Other Blockbusters
.
Red Sox - Dodgers MegaDeal
This from Ken Rosenthal a few months back:
....
The Dodgers acquired Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckettand Nick Punto for James Loney, Ivan De Jesus Jr.,Allen Webster and two players to be named later, which turnd out to beRubby De La Rosa and Jerry Sands.
The thing I still don’t get — the thing that has yet to be fully explained — is why the Dodgers took on all but $11 million of the $275.69 million guaranteed the players they acquired.
If the Dodgers had said, “Sorry, we want $100 million, not $11 million, especially when we’re also giving you four prospects,” I’m guessing that the Sox still would have jumped.
But Sox president Larry Lucchino, in an interview this week, told me that I was incorrect, that the Sox wanted almost complete financial relief.
The Dodgers, looking to make a statement, were willing to provide it.
The size of their new TV deal increased from a proposed $3 billion over 17 years from FOX to a reported $7 billion over 25 years from Time Warner, in part due to the perception that the team’s new Guggenheim ownership — as opposed to the previous owner, Frank McCourt — was all-in.
So, who am I to quibble over $100 million?
Nearly one year later, the Dodgers and Red Sox lead their divisions.
....
CRUNCH: Dr. D hates, hates, hates to be predictable. But this point is worth consolidating. MLB teams do not use the pundits' WAR/$ paradigm as the end of the discussion.
In this case, the Dodgers did not use it as the middle of the discussion, either. Nor the starting point of it.
You've got a massive cognitive dissonance here. The Dodgers' side of that deal made no sense from the fangraphs paradigm. But here they sit, apparently ready to dominate the National League for years to come. The Red Sox deal wasn't the only thing pushing them towards that, but then again, their defiance of fans' wisdom didn't exactly torpedo their efforts, now did it?
The thing to do with a cognitive dissonance is to learn from it. You've got a blind spot, well, open your eyes. It's up to you.
....
You might reply, there were meta-considerations here. The TV rights, the value of the team, and so on and so forth.
Such meta-considerations apply in Seattle, too.
CRUNCH: The Dodgers had their own projections for AGone, Crawford, et al. They've got a right to them. That's what makes a ball game.
Here's a win-win scenario, with a capital W-W, and it's one in which the initial, theoretical, WAR/$ returns were dreadfully imbalanced.
.
Red Sox - Marlins, 2005
This was the one where the Red Sox grabbed Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, and a quality reliever for 4 prospects. They flipped the reliever for Coco Crisp, same offseason.
In 2007, the second year on, Beckett won 20 games and Lowell had 120 RBI's as the Red Sox swept the World Series in four games. Crisp set internal Red Sox records for center field defense.
CRUNCH: There's value to be had in them thar hills. If you're dealing with Florida teams who are offloading salary, that is.
Heh, heh, heh.
.
Reds - Mariners, 2000
The M's sent Ken Griffey Jr. to Cincinnati for Mike Cameron and three players who didn't work out. Even though it was Pat Gillick choosing the trade booty.
CRUNCH: Sometimes you see blockbusters turn out to be --- > much ado about nothing. Neither team's fortunes are vastly affected by the deal. You do have that scenario, too.
.
Padres - Jays, 1990
Pat Gillick coughs up two big-name players, Fred McGriff and Tony Fernandez for --- > Roberto Alomar and Joe Carter.
The Jays win two of the next three World Series, moshing those two stars off of Devo White leading off, and Dave Winfield / John Olerud backing them up.
CRUNCH: Let's hope if we deal away Kyle Seager, he doesn't turn out to be Robbie Alomar?
No, the takeaway for SSI is --- > just because a deal looks like a wash on paper, doesn't make it one. Pat Gillick has been the master of turning a collection of talent into a ballclub.
............
It might seem that, when MLB teams engineer huge trades, that it's going to balance out, merely rearrange the deck chairs. Not by a long shot. The right mega-deal can -- it has the potential to -- shape a team's destiny for a decade.
If we're talking about turning collections of talent into fearsome ballclubs? Jack Zduriencik has a lot to prove, amigo.