i posted this to another forum but so far it's only gotten one reply. sooo:
we've heard it from kansas city, seattle, and now pittsburgh in regards to kris benson. maybe it's just my perceptions, but it seems like this has just started within the past 1-3 years. it's a given now that you don't trade anybody for anybody unless you know for CERTAIN that the guy you acquire is going to be a major leaguer, and soon.
does this make sense? shouldn't small market teams like kc and pittsburgh at least consider taking risks on cheaper, high-ceiling lowball prospects instead of limiting themselves to "ml ready" talents? these are not generally teams that are a couple positions away from a pennant run.
as a yankees fan i've noticed that two players who seem to have a lot of trade value are kevin youkilis and kelly shoppach. these guys don't, in all honesty, project to be much more than cheap, replaceable talents on the major league level (i like youkilis, sure, but there are lots of third baseman who can give you comprable value). yet beltran was very nearly traded for these guys, solely because they were fit the profile baird had rather bizarrely limited himself to - major league ready third baseman and catcher.
how long has this been going on? if it's recent, is its cause inexplicable or is it sabermetrically influenced? and is it, on the whole, as silly as i think it is?
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 19 July 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)
i don't think it's silly. if you're giving up a star (or at least a player desirable to a contender for a stretch run) then you want to get something other than a promise in return. that's why p'burgh is looking for a 'major league ready' player and a prospect in return for benson. they'll have something to show in return if the prospect doesn't pan out. and who knows, maybe the m.l. ready player will exceed expectations.
― otto midnight (otto midnight), Monday, 19 July 2004 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)
but it's highly unlikely that a ty wigginton (for instance) is going to exceed expectations (though he has been on a tear...).
why is it better to get a decent major leaguer in return when you could conceivably keep the player yourself, offer arbitration, take the first round and sandwich picks, and pick up someone of equivalent ability off the scrap heap? many of these ml ready players aren't going to cost more than 3-5M coming off a good season, and there are always diamonds in the rough for even cheaper (if we're talking 2B, bellhorn, reese, uribe, cairo + platoon mate were all worth taking risks on).
i think it's a better idea for small market teams to go after the hanley ramirez types, who MIGHT give you six years of stardom you'd never otherwise acquire, than the kelly shoppach's or kevin youkilis's, who will in all likelihood give you a few years of decency that, if you look hard enough, you can get anytime.
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 19 July 2004 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)