A's Trade 3B Donaldson to Toronto

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Except all their moves were designed, at least seemingly, to continue to contend.  Most of the talents they acquired were major league ready.

They got a (lesser) MLB talent back in Lawrie, plus both Graveman and Nolin were MLB ready, plus they got a rising SS prospect to help offset the earlier loss of Russell (and future loss of Robertson in the Zobrist deal).

 

Still designed to continue to contend, they were projected to be in the thick of things at 82-83 wins.  Not designed to try winning 95+ games or steamrolling to the WS, but I don't think the A's have built to try doing that at all for the past 10 years (except in July last year, with half the season results already known, they made some stretch run moves).

 

What it looks like to me, and it's the easiest explanation, would be that Donaldson complained about the team's strategy and got dealt and that Beane thought (foolishly IMO) that he was getting a comparable player in Brett Lawrie.

 

The problem wasn't the strategy, it was what he targeted for a return.

I heard the reports of a clash with Donaldson too, but as with most easiest explanations, I am not sure it's really true.  At the time of the trade, Beane said that Donaldson was his best player.  I doubt he thought the same was remotely true of Lawrie.

 

If the return was poor, it may be because Beane was adhering too close to his "trade player at arbitration" strategy.  Trading early has the advantage of more flexibility over trading late, but part of that flexibility is the ability to walk away which Beane generally hasn't done.  Trading a star entering arbitration is perhaps even more predictable for Beane now than trading expiring contracts is for most other teams.

 

Given Beane's history, there's nothing really puzzling about it, though.

[drjim]

I think your pattern explanation is pretty close.

 

I think they had a two year window and punted that second year for extended meh. I thought the Russell/Samardzjia trade made sense in the two year window but to turn around and flip him seems like squandered value.

 

The Donaldson trade seemed to carry an assumption that Donaldson would regress a little (or at least stall) while Lawrie would improve. The As were wrong on both.

 

I think they squandered some real value in the past year.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Donaldson trade seemed to carry an assumption that Donaldson would regress a little (or at least stall) while Lawrie would improve. The As were wrong on both.

 

This.  And honestly, I'm not sure what their basis was for believing that in the first place.

[Mike Sixel]

If the A's had the Twins' sequencing luck this year, they'd be like 10-15 games over .500......they've had the worst luck in baseball.

 

Even 2 decent RP would help.

 

All that said, I agree with the posts above that this fits their current pattern. IMO, they would have a different pattern if their payroll constraints would allow it. I think Beane is nearly always playing the market inefficiencies, in this case, trading stars earlier is his attempt. Not sure I like it, but that's the pattern.

 

This could be the year they finally lost 90 games under his tenure. I doubt there will be 4 in a row, but Houston figuring things out and the Angels having Trout don't help them.....

[jimmer]

I'm still liking my preseason AL MVP pick of Donaldson.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think your pattern explanation is pretty close.

 

I think they had a two year window and punted that second year for extended meh. I thought the Russell/Samardzjia trade made sense in the two year window but to turn around and flip him seems like squandered value.

 

 

Squandered value on Samardzija? They got their stretch drive rental period from him and flipped him for other assets too. Given Samardzija's inconsistency, that seemed like the smart play.

[Otto von Ballpark]

.

 

The Donaldson trade seemed to carry an assumption that Donaldson would regress a little (or at least stall) while Lawrie would improve. The As were wrong on both.

 

 

I think you are misreading the trade if you assume Lawrie was supposed to be Donaldson's near equal. Just because he plays the same position doesn't make it so. The A's willingly downgraded at 3B to get the 3 other players from the Jays (and save a few bucks as a side effect).

 

It is certainly debatable whether those 3 players and cost savings were worth the downgrade, but I don't know that there is any evidence that suggests Beane thought Donaldson and Lawrie were near equals.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you are misreading the trade if you assume Lawrie was supposed to be Donaldson's near equal. Just because he plays the same position doesn't make it so. The A's willingly downgraded at 3B to get the 3 other players from the Jays (and save a few bucks as a side effect).

It is certainly debatable whether those 3 players and cost savings were worth the downgrade, but I don't know that there is any evidence that suggests Beane thought Donaldson and Lawrie were near equals.

 

If you think the A's believed the downgrade would be this severe, you're fooling yourself.  He overplayed his hand here (and throughout the last offseason) and has largely set his team back with the moves he's made.  

 

He gave up more for than what he got out of Samardzjia, this deal looks like a huge loser, the Butler signing looks as dumb as was expected, and part of why they're in this boat (if you want to say bad luck) is largely due to his own design.  (See, the infield defense and bullpen)

 

Be a Beane fan all you want, but this last calendar year hasn't been good and his team's record shows it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If you think the A's believed the downgrade would be this severe, you're fooling yourself.

