Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site spuxll.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!spuxll!radio
From: radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Mortgaging The Future (Paciorek Acquisition)
Message-ID: <690@spuxll.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 12:40:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: spuxll.690
Posted: Wed Jul 17 12:40:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:29:51 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, South Plainfield NJ
Lines: 40


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.

GM's that embrace this attitude seem to be admitting:
"Let's go for it now, because we aren't going to bet on -- 
or don't care to bet on -- being contenters in a few years, anyway". 

It seems to me to be the classic case of an immediate, short-term payoff
versus a delayed, long-term payoff. Contending clubs that consistently 
gamble on the future, such as the Dodgers and Orioles, are contenders 
for DECADES. [The Dodgers' recent acquisition of Cabell from division
rival Houston, however, is definitely out of character for them.] 
On the other hand, clubs that reach contention and gamble on the 
present never seem to have more than a season or two in the sun.

What do you fellow netters think?

--------