FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I agree with you to an extent, but I believe it is different in different situations. A situations such as with Greinke, I wouldn’t trade him within the division because he’s still fairly young. The Twins have Mauer and Morneau and will be competitive for a while. Giving them Greinke would make them a serious contender for the next two years. If the Royals knew there was no way the Twins could re-sign Greinke, I’d say go for it.

    It’s an interesting situation though because the Twins really may be the only team that has what it takes to get Greinke at this point. Too bad for the Royals because they basically have to trade him and don’t have any leverage.

    Comment by JoeS — December 16, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

  2. Good post, Reed. I agree entirely as I think the “don’t trade within your division” meme is short-sighted and a product of groupthink from the media and baseball “old-schoolers.” If the Royals do trade Greinke to the White Sox or Twins, not only do they get their competitors’ best prospects, but by the time the Royals are able to compete, Greinke has moved on to someplace else through free agency. Even if he re-signs with the Twins or Sox, he takes up a huge portion of their competitors’ payrolls as he heads into his older, less productive years.

    At worst, the Royals trading within their division causes no harm but might enable them to ask for and expect a greater return than they would get from the Yankees, Rangers, or Nationals. Last season, the Astros refused to trade Roy Oswalt to the Cardinals, thus eliminating a competitor for his services and reducing the return they eventually got from the Phillies. That’s just dumb (but it’s also Drayton McLane and Ed Wade!). By the time the Astros are competitive again, Oswalt has either moved on or become much worse due to age. It’s very short-sighted.

    Comment by chuckb — December 16, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  3. You make an interesting point but at the end of the day, teams are reluctant to trade within the division because the stakes are simply too high. Several GMs have lost their jobs over bad trades, and with any trade there is the risk that you will look silly later. Trading a bunch of good prospects to your rival for a guy who ends up flopping does serious long term damage to the teams future. Likewise, trading a star to a rival for a bunch of prospects that never reach their hype is doubly damaging since you’ve essentially given away a star for players that likely would not have helped your rival if the trade have never taken place. Your logic is sound if one could accurately predict the outcome of trades, but considering how unpredictable this game is, I think in division trades are likely to remain uncommon.

    Comment by Josh — December 16, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

  4. Great post!

    Quick question, sorry to show my out of the loopness, but who are the Twins rumored to be offering? Doesn’t every other team have a top prospect that they *could* put on the table?

    From the Twin’s perspective, this could be a great deal. Makes good on Mauer and (possibly) Morneau’s best years. After that, it seems like the Tom Kelly draft effect has passed and the team is not likely to appear near the top of the division for a while.

    Comment by Barkey Walker — December 16, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

  5. Actually, if the Mariners are interested (as some have suggested they are), they could make a Greinke deal work if they’re willing to move Michael Pineda in exchange. With a top-shelf pitching prospect like that in the deal, the rest is very doable.

    Comment by The Ancient Mariner — December 16, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

  6. The real conclusion here is that the answer to whether to trade within your division depends on whether you are trading a veteran relatively close to free-agency or future prospects. While there might be a slight advantage to the within-division trading partner that is dealing the veteran, there is then the converse disadvantage to the within-division trading partner that is giving up future prospects. More specifically, you are better off if you can go and get 1/2 year of pitching ace X from outside the division, because you do so without making your within-division competition better in the future.

    So again, whether its a good idea to trade within your division depends on which side of the trade you are on (and what you are giving up).

    Comment by otherside — December 16, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

  7. The Royals NEVER said they wouldn’t trade Greinke within the division. That story came out on December 2. Here is what was actually said that day:

    “There’s been speculation that the Twins will be hot in the hunt for Greinke but it’s been learned that the Twins have no intense designs on him, at least at the moment. It’s also been guessed that Moore would not trade him within the AL Central Division, but those who know the GM feel that he’d make the right deal regardless of the division.

    “If you get the type of deal that’s necessary to improve your team, you don’t worry a whole lot about that,” Moore said. “I don’t say you don’t consider it, because you do. Everything being equal, you’d love to get him out of the division and out of the league.”

    Dayton Moore merely said that his preference would be outside the division, but it wasn’t a requirement. This got blown WAY out of proportion.

    Here’s the link to the quote, BTW:

    http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101202&content_id=16245452&vkey=news_kc&c_id=kc

    Comment by tbr — December 16, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

  8. One thing I do not understand from the article, especially in Grienke’s case, is lack of long term benefit for the Twins or whoever in the division. Let’s say the Twins do sign resign him after trading for him, but for a ton of money. Your argument is that because a star is being paid exorbitantly they aren’t valuable? While “surplus value” is always a great thing, and teams do have limited funds, I feel like you are diminishing the value of players ability because of their paychecks a little much. I do understand how this trade could make sense for the Royals, but it still could end up biting them in the ass.

