How to Grade a Trade

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 11:49 AM EDT

Just in the comments section of my Bartlett piece alone, you can see how controversial the topic of a trade can be. I have been pondering the process of grading a trade and I have come to my own conclusions. I hope everyone gives their thoughts in the comments, as there is no definitive right answer.

In looking at a trade, it can only be graded at the actual time of the transaction. Often times people will look back at a trade and attempt to evaluate the trade based on the outcome. When evaluating a trade, you cannot look at a players performance after the fact to see who "won" in the trade, at least from a General Manager's standpoint. You cannot look at information that has happened after the trade to evaluate the GM's decision, since none of that information was available at the time of the trade.

For example, say the Rays were to trade OF Nathan Haynes to the Padres for SP Jake Peavy. This is assuming both teams Front Office has no inside information on future injuries and based the trade solely on their previous play. This would clearly be a completely lopsided trade, and would look like a total bargain for the Rays. Now, what if immediately after the trade Peavy lost all control of his pitches and his ERA inflated to 6+ while Haynes learns how to hit, gets his OBP to .370+ and steals 40 bases. Obviously, this is completely unrealistic, but try and picture this happening. Would the Padres become winners in the trade? Would we all of a sudden think that their GM was brilliant?

I don't think so! In general, this would still look like a great trade for the Rays, that just didn't work out the way they wanted it to. Regardless of how the players wind up doing after the trade, that is still a great trade for the Rays, because at the time of the trade we would have received more value. If you factor in information what happens after the fact, like Peavy becoming awful, you are grading a GM on information that is impossible to figure into his decision making process.

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

We need to keep Haynes

I def see 70/70 potential from him

Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navy Stroking, 2pitchers1cup

by SRQman on Apr 17, 2008 11:53 AM EDT reply actions

agreed

lol

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions

After seeing plenty (or lack there of) of Nathan Haynes...

I would rather have Fernando Perez. Why? He can back up Center, give BJ a break…. and he is a switch hitter…

In the Name of Shinji Mori, we shall win!

by thebaddancingraysfan on Apr 17, 2008 12:10 PM EDT reply actions

I'm confused

So does every GM lose a trade when they trade major leaguers for prospects because the prospects aren’t contributing at that point or do they win every one of these trades even if the prospect busts because they couldnt have predicted the prospect busting?

Or maybe projecting the future is a big part of the trade and some GMs are better at it than others and we can’t judge that until we see what happens down the road.

by The Professor on Apr 17, 2008 1:29 PM EDT reply actions

By present value

I do not mean entirely their present value to contribute to the team this minute, future value is accounted into their “present value” in the way that I termed it..

The GM has no control over whether a prospect will pan out, but if they odds of him being more successful than the player traded for outweigh the odds of being less successful, then the GM made the right decision whether he pans out or not. It’s really tough to put this line of thinking into words, I am hoping this makes it a little clearer what I am trying to express.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Sounds like defining what "is" is

The fact is trades should be evaluated after the fact if the intent of the trade was for future value, and on the spot if the trade was intended for immediate impact. The goal in mind is relevant.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 17, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

That the winners and losers in a trade must be determined at the point of the deal. I think that there are definitely perceptions of that at the time of the deal, but the results of the deal are the results, and that will ultimately determine whether the move was successful or not.

In the trade you cited, under the circumstances you cited, the deal would not be great for the Rays. It might look great at the point of purchase, but ultimately retrospect is the judge of all deals. And maybe that’s unfair, but that’s just how things are. And ultimately the GM is responsible for how things turn out, no matter how great the deal looked at the time.

As for whether I personally would blame Friedman for the deal, I don’t think I would, since each of us would have easily made the move. Ultimately, each of us must also be held to account for our opinions as expressed at the time. But we can certainly be judged as wrong or right regardless of how the deal looked at the time.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 1:54 PM EDT reply actions

The example trade is meaningless

It’s too hypothetical and too over the top. “How many Peavy’s could dance on the head of a pin?”

But it appears to be a trade forpresent impcat from the Rays point of view, future oriented by the Pads. So the Rays lose both ways.

