Actually, that’s not a very good way to evaluate trades at all, in my opinion.

In the end, all you can ask of a trade is: is there a reasonable overall rationale for it at the time it was made?

Let me explain with a couple of examples.

========================================

When the Mets traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano, that was a bad trade, because there was no foreseeable chance that it could work.

Kazmir was already a better pitcher than Zambrano. Peterson’s claim that he could “fix” Zambrano in “15 minutes” (or whatever it was) should not have been taken seriously by any competent GM. And finally, if it had “worked”, Zambrano was not likely to be the difference between the Mets making the post-season or not; the GM has to have a clear picture of his team’s actual level, and address its actual needs. The fact that Leiter and Franco thought Kazmir was “too cocky” should have been listened to, and addressed some other way, but not by dumping an uber-talent like Kazmir for 10 cents on the dollar (more like 2 cents, actually).

The Mets got nuked on that deal, and they deserved every roentgen.

Now, take the Nady/Marte/Tabata/Ohlendorf deal.

Everyone liked the deal at the time it was made. However, Nady slumped after the Yanks acquired him. Marte got hurt/slumped. The Yanks slid quickly out of the race. Tabata recovered his bat. Ohlendorf became an effective starter for the Pirates. Nady tore up his elbow; Marte injured his shoulder at the WBC.

At that point, evaluating the deal “down the road”, the trade looked like a rip-off of the Yanks. And that’s the problem with evaluating the deal “down the road”. For one thing, the road takes many twists and turns. As YankCrank pointed out above, Nady didn’t help the Yanks do anything, as it turned out. Marte, however, was critical to them winning a title, and now the trade is an unqualified success.

But now, Ohlendorf and Tabata may become long-term fixtures for the Pirates, and maybe Marte breaks down again. Does the trade then become a blunder again?

Not to my way of thinking it doesn’t.

The Nady/Marte deal was reasonable even if 2008 was the last word on it. It was reasonable because NONE of the players the Yanks traded would likely ever played a big role for them. No, not even Tabata. Without great power, without great speed, without the ability to hold down centerfield everyday, the Yanks would almost certainly not shown sufficient patience with Tabata in the major leagues for him to finally win the job as a flank fielder. The team’s track record in this regard makes the retrospective odds long indeed. The Yanks certainly weren’t willing to give Ohlendorf 20 starts to see if he could hold down the #4 or #5 slot. Therefore, although they are players of considerable talent and ability, they were surplus to the Yanks, and therefore tradeable.

The Kazmir/Zambrano deal is different: a monumental blunder; a firable offense. Why? Because the young player the Mets traded was already better than the one they were acquiring. Younger, cheaper, and he had a much, much higher ceiling. There is no way it could’ve worked in the Mets favor, unless Kazmir blew out his arm that season and killed his career.

====================================
Turning our attention to the Granderson deal, it is possible that one or more of the players the Yanks traded will turn out to be very good players. Should that really matter in our evaluation of the deal? No, not really, unless the scouts/analysts/GM in question has a habit of consistently misjudging his own talent, or that of other teams. (And by consistently misjudging, I don’t mean the free agent signing that doesn’t work. At least not in and of itself. If other GMs, with good talent evaluation track records, make bids of equal value, and the player comes to the Yanks, and decides to take 3 1/2 years off out of 4, that’s NOT a misjudgment in the conventional sense. That’s just Carl Pavano.) That’s not really the case here.

There are sound reasons for the Granderson deal. It’s a measurable upgrade in centerfield, or in defense in left. It fills a team need (several, in fact). The three players traded may become good players. However, none of them had a clear path to a key role with the team.

If Granderson doesn’t work, it’s not a misjudgment. By all accounts he’s a fine person. We know he’s a very good player. Sometimes, moves that should work don’t work, and no one knows why.

I’m satisfied with the Granderson deal. That’s not going to change if Kennedy wins 15 with the D’backs. It’s not going to change if, 4 years from now, Jackson makes the All-Star team for the Tigers, long after Granderson has left the Yanks.

I don’t see any other sensible way to judge these things:

1) Does the move fill a need, address a weakness, augment a strength, head off a threat, or take advantage of an opportunity?
2) Is there any reasonable alternative move or set of moves that might have been made at the time that was better?
3) Does the move, considered at the time it was made, stand a reasonable chance of working?
4) Is there any obvious reason why the move should not be made?

To me, if a trade, or signing, happens, and the answer to all four of the above questions is “Yes”, then that’s it; the move is OK with me.

The rest is random chance.

I liked Coke when he came up with David Robertson at the end of 2008 because you could tell the two of them weren’t scared out there on the mound.

He gave up too many HR to be a reliever, so the move to the rotation and pitching in a bigger ballpark should help. All-Star, no, but he should be a decent pitcher for a number of years.

coke stinks. as anyone who watched him pitch knows

I’m not worried about Coke becoming much more than a back end of the rotation starter.

I wish Coke the best, and you’re right Steve. Trades are very complicated when it comes to evaluating them.

Sometimes it takes years to judge them. Or, in other cases, you look at the Yankees Pirates swap of Nady and Marte for prospects and can conclude no matter how amazing of a player Jose Tabata may become or how much of a disappointment Nady was, it’s a win trade for the Yankees because of the role Marte played in delivering a championship this last Fall.

They’re all different. I guess we’ll see, right?

I’d rather win than start, but that’s just me.