    Comment by Kyle — December 16, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

  9. I always assumed the aversion to trading within the division had more to do with minimizing negative fan reaction (and subsequent lost revenue) than any actual competitive strategy. It’s one thing to ask Royals fans to swallow trading Greinke; it’s another to ask them to pay good money to watch Greinke beat the Royals 3 or 4 times next year. The exceptions mentioned above (Lee and Uggla) seem to bear that out. The Mariners season was lost already, so ticket sales weren’t going to get any worse; the Marlins make their money from revenue sharing (and probably couldn’t sell fewer tickets if they tried).

    Comment by jamie — December 16, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

  10. The value in these next 2 years comes from the fact that he’s ‘underpaid’ at 13.5 mil per year. Therefore, the Twins could afford a guy like Thome to DH for 4 mil and a couple good relievers at 3 mil each.

    In year 3, Greinke will be worth – let’s say 23.5 mil – so the Twins don’t have that extra 10 mil to spend on a DH and 2 above average bullpen arms, making the team weaker overall.

    The player still has the same production, and therefore value to wins and loses, but relative value is much lower, because the player is hamstringing the team in other areas.

    Comment by Chuck — December 16, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

  11. I don’t know if there is also a subconscious underwhelming level of value being offered within the division. I know others have already suggested that you don’t want to give up a guy that could blossom and make your rival better for years to come, it’s a little easier to take when it’s in another division and not a constant reminder that that 4 or 5 WAR player allowed the rival to edge you out of the division title by a couple of games. I think based on just that psychology that any premium value attached to a targeted player is going to be paid from outside the division.

    Comment by JMN — December 16, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  12. In the Twins / Greinke case, you could extend this discussion and say the Twins should NOT trade prospects within the division. It would seem there is a good chance at least 1 of the 4 top prospects needed to get Greinke would make it on the Royals and haunt the Twins for 5-6 years of cheap team control. Plus they could lose Greinke after only 2 years and even though 13.5 mil is a ‘bargain’ it still ties their hands somewhat in filling their other needs – bullpen, bench.

    Comment by Chuck — December 16, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  13. “Even fairly ‘progressive’ general managers consider moving a player within the division only if the team in the division is offering the best return. But I believe there is a slight advantage for teams to trade within their own division. The reason stems from the relevant time-frames of the players involved.”

    I hope that most general managers only consider moving players to teams that offer the best return – duh. I mean, I can see sabean waking up and saying “Huh, the Brewers are offering Prince Fielder straight up for Cain…interesting. Nah, I’ll see if Mozeliak is willing to flip Ryan Theriot for Cain instead” but I think thats the exception.

    Comment by AK707 — December 16, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

  14. Yankees will give the Royals what they want for Greinke. As quickly as the Phillies rose, the Yankees can fall and they know it. They need another pitcher to help them compete in the next 3 years before Mo, DJ, and AJ (sigh) fall off the books and other decent young starters approach FA/Trade market. Royals will want Romine and Betances and the Yankees will oblige, throw in Nunez, Phelps, and Adams to round out the deal. All up the middle with one high ceiling pitcher and 4 near ready players, should get it done.

    Comment by Cliff — December 16, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

  15. Very interesting argument!

    Comment by Bigmouth — December 16, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

  16. The Royals still have plenty of leverage. First, they still don’t have to trade him. So what if he’s unhappy? He doesn’t have the ability, contractually, to demand a trade. Second, leverage is also created by the bidding of other teams. And that’s unaffected by what Greinke says or does.

    Comment by Carl — December 16, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

  17. Are you related to Andy?

    Comment by R M — December 16, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

  18. Missed the “a”. Woops.

    Comment by R M — December 16, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

  19. Great post. I think many GM’s live in fear of having a bad trade haunt them when trading within the division. Picture listening to the local media for the duration of a traded hall of fame players career…..”Lou Brock comes to the plate” probably tore Holland apart (and shortened his GM tenure).

    At least if you make a bad trade out of the division it won’t be rubbed in your face as much.

    I had always taken it for granted that trading within the division was a bad idea, your post opened my eyes.

    Comment by Joel — December 16, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

  20. Aandy?

    Comment by Stupid Jokes Aabounding — December 16, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

  21. I think you’ve made a good point. Might we be looking at it from the wrong direction? It seems to me that the fact that a team trading prospects would be bettering a division rival down the road would tend to depress the amount of talent a team would be willing to give up. The Twins, then, would be more willing to be the “top bidder” for an ace from another division. It makes perfect sense that not many intra-division trades happen simply because the top prospect package is more likely to come from outside the division.

    The big question, then, is why do the clubs come out and say “We won’t entertain offers for Veteran-player-x from divisional opponents.” It should be the way around.

    Comment by kp — December 16, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

  22. While I agree that job security affects how teams do trades, that’s in the interest of the GM, not the team. So while this explains the current status quo to some extent, it’s irrelevant when it comes to making the best move for the team.

    Comment by Travis — December 16, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

  23. Payrolls are generally pretty fixed, which makes them a scarce resource. Surplus value is the result from optimizing your production/paycheck equation. Yes, they contribute on the field, but at the opportunity cost of getting another guy.

