Debunking The Trade Deadline Myths

By Matt Himelfarb
Posted Monday, July 16, 2007

Before July of 2004, Lastings Milledge, Mike Pelfrey, and Carlos Gomez would’ve all been analogous with the names of back-end starters and fourth outfielders being showcased at the deadline. After an embarrassing trade that sent phenom Scott Kazmir to Tampa Bay for a fragile Victor Zambrano, what I hoped Mets fans would take away from such a deal is that you don’t acquire an ideal mop-up starter with awful health records for a top notch pitching prospect with minor makeup problems.

What did Mets fans really take away from such a deal? Well, they adopted a policy that has more errors and inconceivable rules than my history textbook; remain defensive about every prospect in your farm system and never, ever deal the future away for a rental.

Now sure, generalizing would send a flare of ambiguity to my argument, since there are a small part of Mets fans who disagree with the current policy, both intelligently and ridiculously. But for the most part, you’d be hard pressed to find a large sample of Mets fans that’re in favor of dealing any young ballplayer seemingly attached to the word potential. Why? Well, their thinking is composed of three myths.

The first myth being the obvious one, which is why in the world would a team trade away their future for a rental? “I think Carlos Gomez is worth more than Mark Buehrle for a few months” or “I don’t want another Kazmir-Zambrano deal.” That’s typical phrases that most Mets fans and beat writers alike say when they hear of another trade rumor. Unfortunately, it’s the residue of old-school, grizzled baseball knowledge, since if a team were to acquire a hot commodity at the deadline that was due for free agency next year, they could simply let that player leave the next year and receive equal, if not better value in the compensation they receive the very next year. A little research shows that Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics have been taking advantage of this system for years:

Free Agent...... Compensation

• Ray Durham: 26th and 33rd draft picks in 2003 draft. (Snyder, Quantilla)
• Jason Giambi: 24th and 35th picks in 2002 draft. (Blanton, Brown)
• Jason Isringhausen: 30th and 37th picks in 2002 draft. (Fritz, Obenchain)
• Miguel Tejada: 40th and 49th picks in 2004 draft. (Street, Rogers)

So what does that tell us? It tells us that a list of successes, such as Joe Blanton and Huston Street, along with a few busts such as Ben Fritz and Jeremy Brown, would likely yield the same result had the A's optioned to trade any of the four players above for top prospects at the time.

The answer to the second myth might sound too simplistic to be true. Unfortunately, there's a reason why every Mets trade rumor on sports radio involves some combination of Pelfrey, Humber, and Gomez while any Yankees trade rumor involves Melky Cabrera, Robinson Cano, and Philip Hughes; they are the only young, expendable players most fans actually know. Lucky for them, the Mets are stacked with young pitchers such as Bobby Parnell, Deolis Guerra, Jonathan Niese, Tobi Stoner, just to name a few, as well as first baseman, such as Mike Carp, and Nick Evans. Therefore, the Mets have replacement value for these young players, and some of them are at their peak value right now.

Last but not least, the third myth is a frightning assumption out there that the Mets shouldn't make any big deals and that they should stick with their young guns. As Billy Beane has routinely stated, "the minute you think your team is good enough, you're screwed." I do want to win now, and by doing that, I'll probably end up winning in the future.

So, in inevitable fashion, what do I believe will, or should (there's a huge contradiction between the two) happen? One of the general consensus among people that trade human beings or stocks is that you must make the buyer believe what you're trading him is worth more than it actually is. With that being said, dealing someone like Mike Carp for Eric Gagne would make sense for the New York Mets, for the following reasons:

A) Eric Gagne has been dominant out of the pen this year (2-0, 1.32 era), despite the fact he's due for some serious regression to the mean. (.197 BABIP, 3.30 FIP) He'd give the Mets an ideal setup man down the stretch.

B) Team's will likely gush over Carp's projectable frame along with big time power numbers (17 home runs in 571 at-bats with A+ St. Lucie in 2006), while not bothering to notice his propensity for striking out (2006 BB/K ratio of 0.43; 2007 BB/K ratio of 0.31). Nick Evans, on the other hand, has shown far better plate discipline at St. Lucie this year (0.71 BB/K ratio). After all, good hitters become power hitters, as evident by the success stories of Rafeal Palmeiro, Adrian Gonzalez, and James Loney, while plate discipline is almost always an unteachable skill.

C) If Gagne manages to compile enough innings this year, he'll likely become a Type-A free agent next year, ultimately yielding two first round draft picks for the Mets next off-season should they acquire him.

Hard to believe for some people? Yes. Because it seems too good to be true. But it doesn't seem as though too many GMs know this.

 

You can contact Matt Himelfarb at: matthimelfarb@gmail.com, and surf over to www.cyclonesnation.wordpress.com