With the trade deadline rapidly approaching, general managers of teams in or close to contention are faced with the dilemma of balancing the present and the future of their ball clubs. Yesterday’s trade of to the Giants for top-35 prospect Zack Wheeler is a perfect example of a move that raises the question of whether it is prudent to sacrifice a possible future star for the chance to win now.
On the one hand, general managers are tasked with building a consistent winner, a team with a strong core that can be in the playoff picture on a regular basis. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is to have a strong farm system, which can help refresh and revitalize the Major League roster on a yearly basis. Teams that build from the inside can have a sustained run of success with a fairly cheap core, allowing them to supplement as necessary with free agents and make regular runs at division titles.
On the other hand, the primary goal for a baseball team is obviously to win a World Series. In many cities, fans and owners alike would be willing to sacrifice a sustained run of relative success for one World Series title. Obviously, this objective can often interfere with the goal of becoming a consistent contender, as building a championship team for the present often requires surrendering chips that can solidify the future.
We see this come up at every deadline, and the discussion flared up yesterday regarding the Beltran trade. Some prospect gurus thought that Wheeler was too much to give up for two months of Beltran, as Wheeler projects as a top of the rotation starter. Other observers applauded the Giants for seeing the opportunity to snag another World Series ring and doing what it takes to put themselves in a strong position heading into the season’s final months.
Personally, I liked the move for the Giants. For most teams, a legitimate chance at winning a World Series should trump most other concerns. Unless the cost in prospects is insanely prohibitive, I am all for “going for it” in the right context. The general manager needs to assess whether his team is really a contender, as sacrificing key prospects when you are a fringe team (see the Indians, for example) is simply not worth it. Then, the GM needs to look at the state his team will be in if the club loses in the postseason. If the trade would leave the farm system barren and the Major League club in a weak position, it is probably a bad idea to give up the pieces necessary to secure the future of the club. But if the GM finds that he can significantly improve the club’s chances at a title now without totally destroying their future chances, it makes sense for most teams to take that plunge, even if they might be surrendering a bit more value than they would in neutral circumstances.
I say “for most teams” because I think the Yankees are something of an exception. Part of the reason that it makes sense for clubs to sacrifice plenty for the chance at a title is that for many teams, they may not get quite as good an opportunity again in the near future. They need to seize the moment while their window is still open and try and maximize their chances of being the last club standing. The Yankees’ window, however, has been open for 15 years and shows little sign of closing any time soon. They should be not quite as desperate to maximize their chances in a given year, and instead focus on the best way to ensure their sustained success. With their resources, they can choose to go all-in in any given season, so it makes more sense for them to lay back and pick their spots rather than trade prospects at the deadline every time they contend (which is every season).
This does not mean that Brian Cashman should not pursue any trades or move any prospects. What it means is that they do not have the pressure of “going for it” that other clubs have, which should allow them to avoid giving up too much for a player who is not a long-term chip. There is no reason for them to relinquish important prospects for rentals when they are likely to get into the postseason this year and will likely be in a similar position again next season. If they do not see players they need at suitable prices, they should pass and just roll with what they have.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
The Yankees are not good enough to win the World Series in 2011 and 2012 with the after Sabathia rotation they have. Burnett is the only rotation lock besides Sabathia for 2012 and 2013 and only because he’s making $16.5M per year, assuming Sabathia opts out as a formality then re-signs or the Yanks avoid that and sign him to an extension after this season which is what I think will happen.
They are dead without Sabathia or him being him. That alone should prompt the Yanks to get another starter. Weird how none of you think along those lines since the Yanks don’t have a true #2 and it’s arguable if anyone besides Burnett is a true long-term #3.
They need a starter to bump Hughes out of the rotation, make Burnett and Colon fight each other for Game 4 starts in the postseason, and have three locks for next year’s rotation (again assuming Sabathia returns which I think he will.) No two-month rentals like Kuroda.
I say trade for Jimenez because recent history shows the Yanks succeed to varying degrees when they trade for an ace or #2 like this:
Doyle Alexander – 1976 AL pennant, first World Series appearance by the Yanks since ’64.
David Cone – 1995 AL wildcard, 1996, 1998-2000 World Series Championships
Roger Clemens – 1999 and 2000 WSC, AL pennant 2001 and 2003.
Randy Johnson – 2005-2006 ALDS appearances. The worst trade of the bunch in terms of results but hey, it was RJ. If memory serves me I think he did very well against Boston as a Yankee.
Toronto and Arizona never won anything with what the Yanks traded them. Scott McGregor went to the ’79 World Series with the Os and was their ace for the ’83 WS truimph, but the Yanks won double the WS and pennants 1976-81 and had good or better seasons 1983-88 after a bump in the road bad ’82.
Could history change for the worse with Jimenez? Sure but recent history doesn’t show it and he’s making so little compared to what a free-agent would cost the Yanks next year, the Yanks could always sign someone. I could totally see a Sabathia/Jimenez/C.J.Wilson/Burnett/TBD and would be totally cool with it.
Is Jimenez on the level as the four aforementioned pitchers? He might be as good as or better than Alexander who was no slouch with 194 career wins and that’s about it, but he could be as good as any star starter for the next 4 to 8 years. He has the talent to help the Yanks win it all this year.
I could see why someone would make the argument that the Yankees aren’t good enough to win the 2011 World Series with the rotation they have behind Sabathia. I may not necessarily agree with that sentiment — what we think about a team on paper doesn’t absolutely correspond to what can happen on the field — but I can completely understand that point of view.
To say the Yankees aren’t good enough to win the 2012 World Series is absurd. Even by adding the caveat “as currently constructed” wouldn’t work because we all know that the 2012 team isn’t “currently constructed” and won’t be until the day playoff rosters are set in September of 2012.
There’s being a sober realist and then there’s absurd pessimism.
Exellent topic, Moshe. The future could easily be undermined by excessive enthusiasm for available talent. Jimenez would require the fruits of 3 to 4 years of effort of the total Yankees minor league system. It is putting all your eggs in one basket.
Agreed, although one could argue that the Yankees don’t maximize the Rule IV Draft as well as a team in their financial position could and thus that somewhat limits the effectiveness of their talent pipeline.
Ideally, sending out three top prospects in a trade would hurt less if the team was always able to replace those prospects in shorter periods of time.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m bashing the Yankee farm system — I’m definitely not — but I’ve never fully understood why the Yankees annual “draft spend” isn’t a larger number (nor do I completely understand their draft strategy).
In any case, I’d support a trade for Jimenez because, as much as I love prospects, I love established MLB players more. Especially ones like Jimenez that are signed to relatively team-friendly deals with more than one year of control remaining. It’s why I was against trading for Johan Santana but why I was totally in favor of trading for Curtis Granderson…
I’m pro-Jimenez because I dont think that is sacrificing the future for the present. Considering the attrition rate on prospects and Ubaldo’s age and contract, that’s a positive move for now AND the future.
I agree 98.9%. The remaining 1.1% represents my concern about his decreased velocity and generally average results since mid-June 2010.
that’s what I mean about the one basket. If you stack up the fruits of 3 – 4 seasons against it, it better be strong. There is a palpable question there.