http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/bryant-110803/mlb-trades-stars-prospects-fair-fans So on point it needed it's own thread, this is the fraud of trading an established, all star caliber player for "prospects" as currently practiced in MLB.
I didn't read the article yet. It will have to wait for tomorrow but.....What are teams like the Padres or Marlins supposed to do then when they can't resign their all star players? I agree that its a crap shoot when it comes to acquiring prospects, however, I feel like clubs know more about these players then the ones they would draft with the picks they would receive if they just let the player walk. I view both the Rangers and Rays to be two of the better run organizations and haven't they both traded star players for prospects that have turned out to improve their team in the long-run. I actually think about things the other way around. Its stupid to trade someone like Zack Wheeler who could be a solid number 2 starter for 10 years for only two months of Carlos Beltran. Or even take the Astros situation. Why not trade Pence? Yes, he is an "all star" but he wouldn't be one if we didn't have a rule that required every team be represented by one player. I believe he is under control for 2 more years(and to my understanding those years are going to be pretty expensive) and in those 2 years the Astros are still going to be one of the worst teams in baseball...with or without him. Why not move a player for two prospects that could help you down the road?
Edgar Renteria for Jair Jurrjens worked out pretty well. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of a team trading for young players and it working out pretty well. The Astros could continue being terrible with their established players or bring in some new players and see what they get. I'm sure it cut their payroll some as well.
That article was just bad and wrong (also I love how Bryant ignores trades that did work out for the franchise but that would kill his argument), to the point that other ESPN writers have said so. Case in point: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/39591 Jason (St Louis) Intriguing article posted today by Howard Bryant. Basically it said that teams are sticking it to their fans when they dump their stars for A ball prospects that may or may not pan out 4-5 years down the road. He says another way that only the Rays and A's seem to do is play them until they walk and take the comp picks. What's your opinion on that point of view? Klaw (1:10 PM) Those teams that "dump" their stars for "A ball prospects" are, in general, doing the right thing for their fans, rather than pandering (useful word today) to the section of the fan base that doesn't think any further ahead than today's lunch. For people who don't know Klaw is Keith Law now a scout at ESPN that was the Assistant to GM in Toronto for a few years so he has the inside knowledge and background to give a fair comment on the article. By the way PeaTearGriffin and Muscle nailed it. But hey if you wanted to watch Adrian Gonzalez this year playing for a last place team, that's fine. But sooner or later you'll need to get over it though because you're not getting it.
This is a joke. Cable revenues have skewed MLB so much that a small market team has no chance to keep their stars - no matter what they offer, the Yankees / Red Sox of the world can always tack on another $20 million without hesitating. I buy media for a living and let me illustrate what I mean. You buy television in rating points - and one rating point in Cleveland is $500. In New York is it $5,000. Now at the top and bottom of each inning is a 2 minute break (with four commercials) - meaning JUST in the game, there are 72 commercials. Assume the games do a 1 rating (which would be extremely low), the Indians would make $36,000 per game while the Yankees would make $360,000 per game. Over the course of a season that is $5.8 million for the Indians and $58.3 million for the Yankees. So the Indians are forced to trade guys like CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez because no matter what they offer, big-market teams will have more money just by nature of the size of town in which they reside. This also means that the difference between a $40 million payroll and an $80 million payroll is very little - becaues the top talent will always go to the big-market teams and the mid-level talent is left to be overpaid by small-markets. Case in point - the Indians signed Travis Hafner and Jakes Westrbrook to $10 mill+ a year contracts to maintain somewhat of a core. Both of them were injured, leaving the team one of the worst in baseball with no flexibility to add talent. And small-market fans are so turned off by watching their favorite players get traded that they won't even support the teams anymore. Look at Cleveland and Tampa being in the bottom 5 in attendance. Fans are so turned off, that they will barely support winners - meaning that teams that DO give out giant contracts would have to compete every single year in order to maintain any sort of profit to be able to PAY for those big contracts. So more or less this article is saying that small-market owners should take giant losses to sign contracts that may or may not result in wins and win almost assuredly result in financial losses - all the while their large-market brothers are raking in cash. (Sorry for the rant - but being a small-market MLB fan is one of the most frustrating things in the world. There is very little "sport" involved when a few teams are given a GIANT advantage. It is like playing a pick-up game of basketball but giving one guy the top 3 picks.)
