career .265? Doesn't make much sense to me.

So to get back on point, I think trading away your future is a bad thing, only if it is a good trade both ways, meaning you do what the phillies did with roy halladay and sign the person to an extension before the trade is complete. Thats my take on it.

 

[Stormtrooper]

aaaah, trading the future for short term success. As a Yankee fan, this is something I know VERY well. To me, some of these deals are necessary, but doing it too much kills your team. The Yankees did it WAY too much in the early part of the 2000's, and it lead to them having a really really really empty farm system (which has since rebounded into one of the better ones).

One thing everyone must remember, is that the pieces you are giving up are PROSPECTS. They are called PROSPECTS because the kids are unknown commodities that may or may not pan out. Brain gave the Doyle Alexander/John Smoltz trade, and that is an example of one that actually worked for both teams. But here's the question. Would Smoltz have panned out with the Tigers? He wouldn't have had Leo Mazzone as his pitching coach, nor would he have had Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to work with. All 3 of those guys are part of the reason that Smoltz had the success he did have (I'm not saying he would have sucked elsewhere or without them, but he might not have been as good).

Here are 3 examples of teams trading their "future" for "short-term success." Each has varying degrees of win for either side.

In 2007, the Mets "traded the future for short term success" when they traded 4 prospects to the Twins for Johan Santana. Here's what the Twins got back:

Spoiler

-Kevin Mulvey: Traded in 2009 as the Player to be Named Later for Arizona reliever Jon Rauch. Appeared in 2 games for Minnesota
-Deolis Guerra: Bounced between AA and AAA since 2009, has yet to make his Major League Debut
-Phil Humber: 13 Relief appearances in 2 years with the Twins, before he signed with the Royals, who waived him, he landed with the A's, who ultimately waived him, now he caught on now with the White Sox
-Carlos Gomez: Spent 2 seasons with the Twins before being shipped off to Milwaukee for veteran Shortstop JJ Hardy (who spent only 1 season with the Twins) before the 2010 season. Gomez batted .250 in his 2 seasons with the Twins, with a sub-.300 On Base.

In that trade, Gomez was the prize jewel for the Twins. He played 2 seasons of sub-par starting outfield before being shipped off to another team. Johan Santana has been an ace for the Mets for a few years (before suffering an injury which has sidelined him for the past 12 months or so). The Mets in 2008 were in the pennant race, and have spent the past 2 seasons in mediocrity.

Another trade to look at is the Yankees trading for Randy Johnson. Randy was solid for the Yankees for the 2 years they had him (before they traded him back to Arizona who mortgaged their future for Short-term success). In that trade, the Yankees gave up:

Spoiler

-Brad Halsey: Dumped after 1 year as a Starting Pitcher to Oakland for middle reliever Juan Cruz. He's been released and signed a few more times by various teams.
-Dioner Navarro: Traded that day with a few other minor Leaguers to the Dodgers for Veteran Outfielder Shawn Green. Navarro went on to have a couple good years with the Rays (2 teams after the D-Backs).
-Javier Vazquez: 1 sub .500 season with an ERA over 4 with the Diamondbacks, before being shipped to the White Sox (where he lasted 3 years, one of which was good), then 1 year each with Atlanta (good), Yankees again (bad), Marlins (bad so far, might not last the season).

That's another example of "Trading the Future for Short Term Success" that doesn't work for the team getting the future (arguably it might not have worked out for the team trading for it either, but it worked better then what Arizona got).

While the past 2 trades might have been better for the Superstar getting team, that's not always the case.

In June of 2002, the Indians (who were not very good) traded their ace, Bartolo Colon (who was a Free Agent after the 2003 season) to the Montreal Expos (who were trying to avoid contraction). The Expo's gave up:

Spoiler

-Lee Stevens: veteran guy who retired at years end
-Cliff Lee: just got a 130 million dollar contract, considered a top pitcher in baseball.
-Grady Sizemore: Face of the Indians Franchise. Oft-injured, but when healthy is one of the top outfielders in the AL.
-Brandon Phillips: 2010 All Star (with the Reds), very solid 2nd baseman.

So clearly the Indians "won" that trade. 3 All-stars for a guy the Expos traded in the offseason (they got crap back). The Indians started having success again (getting a starting 2nd baseman, Cy Young winning Starter, and All-Star Outfielder helps), and the Expos were controlled by the league and moved to DC a year or 2 later.

Trading prospects is an inexact science. More then that, Prospects are a crap-shoot. Some players pan out, some don't. That's why they're called PROSPECTS, and not "Surefire future legends." Hell, even guys thought of as "Can't Miss" prospects sometimes don't pan out.

