Prospects Vs. Veterans (a rant and a discussion)
This year's especially weak free agent market has lead to the resurgence of the good old fashion trade, and with that has come the debate of prospects versus veterans. It seems as if, more so than in the past, teams are especially hesitant to give up highly regarded young talent. Is this a more nuanced view and understanding of modern baseball? Or is this just a proverbial swing of the pendulum?
Of course, my mom always said a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That being said, Mom's birds didn't cost up to $20 million a year with smaller birds with as much potential talent costing me less than $500k. And the Yankees tried the all-star lineup to little avail, and just now seem to be digging out of that mess. And although pitching prospects seem untouchable, they also have the greatest fallout rate to do injury (Liriano? Hughes? Wood and Prior?). It seems as though proven reliable pitching is actually less likely to break down than prospect pitching these days! And Joe Crede was said to be the future of the white sox third base since I was a kid. We've gotten 2 good years out of him, and now he's already looking to be shipped off with the next third basemen of the future.
On the other side of that deal is the Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell for Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez trades. Yes, Sanchez threw a no hitter and Ramirez has been great, but Beckett and Lowell just lead the Sox to another world series. Although Ramirez and Sanchez may be good for years to come, they will likely never lead the fish to a series. There are always aberrations (the Lou Brock trade comes to mind, alongside the Sosa/George Bell deal [steroids sure played a role]). The Lowell and Beckett deal, however is apparently a vary balanced trade that still favors the red sox.
In all things, of course, there must be balance. Trading for prospects hoping lighting in a bottle is no way to build a succesful team, while forsaking the farm system for 2 year stars and bloated contracts also seems to lead to failure (although a bit more success, if you can afford it).
The role of economy is also skewed. With all the development a star takes, by the time they come to give the year or two of dominance that the star would have given you, they're already up for a contract. Furthermore, with no veterans there are few people to train them to become as good as they could be. And that's If they can become as good as the star was. Do you really save all that much money when you consider the loss of face, ticket sales, and merchandise a high powered star brings in? If winning is money, is it worth the wait of a few years for a star to mature? The business end of this is murky at best.
So what do you think? Which is more valuable, prospects or veterans? There are some serious questions at the moment in this regard, specifically relating to the likes of Johann Santana and the A's aces. It seems to me that you're more likely to get a Mike Lowell than a Lou Brock, but all of the baseball industry seems to be going the other way.
Of course, my mom always said a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That being said, Mom's birds didn't cost up to $20 million a year with smaller birds with as much potential talent costing me less than $500k. And the Yankees tried the all-star lineup to little avail, and just now seem to be digging out of that mess. And although pitching prospects seem untouchable, they also have the greatest fallout rate to do injury (Liriano? Hughes? Wood and Prior?). It seems as though proven reliable pitching is actually less likely to break down than prospect pitching these days! And Joe Crede was said to be the future of the white sox third base since I was a kid. We've gotten 2 good years out of him, and now he's already looking to be shipped off with the next third basemen of the future.
On the other side of that deal is the Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell for Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez trades. Yes, Sanchez threw a no hitter and Ramirez has been great, but Beckett and Lowell just lead the Sox to another world series. Although Ramirez and Sanchez may be good for years to come, they will likely never lead the fish to a series. There are always aberrations (the Lou Brock trade comes to mind, alongside the Sosa/George Bell deal [steroids sure played a role]). The Lowell and Beckett deal, however is apparently a vary balanced trade that still favors the red sox.
In all things, of course, there must be balance. Trading for prospects hoping lighting in a bottle is no way to build a succesful team, while forsaking the farm system for 2 year stars and bloated contracts also seems to lead to failure (although a bit more success, if you can afford it).
The role of economy is also skewed. With all the development a star takes, by the time they come to give the year or two of dominance that the star would have given you, they're already up for a contract. Furthermore, with no veterans there are few people to train them to become as good as they could be. And that's If they can become as good as the star was. Do you really save all that much money when you consider the loss of face, ticket sales, and merchandise a high powered star brings in? If winning is money, is it worth the wait of a few years for a star to mature? The business end of this is murky at best.
So what do you think? Which is more valuable, prospects or veterans? There are some serious questions at the moment in this regard, specifically relating to the likes of Johann Santana and the A's aces. It seems to me that you're more likely to get a Mike Lowell than a Lou Brock, but all of the baseball industry seems to be going the other way.