Of course it cut payroll..on the worst team in the NL, do they need to cut payroll, or should they have added to payroll to not waste their fanbase's time with a AAA baseball team posing as a MLB team, as one commentator astutely puts it: When the team is just bad, the way MLB is designed there is very little reason to attend a game as the FO is essentially playing for a "window" of about 2 to 3 yrs if their prospects develop, and that is after they learn their trade in the minor leagues, if they bust, then even the MLB franchise is simply going to remain bad for a long time. And Fans know it, which is why the trades of established All Stars in their primes for a handful of magic beans is one of the largest scams MLB is perpetrating on it's fans.
More or less, though the artice does not come out and say such small mkt teams should pay 10 million per yr to keep mediocre players, it is saying that trading established players for A ball prospects is simply abdication of any sense of even bothering to try to win...right now...for the sake of the product on the field and giving fans reasons to support the team. MLB has abused the currency of fandom, hope that their favorite team will even try to win, in that sense it is so honest it is depressing.
But what is a team supposed to do? If they are 10 games back and losing with their star player, why would they sign him to a big deal? That would just ensure they would continue to lose - which would in turn, turn off fans. More or less it is lose with stars or win every 4-5 years with prospects. And neither one seems to be sustainable in small markets. I just can't fathom how anyone would blame small markets for the current system. This is like blaming a wimpy kid for getting giving his lunch money to a bully and telling him he should let the bully beat him up and take his lunch money anyways. Again - look at my example above - big-markets are swimming in profits while small-markets are making a choice -maintain a $40million payroll and make money on revenue sharing, or try to win and operate at a loss (again - look at Tampa's attendance numbers).
What is happening Phinoma is the smaller market teams ownership is quite happy to peddle their expensive stars for magic beans and field a cheap team as at the end of the day...they are making quite good money owning a MLB Franchise, that is the other side to his point, not that the Phillies can swipe Hunter Pence for magic beans, but that the Astros themselves simply see it as a profit maximizing move. The Padres gave away Ryan Ludwick their best power hitter and rbi player...for cash or a PTBNL rather then pay him a 8 million dollar salary for half of a season.
Really now you're mad the Padres traded Ryan Ludwick? He stinks. Of course the Padres should try to trade Ludwick for anything (even if it's a bag of balls or a hot dog) rather than pay him a little under 7 million a year to bat .238/.301/.373/.674. Did you honestly expect to keep him or get anything of value back for him? By you saying Ryan Ludwick is their best power hitter and RBI player just stresses the point that the Padres did the right thing by dealing Gonzalez in the offseason. Their MLB team is bad and they need to rebuild. So come on you need to do better than that. As for the Astros, that franchise is a disaster from their MLB team right down to their farm system and they did exactly what they should do in that situation. Trade everything they can in order to rebuild. Hunter Pence is a good, not great baseball player, and they figured his value would never be higher so they traded him for 3 high upside prospects with hopes that in 3 years they would be helping the MLB team, instead of in 3 years watching Hunter Pence sign with someone else. It's called looking at the long term health of the franchise. Today they're in a better position to compete in the future than they would be if they kept Pence. Will all 3 prospects pan out? Probably not but Houston has a better shot at being better 3 years down the road than they would if they kept Pence while paying him big money (which he wouldn't be worth) and still have a bad team.
My point is the system is set up that way. This isn't some loophole that small markets are exploiting. They more or less have to make a choice - lose and make money or win and lose money. How is that fair? And how can you blame them for trading their stars for prospects if they aren't going to be able to sign them? If they are losing with a player - why would they lock him into a long-term deal where they can't add any other players. That would be terrible management. I guess I'm not seeing what small-markets are supposed to do. You can get mad that they are trading stars for prospects (which has allowed small-markets to compete) but unless you provide an alternative, what are you upset about? It seems like the author is upset at small markets for making money. Like they are supposed to lose money no matter what to appease their fan base - all the while letting large markets off the hook for making insane amounts of money in a system tilted to benefi
PhiNomina, I feel for you being a fan of a small market team and obviously you can't compete with the big markets in terms of dollars but just look at some of the talent you have because of making trades: Grady Sizemore, Travis Hafner, Shin Soo Choo, Michael Brantley, Justin Masterson, Cabrera, LaPorta, Chris Perez, Carrasco and also got guys like Cliff Lee and Brandon Philips in past who aren't on the team anymore. Obviously not every team for prospects are going to pan out however the Indians are a pretty good example of being forced to trade their big high priced stars but getting back good quality talent in return. The Indians are set up pretty well to make a real run at the playoffs for the next couple of years. It just shows that small market teams can do with a smart FO. Of course now what's happening is FOs are signing their young talent to team friendly long term deals so they can hold onto them for awhile (ie Evan Longoria).