    It’s not the end all be all, but a more efficient payroll is better.

    It’s similar to looking at a player’s offensive numbers in relation to their defensive position. Positional scarcity means that you have to optimize and try to get the best production out of every position.

    Would you rather have a guy who produces 5 wins @ $10 million cost, or 5 wins at $25 million cost? I think that’s a HUGE difference, and it isn’t (IMO) particularly overstated.

    Comment by Travis — December 16, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

  24. The Twins are no longer really a budget franchise. Check out their payroll.

    Comment by Travis — December 16, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

  25. If you are willing to trade within division, you also potentially expand the market for your players, thus maximizing the value you get in return for trading your players in a free market system.

    Comment by Rusty — December 16, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

  26. If the offer is worse, it doesn’t cost them anything.

    Comment by Barkey Walker — December 16, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

  27. My guess is that the Twins are perfectly willing to trade for Greinke (and the Rangers for Lee, etc.) b/c there are so few players around of their caliber. They’re willing to trade future wins for present wins and, to them, it’s worth it to salvage those wins if it means acquiring a player of Greinke’s (or Lee’s or Uggla’s) caliber. If those guys were a dime, a dozen, I think teams would be more hesitant.

    Comment by chuckb — December 16, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

  28. The Mariners example is a good one for sure. I believe that both teams got what they wanted but in the long run the Mariners made out better I believe. If I were the Rangers I would have made the gamble too and it almost paid off.

    Comment by Jeff Wise — December 16, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

  29. What kind of deal nets the Twins Greinke? Would a Kyle Gibson, Kevin Slowey and Denard Span deal get it done? Gibson is nearly ready and cruised through 3 levels last year, and is their top SP prospect after being a bit of a steal in the 09 draft. Slowey is still pretty young and seems like he could be an ok middle rotation type, but could use a change of scenery. Span is a solid if unspectacular player. I think he’s more suited to corner OF spot, but doesn’t have the bat for it.

    From a Twins perspective it seems that several of their top prospects are speedy OF types (Revere and Hicks for example), so Span is pretty easily replaced. The rotation then becomes Greinke, Liriano, Baker, Duensing, Blackburn with the potential of adding Pavano back (not sure if they’d spend the cash on top of that deal.)

    Comment by TRE — December 16, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

  30. replying to the second part, larger market teams are not going to bid because Greinkie has has anxiety issues and says he does not want to go to a large media market. so he does have some effect.
    I agree with the rest of your post, however.

    Comment by williams .482 — December 16, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

  31. This is my opinion too. Watching a former player beat you soundly again and again after you trade him adds insult to injury. At least if he’s in a different division (or league) you minimize the amount of times you have to deal with that situation.

    Comment by Joshua Maciel — December 16, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

  32. I’m calling it. Grienke to the Phillies as their 5th starter!

    Seriously, though. Don’t you think part if the problems is teams inability to self scout? Or maybe their inability to be honest with the fanbase. To say “hey, we’re crappy. We’re gonna suck for two or three years and by then he’ll be somewhere else” just doesn’t fly. Either teams feel they are closer than they really are, they feel they need to make a splash to sell tickets (hello Jason Werth) or they just aren’t willing to be honest with the meatball fans.

    Comment by MikeS — December 16, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

  33. Frank Costanza: “What the hell did you trade Jay Buhner for?! … You don’t know WHAT THE HELL YOU’RE DOIN’!”

    Link in name.

    Comment by Dag Gummit — December 17, 2010 @ 2:12 am

  34. If I told you how easy it is to get a job in this recession, you wouldn’t believe me. But the truth is more employers are going online to find people just like you and me who are ready to work at a good job (one that pays good!). The only thing that makes sense is to stop wasting time driving around all day filling out a dozen applications and going from one boring low paying job to another. I found this site that pretty much matches you up with your dream job that is available in your city right now. I have found it very helpful. Go to YouFindWork.com

    Comment by CarlosM7 — December 17, 2010 @ 9:46 am

  35. One thing that doesn’t seem to be mentioned about intra-division trading that seems to make sense to me is that you will have better knowledge of your opponent. A large amount of time and effort goes into developing good scouting reports for your team, so you can know your opponents strengths and weaknesses.

    When you trade away a star player that you’ve developed, you should have a pretty good understanding of the best way to go about neutralizing him. You essentially have the best, first-hand scouting report you are ever going to get on them. By contrast, the players you are getting in return likely haven’t gotten to the point where your opponent will have the same advantage over them, as they are still much more malleable by your own team. If it is an out of division trade, this won’t matter a whole lot, because you don’t play them all that much. If you are playing against them with the frequency of in-division games, it might make a difference.

    Obviously, this won’t always matter, and their weaknesses may not even be expoitable… especially if its someone like Albert Pujols, who may not actually have any. I don’t even know if it would have a measurable difference on anything, but in a game where information and trends are power, it couldn’t hurt.

    Comment by GTStD — December 17, 2010 @ 10:42 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Current ye@r *

Close this window.

0.094 Powered by WordPress