 

[Big Sexy]

There are two main factors that need to be discussed before making deals like this.

1. Is the deal going to give you a great chance at winning a title. If you are trading away the future for some veterans you have to be confident in your new rosters ability to contend and possibly win a title.

2. You have to make sure you will be getting multiple years of success out of the veterans you trade for. You don't want to trade away your future for one potential season of greatness.

A perfect example of a couple trades that worked great was the Boston Celtics from a few years ago. The Celtics had a nice young nucleus with Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Delonte West, and the draft pick of Jeff Green to go along with veteran Paul Pierce. They then traded the pick of Jeff Green and Delonte West to get Ray Allen. They also traded Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, a couple first round picks, and a few others to get Kevin Garnett.

The trade ended up working out perfectly. Jeff Green and Al Jefferson have become really good players but those two wouldn't have won them the title like KG and Allen did (plus Green is now back on the Celtics after the Perkins trade). The C's won the title the next year and have been competitive for the 3 seasons post that title win, including a return trip to the finals last year.

On the flip side of that a trade that worked horrendously was back in 1989 in the largest trade in NFL history. The Vikings felt Herschel Walker was the last piece needed for a Super Bowl run so they gave up a few players and 8 draft picks to get him from the Cowboys. Two of those picks were used to draft Emmitt Smith and Darren Woodson. Some of the other picks were used as a package to obtain the number one pick in the 1991 draft where the Cowboys took Russell Maryland. The Vikings only made the playoffs once with Walker and lost in the first round. We all know what happened with the Cowboys.

 

[Megatron]

Unless I'm only 'one piece away' I hate trading away the future. Is it a conservative approach? Yeah. But let me give you an example of what people on sportstalk radio around my area have been talking about lately, which kind of strengthens my idea of holding onto your future.

There's been a few people talking that my Detroit Tigers need to make a move if they wanna make themselves a contender in the Central. Those people are suggesting that we trade possibly Andy Oliver, Jacob Turner, and possibly a bat or two to get the Mets 3B David Wright. While Wright is an All-Star and great player (and Inge is really becoming a bottom tier 3rd Basemen hitting wise) I wouldn't want that deal to be made. Why? Because the Tigers could be giving up 2 (or even 3, depending on who the hitter is) potentially good pitchers for one bat. While Wright would help out tons, he's not the only spot in the order where they need help and their future rotation (in the next 2-3 years) could be great with Verlander, Scherzer, Porcello, Turner, and Oliver. I would give up one year with a shot of the playoffs for 4-5 years of top level pitching.

For the most part, I think it's a bad idea, unless A) you are only one piece away, B) you can afford to get rid of those prospects, and C) you're getting a top guy back (say a David Wright or Jose Reyes, both who seem to be on the market).

 

[MVP12]

I was listening to WEEI (Sports talk radio, Boston, MA) and they talked about this very subject. Mostly talking about the trade the Red Sox made for Adrian Gonzalez and if the trade was worth it in the long run, like if the players we traded turned out to be stars. They also brought up the Gonzalez trade in 2003, when the Florida Marlins traded A-Gon and 2 other players to the Texas Rangers for Ugueth Urbina, the trade did work out for the Marlins seeing that he helped them win a World Championship that year, but Gonzalez is a much better player then Urbina ever was, and in the long run was it worth it? I say yes only because he helped them win that year, and was the missing piece they needed to win, seeing that they didnt have a great closer and they got one with Urbina....so i guess it all depends on the situation, it could be both bad or good.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

In sports in general (not just baseball), success is obviously never a guarantee. My feeling is that, if you're on the brink of contending for the championship (ie. you're "one player away" or a couple players away), then I think you go for it and make a trade that will benefit your team in the short term. Short term success is much easier to gauge than long-term success. In baseball in particular, I have seen teams hold onto minor league prospects because of their potential, rather than giving up some of those kids to win now. While the ceiling may be high with a prospect, you just never know what will be happening with your team in 3 years or if that player will still be good. If you have the opportunity to trade a young player for a player or players that will give your team a better chance at short term success, you do it.

It really all depends on the situation with the team too. If it's a team that wins a lot, ie. Red Wings, Patriots, Yankees, etc., they may be more inclined to keep the younger players around to be successful in the future since they're used to winning. Teams that aren't used to winning, may be (and in most instances should) willing to trade the future (which is a big uncertainty) for a higher likelihood of short term success.

Also, short term success can lead to long term success. If you're a historically bad team and you trade "the future" to make a run, and you do indeed make that run, you have a better chance at getting free agents and getting back to respectability.

Anyway, good topic as there really is no right or wrong answer. There are great examples on both sides.