Also - how is trading for prospects raising the white flag? It is the only model that has worked for small market teams. The Indians have had some success, as has Milwaukee and the Marlins and a few other small market teams. I just honestly don't see what you consider to be the alternative to this approach.
Exactly why I don't understand demonizing a team like the Indians for doing this. It has proven to work. We had CC and Lee and Victor and those guys all on one team in '08 and '09 and we weren't winning - why would we sign them to GIANT deals and continue to lose - but now at a financial loss?
That's a good point, we know your stance on trying for prospects but what would you do if you were the GM, Padre? Keep the players and let them walk for draft picks? Because draft picks are much riskier than trading for prospects. And might end up costing the team more money doing so.
Yeah I guess I don't understand how letting your FA walk for draft picks is not giving up - but trading them for prospects is. I've already demonstrated why small-markets can't re-sign their players - so it isn't fair to say they should automatically do that.
Because the problem is, they trade the established, quality player, and replace him with..no one, nothing, they get a pass, for example in SD after trading A-Gone they brought in..Brad Hawpe, now suppose the trade for A Gone was needed..why not replace him with a quality player instead of Vet who was DFA'd the yr prior? Trading for prospects relieves the Franchise from dealing with the current season in any real sense, at least that is how Franchises approach it, simply because you cannot afford AGone does not then also mean you have to sign a Vet minimum player...and yet that is exactly what happened, when called out on it they say "oh, but so and so is in now in the organization, we wouldn't want to create a roadblock".
Because teams in contention aren't going to trade MLB players for MLB players - since they are competing. And why trade one good player for another good one if you are already a bad team? That is just shuffling chairs on the Titanic. The point is to compete, right? So why wouldn't you try to trade for a few good players and have them all come up at the same time - so you have a quality team - not one quality player?
Yep, they should have as the team had nothing behind him. Which is the way it goes, and Beourne going to Atlanta? Etc etc, what the article astutely points out is: -the prospects rarely work out (and historically do not, check out the Seaver trade to the Reds) -the team then is relieved of the responsiblity of replacing the traded player with a quality player -small mkt teams do not complain (and screw their fans) as they are profitable under this system -the additional commentary about the "window theory" is spot on, though no Exec would really highlight that the team is going to be terrible for the hope a window opens, 2 yrs from now, for 2 to 3 yrs max, if all goes well. Basically, small mkt teams under the current system are on a 7 yr cycle with 4 or 5 dreadful yrs and 2 or 3 good yrs, then the cycle starts over.
I would insure that if I had to trade that all star player I'd have a replacement who can produce waiting to play on the roster even if it cost more to do so. For example, when AGone was traded, there were quality 1st basemen on the mkt at reasonable prices, LaRouche and he signed 5 million per yr elsewhere, they were paying AGone 8 million in 2010, and yet they signed Hawpe instead for dirt cheap. I speak about the Padres as I have more knowledge of that particular situation, but it is by no means unique in MLB.
In Cleveland they readily admit to the windows of contention. Again - what is the alternative. What does trading for an MLB ready player do, since that team is already a poor team? If you were a small market owner/GM - how would you try to win? You are villifying small-market owners for turning any sort of profit while still trying to win - while glossing over the system that allows large market teams to be profitable no matter what. Why is it bad for small market teams to make money but not large market teams?
Because like PhinNomia said the trade getting the MLB player is likely competing and thus wouldn't trade another good MLB back. And the reason why a team like San Diego didn't replace Gonzalez with another quality veteran player is because the team wasn't going to be good regardless of who they brought in (which is why they would be dealing Gonzalez in the first place) so they did the right thing by signing someone like Hawpe to a short term, low money deal. So you'd be happy with San Diego paying Ludwick the remainder of his 6 plus million and the team to be in last place instead of freeing up that money to help in signing the current year's draft picks or signing some international free agents? Come on you really need to get a clue here. Yes Houston did the right thing by trading Michael Bourne, unfortunately Ed Wade didn't get any quality players back for him. The intentions were spot on, the execution wasn't. Which is another story all together.
Every team in baseball makes money. Like Padre said there are even teams out there that are cutting cost so they can make even a bigger profit. I believe there was a Forbes article 2 years ago that said that the Marlins turned the biggest profit that year...have you seen how empty that stadium is? Either way all money does for teams is make it possible for them to absorb mistakes by the front office(ex: Carl Pavano). Better run teams tend to stick around. Look at the Rays, they currently might be the 3rd or 4th best team in the AL. Have been in the top 3-4 for the past 3 years and it looks like they will be for another 5 years. They're in a small market but they have a smart and innovative FO. They don't make stupid moves like giving an aging Vernon Wells some huge deal to cripple their franchise. Even big market teams like the Phillies and Red Sox's didn't start winning until they brought in smarter people to run their franchise. Heck, look at the Cubs....all the money in the world and might be one of the bottom 5 teams in baseball. Again small market teams have no issue keeping their players if they think its the right move for their future. Ryan Braun is signed with the Brewers through 2021. Troy Tulowitzki also signed through 2021. Cargo signed through 2017. Evan Longoria through 2016. All on small market teams that have been signed to big deals to keep them there through their prime. I don't know about Cleveland's market but for Tampa there is a whole different issue with attendance then fans being turned off. By all accounts its the worst stadium in all of baseball(besides maybe Oakland) and its in a terrible location. Who is going to sit in 2 hour traffic to get to St. Petersburg.
You'd be wasting money if you did that then. What's the point of signing LaRoche, who's not a very good player, if the team was going to be bad no matter what? Wouldn't it make more sense to sign a Brad Hawpe to a 1 year deal on the cheap with hopes that if for some reason how a bounce back year they could trade him for another prospect (even if that prospect was a C level one) to help in the future and if he sucked then he'd be gone next year? I mean at the end of the day does it really matter who the Padres brought in to play 1B whether it was Hawpe or LaRoche? The team was going to be bad anyway. Might as well use the money you would have paid LaRoche on international free agents or draft pick bonuses. Because the main reason to be trading Gonzalez in the first place is to rebuild the farm system for the future of the MLB team.
Nice points and you're right. Cleveland unfortunately has gotten hammered economically and that city is really in tough shape right now. As for Tampa Bay you're spot on but since 2007 their TV ratings have never been higher. So while people may not go to the Dome to watch them play due to the reasons you stated, they are watching them on TV so at least they have that going for them, which is nice.
Sorry, but huge payrolls don't just let you cover your mistakes, they let you sign the best players that hit FA. There are some nice stories of guys signing large deals in small markets - but does that compare to what the Yankees, Red Sox, etc are able to do? Signing ONE all-star is much different than fielding a roster of them. And even if small market teams are turning a profit - would it be enough to cover an additional $20 million contract? What about 2-3 of them? The MLB system has turned small markets into the farm teams of large markets - and lets the owners turn more of a profit for losing than for winning. Not sure how you blame the small markets for that.
Wasting money? What trying to win games is wasting money? Rizz and Blanks barely hit .100 and that was somewhat predictable. Keep in mind I'm not only speaking about the Padres per se, that is merely one situation that I have knowledge of that dovetails perfectly with the Article to open the thread, this is by no means limited to San Diego.
I know you're only speaking about the Padres because you know the situation, that's why I keep using them as an example. And yes you'd be wasting money by signing LaRoche instead of Hawpe especially since LaRoche signed 2 year 16 million dollar contract with an option for 10 million for a 3rd year while Hawpe was signed for just 1 year at peanuts. The 'upgrade' from LaRoche to Hawpe isn't enough to justify giving LaRoche a long term bigger money deal, especially considering LaRoche hit .100 in just about the same amount of ABs as Rizzo did and would have cost San Diego 15 million dollars more and also got hurt and was lost for the year. Especially when you factor in getting Anthony Rizzo back in the Gonzalez trade, why would you want to potentially block Rizzo's path to the major leagues just to sign a MLB veteran (who isn't very good anymore at that). But of course complaining about Rizzo and Blanks hitting .100 in such a small sample size is silly to begin with. Your logic just doesn't add up or make sense. You just want them to sign a name guy just to have him on the team for that year instead of looking down the road, which is what Keith Law's comment was that I quoted in my first post in this thread.