It is a good example of the value of trade speculation – worthless.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 17, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Fair trade

I’m in the camp that it usually it takes a couple years to ultimately determine the grade of a trade.
Joey Gathright for JP Howell seems to have been a fair trade (C+) for both teams. Each player seems to be finding their groove and playing a small but useful role for their respective teams.

Jamie DeLuca

by JDeLuca on Apr 17, 2008 2:09 PM EDT reply actions

but if Joey Gathright

turned out to be an all-star would that make it a better trade for the Royals? If at the time of the trade, the general consensus was that they were dead even in prospect, how would one team getting more luck make the decision look smarter for that team?

After a couple years you may be able to see who had the better outcome of the trade, but that doesn’t mean that a GM made the wrong decision.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

But this trade sought near term impact for each team

by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 17, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree

That trade pretty much sums up Andrew Friedman’s trading activity over the last couple years. He doesn’t usually make overwhelmingly beneficial trades, but he works swiftly and crafts realistic deals that both teams can agree to. He isn’t reluctant to trade away any player, at any time, for a deal that he thinks makes sense, and he isn’t constantly looking to rape the other team like LaMar was.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions

That's not winning the deal

That’s having common knowledge fail. If Haynes is great and Peavy isn’t they win the deal, we just have suffice reasoning of why we made the deal.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

A bad trade

Let me start by saying I’m a Giants fan who’s picked up the Rays this year because I need a real team to watch. Having said that, I’m intrigued by the main arguement here. My case in point: Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan, and Boof Bonser for A.J. Pierzynski.

In my circle, we hated this trade from day one. Nathan was the only known commodity, but he was a good solid arm in the bullpen. Did we know he’d be the best closer in baseball? No. But he was 12-4 (all in relief), 2.96 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, and 10 K/9. He was a stud with all the signs of closer dominance.

Boof Bonser was a top pitching prospect at the time, but we had Jerome Williams and Noah Lowry as pitching prospects along with Brad Hennessey and Kevin Correia on the radar as well.

Liriano is a different story. He was in A ball at the time of the trade, and there is no way of knowing if he would have become who he is if he stayed in the Giants farm system. At that stage in his career, I will give Minnesota all the credit in developing his talent.

Piersynski was a 27 year old catcher who hit 11 HR and .312. Average was good, but power was nothing spectacular. The other option the Giants had was going with a 25 year old Yorvit Torrealba.

In hindsight, obviously Nathan would be the guy you want. But at the time of the deal, Nathan was still the guy we wanted. Torrealba had 200 AB’s the year prior with 4 HR. Make him the number one catcher and double his AB’s, and your close to A.J. I’d much rather have a solid, shut-down player in Nathan than an additional 3 HR and 16 hits.

So should this trade be evaluated only at the time of the deal? If you subtract the potential of Bonser and Liriano, the Giants still got hosed.

And coming full circle, if Bartlett hits .230 and plays stellar defense, he’s still going to be more valuable to the Rays than AJ ever was to the Giants.

by digmyearth on Apr 17, 2008 2:52 PM EDT reply actions

This is non-sensical

How can you judge a deal only on the current value if prospects are involved?

Your analogy isn’t good in this case at all. Barring unforeseen circumstances there’s no reason Peavy would regress that far (injuries being unforeseen) however moving from PETCO to a more neutral Tropicana Field along with the league change would almost definitely bring a higher ERA.

Look at Stocker/Abreu, at the time Abreu looked like a AAAA player, and Stocker was at least a known commodity. Are you saying the Rays made the right move despite dealing potential value for a pretty commonplace item (glove, no-hit shortstops are a dime-a-dozen in the minors)?

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 2:55 PM EDT reply actions

if you read my comment abover

current value includes a players future value….say we had traded longoria last year, his future value of a franchise players would absolutely been taken into account to calculate his present value to the organizaiton.

I said my analogy isnt realistic, but I wanted a really exaggerated example to show the point.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

But it doesn't show your point.

