[image title="Detroit+Tigers+v+Toronto+Blue+Jays+R9W0tYZiG5nl" size="full" id="17439" align="center" linkto="full" ]
This was a thought that I saw posted elsewhere over the last few days, but cannot remember where I saw it first. If this was your point, I apologize for not linking to you.
With Austin Jackson performing incredibly well in Detroit, Ian Kennedy looking good in Arizona, and Arodys Vizcaino getting glowing reviews from scouts, many have suggested that Brian Cashman must be hoping for a regression from these players. As the Yankee ends of these trades struggle, Cashman begins to look bad to those making very hasty evaluations of those deals, and is only escaping significant criticism due to the team’s strong play. It seems only natural that he would want those players to fail, making him look like a genius who consistently wins trades. However, I think that there is a flip side to this situation, one that fans often fail to consider.
After Moneyball was released, Billy Beane supposedly had a hard time making trades with the freedom that he had previously, because the book presented him as a genius that always won trades. Opposing General Managers eventually became wary of dealing with Beane, suspecting that he was fleecing them with overvalued prospects in order to obtain undervalued assets. There is value in having prospects that the team trades work out: it gives the GM some cachet with his peers, as it displays that he is willing to give up talent to obtain talent. This trust will help the GM make deals in the future, as those across the table will know that the team’s prospects are not simply overhyped and may actually have legitimate potential.
As fans, we want our team to win every trade, and I am sure that on some level, Brian Cashman would not mind that result at all. But there is value in having a trade work for the other party as well.
What do you think? Do you want your GM to “win” every trade? Or do you think it is important that some traded assets succeed?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
11 Responses to Discussion: How Does A GM Want Traded Prospects To Perform?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
When someone has been in your organization for a few years or more, worked hard, and been a good “organizational citizen” and teammate, I don’t think you wish them to unsuccessful upon leaving. I think you’d be happy for most trades to be win/win (at least when it doesn’t come to games against NYY). It’s human nature to take some solace in the players you give up underperforming if the players you got back did, but I don’t think you’d wish that on them.
That’s a good point. For example, I really liked Kennedy, and I am quite happy to see him succeed.
Amen. Plus, just because someone is enjoying success with a new club does not mean he would have enjoyed the same success with New York. For example, A-Jack is starting in the majors with Detroit, but would probably have been stuck in AAA but for the trade — who knows how he would be doing.
The Beane comment is the most logical one to me-you want both sides to win so people are more willing to trade with you.
It’s like dealing with other people in fantasy baseball. If you make lopsided trades, you get blackballed; no one wants to trade with you, let alone negotiate, and the only way they deal is if you drastically overpay.
Also, if another team gets prospects that do well, people stop wondering if a teams prospects are just overhyped and start believing that the organization knows what they are doing. An example would be the Yankee system versus the Braves. For years (not really anymore), scouts claimed the players in the Yankees system were overvalued, yet players the Braves churned out were often thought as being more accuratately hyped since they had a higher success rate of being right.
Awesome article Moshe
To be honest, I believe the ideal trade is a complete rip off of the other team. I mean, that’s getting the most bang for your buck, the best value. However, Billy Beane may disagree with that now that the 29 other GMs in baseball are hesitant to deal with his organization.
-Ballhawk Shawn
realtalk.mlblogs.com
For ‘Cashman, I expect a deal that benefits NY immediately while helping the other team in the future. The problem for Cashman with the Granderson deal is that he isn’t helping the team this year while the pieces he traded look major league ready. Vasquez looks like Steve Trout and Johnson isn’t looking better than Damon or Matsui. Its looking like a disastrous offseason (at least for the moment) for Cash and yet the team is still in 1st.
Trade results, and I’m talking after the dust has settled are often a product of blind luck. I doubt that Billy Beane is “feared” by his peers, he just might be in a GM “slump”. As for Cashman, people want to hang him because of A-Jax hot start (we’ll have to wait and see), but right now I like that Cashman held on to Hughes & Chamberlain in leiu of trading for Johan Santana. Again, let’s wait a few years to evaluate Cashman’s machinations….
Wow, what issues raised here. Some comments….
(1)- A GM could never publically make comments where he would root against the players he traded away performing badly, as this would make him look petty and mean spirited. But, what any GM would say to a close associate in a quiet office, after hours, or in a cubby hole in a bar, on the road,might be another thing. This would make him look human.
(2)-Agree that any GM with a long string of one sided trades to his favor, would be looked at much more closely., by the other GMs. They would ask. “Why does he want this guy, what does he see in him that our people don’t”.”Maybe we don’t want to give him up afterall” Examples are Beane and Theo–early on successes, followed by less later on.
(3)–You are asking a very deep question that delves deep into what lurks, truely, in the hearts of men?
GMs are people with job insecurities, desire for praise, desire for recognition, etc. that most humans have.
(4)-It might behoove a GM (who has job security and longevity) to give up something sometimes (probably for salary/ financial considerations) that is just a little bit weighted towards the other side, and note it, so that the favor might be returned at a later time, when you might need it. Call it building goodwill with your peers. Might this explain some trades that leave me scratching my head at times?
(5)-The trades made are not usually the main idea of a GM only, or even mostly, most times. The GM builds up the trade idea with input from numerous baseball people—3, 5, 6, maybe a dozen, or more people. So, after the trade, the GM remembers who argued for and against the trade, and who gave good advice, and who was wrong. You can bet that the better GMs do post trade anaylsis, and people who argued wrong know it. Why were we wrong, exactly, and what can be done about it in the future? Maybe there are people in the “doghouse” for years because of it, or maybe there are internal “scapegoats” that we, the public, never hear of. In this case, the GM might be totally clear of wrong doing (as everyone knows who argued for him to do it) within his organization, though the public, or local papers howl at him a bit as the figurehead, and key approver, of the deal.
Moshe, my two cents worth.
Does anyone really think the trade for Curtis Granderson was a bad move? I don’t think anybody thought Austin Jackson would come on this strong this early even the powers that be in the Tigers organization.
As far as IPK goes I thought he would be a major league pitcher somewhere, and it wasn’t like the Yanks didn’t give him any shot, he just didn’t perform consistently. Last I heard that’s the kind of guy you let go, and his inconsistency will likely return. After all wasn’t he the kid who was going to be a throw in when the Yankees traded either Joba, or Phil Hughes to get Johann Santana? Sometimes the trades you don’t make really are your best ones.
As far as anyone thinking Brian Cashman had a bad off-season because of these moves, I believe it’s time to come down off the ledge and take a deep breath, everybody knew Nick Johnson was a gamble, however Hidecki Matsui wasn’t a guarantee either, and Johnny Damon wanted to believe Scott Boras about it being ’06 instead of 2010, and when he realized that baseball was going through it’s version of an austerity program it was to late the Yanks had already made their move.
To all the second guessers out there, My dad used to say to me that in life you are going to make a lot of decisions every day, some good, some bad, some will make no difference, all you can do is make the most informed choices possible and plan to adjust when necessary.
software n73