The fact LaRoche was injured has no bearing on the thought process RF, when a team trades so and so for "prospects" the seldomly replace them with anyone credible, let alone productive, it acts as a absolution of the responsiblity to their patrons to field a quality team, a sort of "sorry guys, we are not trying to win anything this yr, we traded our best player, your favorite, and will replace him with crap, season ticket packages now on sale". Why is in MLB such a flaccid approach to competing the "smart baseball move"? And doesn't that speak volumes about the nature of MLB, more of a boutique then a competitive sport? that would be: "your logic doesn't add up or make sense..in MY opinion" Keith Law pfft, he and Olney are the two worst offenders of this system, a small market team trades their best player for prospects, they bless the trade with a "baseball people like this move" and voila! the organization is absolved from the need to field a competent product, let alone a competitive one and the pocket the monies they traded player was making with a "wait till next yr!..3 yrs from now!" Hearing Law bless a trade is a bit like hearing a Visa spokesmen endorsing merchants taking credit cards for payment, it is their business, but it is not what is best for the consumer or fan.
I think there has to be a right mix of retaining guys, and trading away the guys for prospects when it comes to bettering your franchise.... Like Minny did well signing Mauer, and they are about as small as a market as all, hometown kid, wanted to play there if competitive. Gonzo liked SD, being from around there, if the money was right then he would have stayed, however that would have encompassed them ponying up the money the Sox did, or close to it, whihc would have been tough. Baseball is won by either if you are the Yanks, and have money to cover up your mistakes, or you have to build from within and sprinkle a few free agent name in here and there. Hell guys remember from 96-00 the Yanks dynasty? I used to laugh when Sox fans used to talk about that all the Yanks do is buy players, but when you looked at the makeup of those teams they were pretty equal on homegrown talent....Gene Michael drafted well, and developed that team, made some smart *** trades (Roberto Kelly for Pauly)and when he left New York stopped developing, and went into "buy big name" mode....and they haven't ever been as dominate as they were in the mid-late 90's again....even with their payroll the way it is..... Totally unrelated to baseball but I can relate to the smaller market thing being an Edmonton Oiler fan, and more importantly in college basketball a Providence College Friar fan...I know I know it is college, however same premise, they play in the Big East, they recruit against the Big East, it is the same exact thing...we get 3 star players, when Syracuse gets a 5 star to sit the bench....it is frustrating...I get it....oh and screw Fink if you like UCONN I guess the moral of this story is, damn it is good to be either a Sox or a Yankee fan eh Fink....?? Just joking guys, honestly I am about as non a sterotypical Yankee fan as there is....I have seen 5 championships, I mean do I really care if they ever win again? Of course I want to see them win, I post on a Dolphins board about it all the time, of course I do, but again can I really get upset? I dont when they lose...sure the action is reved up against the Sox, but ultimatelly I am like eh.....when the Dolphins lose ONE regular season game I freak out 10X worse....y? Because I have never seen it...If San Diego, the Cubs, etc ever beat NY in the WS I can honestly say I would be happy for them....
It's just not worth it to go for 5 to 10 extra wins when you're a bad team. For a team without a giant payroll what is more important than building up the farm system? I'll stick with the team I know best, where would the Braves be without their farm system? Despite being a fairly small city they are not considered a 'small market team' but they can't compete in FA with the Bostons and NYs of the world either. There's a reason Frank Wren refused to give up his top prospects for an extra five wins or so with a guy like Beltran or Pence. You need that steady wave of players ready to come make an impact in MLB. The Astros needed to acquire as many minor leaguers as possible, they did the right thing. Whether they win 55 or 65 games this season is of little consequence.
I don't understand this. How does the team receiving the major league player automatically win? Are trades not judged years after they're made? Btw, it's not as if that 'better' player automatically plays well with their new team.
There are probably a million trades where the team receiving the better player at the time certainly did not end up winning. That's kind of a ridiculous statment actually. The Pirates had a fire sale a couple of seasons ago and it's starting to somewhat pay off for them. Ask those fans if they'd trade their relevancy now for a handful of extra wins two seasons ago.
They said the same crap last yr FY, and the payroll actually pulled back to around 35 million, maybe less by now.
Dumped Ludwick and his 8 million dollar salary and I "think" Adams was making 3 million. Hawpe, I think, was DFA'd.