Your point would’ve been better served saying we dealt Crawford and McGee for Peavy, and while the two stars regress due to league/ballpark factors McGee excels, fails, or burns out like Terrell Wade.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

my point was

that we wouldve won on that trade as soon as it was executed, even if peavy bombed and haynes was awesome, because we made the best decision for the ballclub at that point in time

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

That’s having common knowledge fail. If Haynes is great and Peavy isn’t they win the deal, we just have suffice reasoning of why we made the deal.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

they might have the better outcome

but rays GM would have made the correct decision

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

You’re confusing “winning” with having logic fail you. The Rays lose the deal, but the reasoning is fine, but under no circumstances would the Rays win the deal.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

but they won the deal when they made it

They made the deal that was best for the team. It not working out for them was just bad luck.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions

You're recycling the same points over and over.

I said they lose because of luck, but again, you’re throwing the “winning” part out there.The Rays had a GOOD reason to make the deal and that was the motivating factor. For whatever reasons Peavy not working out while Haynes excels makes the Rays losers in the trade, no matter how you cut it.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Perhaps it's bad luck, perhaps not

But no matter the reason, if the deal doesn’t work out it is a failure and a loss for the team. You can’t “win a deal” when you make it, IMO. You can certainly garner the perception of having won a deal, but I don’t think any moves are “won” until the results have arisen in complete from that deal.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions

but you guys are judging the winner

of the deal, based on outcomes that are uncontrollable. The GM would have done everything in his control.

BTW, did you guys ever think you would say that trading Peavy for Haynes was a negative move.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Of course we're judging the flipping winner based on the results

The outcomes are uncontrollable, but they’re not unforeseeable in most cases.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

It's not always bad luck either

Sometimes it’s bad scouting, other times it’s having close knowledge, and furthermore sometimes it’s underestimation of new variables.

Peavy moving away from PETCO for instance, or the Padres feeling Peavy’s elbow was close to blowing.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

If the player or package you trade for turns out to be less productive than the player or package that you traded away, you lose the deal to me. Bottom line, and of course it might take a while to discern the results of this, but that’s just how things go. And GMs must make their decisions based on their best available instincts and facts on-hand at the time. But they are held to account for how the deal ultimately turns out, not how it looked at the time of the transaction. I think that the same standard should apply to pundits and even fans when they constantly get things wrong (and often conspicuously, in-your-face wrong). Pundits and columnists should be held to account for how good their analysis is, and if it turns out to be wrong consistently, they should be held to account for it. The most glaring example of this is The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, who has consistently proven to be incorrect on every boisterous remark that he makes. He isn’t held to account the way the decision-makers are, and at least in his role (though less important), he should be made accountable.

Same thing applies to fans though. If you’re consistently wrong about things (like yodascout, for instance) your credibility should and often does suffer as a result.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions

lol at yodascout

like i said in the piece, there will be many who disagree with me on this topic, but I think it brings up an interesting debate

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Plus

Your piece comes off as the GM should never be held accountable since he didn’t know what would happen in the future.

Also I thought of a better example: Brock for Broglio.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 17, 2008 2:57 PM EDT reply actions

IF

it was in general consensus a good move for the team at the time. You can’t get upset with the GM later on because a player doesn’t work out. The GM doesn’t have control over that. Obviously there is going to be alot of disagreement on this issue, this is just my feeling on this topic.

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, I really think you can

And it happens all the time. Once again, the underlying concept is that the GM is held to account for the results of his moves, not how good or bad they looked at the time.

A prime example in the other direction is Jim Bowden of the Nationals. Prominent stats people, and me, were ready to castrate the guy after the Alfonso Soriano trade because we thought it would be just terrible for the Washington organization. Yet, in retrospect, Bowden actually got the better end of that deal. By a pretty good margin too. This is an example of a GM’s performance being judged on the results and not the original perceptions in a way that turned out positive for him.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

So in the outrageous Peavy for Haynes example

5 years down the road after Haynes has become great and Peavy awful you would say that the Rays made the wrong move in getting Peavy?

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 17, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, because he ultimately didn't give the Rays more value than what they traded out

And that is the bottom line of these “win/loss” things for me. As R.J. said, the original reasoning behind doing the deal might be sound, but if the results don’t pan out, the deal is a loss.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 17, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions