Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!houem!jhr2
From: jhr2@houem.UUCP (J.ROSENBLUTH)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mortgaging The Future (Paciorek Acquisition)
Message-ID: <352@houem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 14:50:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: houem.352
Posted: Tue Jul 23 14:50:13 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 04:21:35 EDT
References: <690@spuxll.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 43

> The Mets recently acquired Tom Paciorek from the White Sox for
> a minor league prospect, Dave Cochrane. In Paciorek, the Mets
> get a 16-year veteran in his late-30's with perhaps a handful of
> homestands left in him. In Cochrane, the Mets give up
> a promising 23 year-old third baseman who socked 69 home runs in his 
> previous 3 pro seasons [he has been injured most of this year]. 

> Obviously (?) the Mets are gambling that Paciorek will help them 
> win it all now, while at the same time betting that Cochrane
> will not turn out to be the incarnation of Mike Schmidt.

> This kind of trade goes on all the time. It is the enactment of a baseball
> bromide that claims that if you have the opportunity to win it all this year, 
> and you can get a veteran player to help you do it, then it's OK to give up 
> a prospect in return for the veteran, even though that prospect may
> make as significant a contribution to your ballclub in the future.

> My problem with this is: if you don't win it this year,
> then you're left holding an aging veteran instead of a pennant, 
> and you've effectively given away a prospect. And if you do win it (hooray!), 
> you still have to write off the veteran, and you're still without the
> prospect who MAY HAVE contributed to your team being a contender or winner
> for yet another several years.

> What do you fellow netters think?

That's a really good subject, and I have no idea what the answer is.
However, shouldn't research of such trades in the past shed some light?
Maybe someone else would like to find all trades in the last 30 or so years
that a contending ballclub gave up a prospect for a proven but aging veteran.
Then a number of answers could be found:

Does the contender win this year?
Does the contender fall apart within 5-10 years?
Does the other team come on in 5-10 years?
Which teams follow which policies?
How often does the prospect bloom?
How often does this type of trade occur?

I find it hard to believe that anyone can pass judgement on this issue
without examining the record.

			Josh Rosenbluth (...!houxm!houem!jhr2)