February 21, 2005
Doyle T for Trade
Studes has an excellent article over at the Hardball Times evaluating the Doyle Alexander/John Smoltz trade from 1987. He concludes that it was a very good deal for the Tigers.
I've never understood why people don't like this trade for the Tigers. (I've heard negative statements about this deal for at least 10 years.) There's always a balance between the now and the future when making a deal. The Tigers wanted to win now, and traded a prospect for a pitcher who brought them the AL East title. Yes, Smoltz worked out well long term for the Braves. It's not clear to me that John would have been so good for the Tigers. He was a bit of a head case when he was young, and who knows if he would have fared was well through his injuries if he hadn't had Leo Mazzone.
The Tigers made the deal they needed to make to win that year. I bet there are any number of Cubs, Indians and Giants fans who wish their teams had made such lopsided deals. It's not Anderson for Bagwell, after all.
Posted by David Pinto at
12:48 PM
|
Trades
|
TrackBack (1)
This trade has been the subject of countless barroom debates between my buddies and I here in Detroit.
I agree completely with David. The Tigers were rightly focused on the present rather than the future. There are no guarantees, especially with young pitchers, and the trade was the key to Detroit earning a post season berth. No regrets...at least not from this Tiger fan.
This reminds me of the Rick Sutcliffe - Joe Carter trade, although that ends up in my opinion more in the Cubs favor because the Cubs got several more good years out of Sutcliffe.
Still though - now vs. potential. Are teams only supposed to give up garbage prospects in these deals? That seems to be what fans think.
Of course it was a great trade!
It's not that often that most teams have a chance to run to the pennant (especially under the old, four-team format). Doyle was phenominal and Detroit won the East. No brainer.
Besides, what would the Tigers have been all these years with John Smoltz? Hint: A crappy team with one front-line pitcher. Or, worse, a crappy team with a front line pitcher that bailed out in free agency.
i think it's really unfair to compare career WS to judge a trade. what matters is did the trade make a winner of the team RIGHT AWAY who supposedly got the short end of the stick, WS wise? and did trading away that player wreck their future success?
because, after all, guys play for 6 months, supposedly to win the series, not just to "compete" every year (yeah, i'm talkin bout you, drayton)
and in the smoltz trade, you don't even know if he would have succeeded in detroit with different coaches...
Yes, it was a mutually beneficial trade. But as with most of Studes' analyses involving win shares there is a bit of a gray area (win shares is not always the best tool for analysis, especially career-wise).
I disagree with Lisa Gray's comment on the coaching staffs. Leo Mazzone does improve his pitchers and it can be proved statistically, but Smoltz is a good pitcher who would have succeeded just about anywhere.