The A's probably didn't anticipate Donaldson being even better (by WAR) than 2013, no.  I doubt anyone did.

 

But if you have any evidence that the A's thought Donaldson and Lawrie would be remotely equal, other than the fact that they play the same position and were pieces of the same trade, I'd like to hear it.  Beane's record suggests he's not afraid to trade the better player.

 

Be a Beane fan all you want, but this last calendar year hasn't been good and his team's record shows it.

You said you found the moves "baffling."  I explained how they were generally in line with Beane's past history and strategy, while making perfectly clear I don't endorse the moves and some of the moves were likely bad.  Now I'm labeled a "Beane fan" and you're bringing up their poor recent record which I never disputed.  I'll keep this in mind should another Oakland thread arise.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The A's probably didn't anticipate Donaldson being even better (by WAR) than 2013, no.  I doubt anyone did.

 

But if you have any evidence that the A's thought Donaldson and Lawrie would be remotely equal, other than the fact that they play the same position and were pieces of the same trade, I'd like to hear it.  Beane's record suggests he's not afraid to trade the better player.

 

You said you found the moves "baffling."  I explained how they were generally in line with Beane's past history and strategy, while making perfectly clear I don't endorse the moves and some of the moves were likely bad.  Now I'm labeled a "Beane fan" and you're bringing up their poor recent record which I never disputed.  I'll keep this in mind should another Oakland thread arise.

 

You're also twisting things with the "remotely equal" talk - the point was that they thought they could replace Donaldson with Lawrie and not downgrade significantly.  That appears to have been a colossal mistake.  One that, in my eyes, was pretty forseeable. 

 

And yes, I find these moves baffling.  As a whole picture they make little sense because they haven't made the team better in the present and it's likely, over the last calendar year, that they may have downgraded their future talent base as well.  Just because some of these deals have loose parallels individually doesn't change the fact that the larger context of these deals made little sense.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

they thought they could replace Donaldson with Lawrie and not downgrade significantly.

Evidence...?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And yes, I find these moves baffling.  As a whole picture they make little sense because they haven't made the team better in the present and it's likely, over the last calendar year, that they may have downgraded their future talent base as well.  Just because some of these deals have loose parallels individually doesn't change the fact that the larger context of these deals made little sense.

I think what gives it that impression is that Donaldson was the best Oakland player of the past 10 years.  You're certainly right that the A's may have been better off keeping him, but it's not really that baffling that they stuck to their plan.

 

It was a little surprising when he traded Russell last July, but again, Russell was probably their best prospect of the past 10 years.  Beane is nothing if not aggressive and it's not that surprising he made an aggressive midseason trade when his team was doing very well.

 

And the fact that Beane makes so many trades is pretty strong evidence that he does NOT think he is fleecing anybody (which is your assumption, if you claim he thought Lawrie would not be a big downgrade from Donaldson, plus he got a rising top 100 prospect and two interesting MLB ready pitchers as well).  They are indeed "trades for the sake of making trades" -- he likes the options he has by being aggressive, I guess.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Evidence...?

 

The fact that they executed the trade? 

 

They were in a win now mode. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Evidence...?

 

That they asked for him in the trade?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The fact that they executed the trade? 

 

They were in a win now mode. 

The A's have never been in a big "win now" mode, at least not in the offseason.  (July 2014 they probably were, with the best record in the league.)

 

They were still projected as an above-.500 team with Lawrie, which I think is the extent of their recent "win now" planning.  (More accurately "not lose now" which they are failing on this year anyway!)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That they asked for him in the trade?

Previously the direct replacement for their traded player was usually in the system already, and that wasn't the case here so they got one in return.  Still doesn't mean that they didn't understand the drop-off in talent between the two players.  Unless you think Beane thought he was fleecing his trade partner, which is not supported by his volume of trades.

 

And of course it can still be a bad trade, even a very bad trade.  But I suspect Beane was well aware of that possibility.  His volume of trading doesn't suggest he thinks he is "fleecing" anyone, nor is he really afraid to "lose" a trade in this manner.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Summary: Beane might be a bad GM who is hurting is team (especially in the last year), but he's not naive about the risks he is taking.

 

Bill Smith sometimes struck me as a naive GM.

[drjim]

 

Summary: Beane might be a bad GM who is hurting is team (especially in the last year), but he's not naive about the risks he is taking.

 

Bill Smith sometimes struck me as a naive GM.

 

This strikes me as unnecessary on all fronts.

 

No right thinking person thinks Beane is a bad GM, his record over the long haul speaks for itself. But he clearly made a series of bad moves that is going to set the team back for the next several years. It happens, especially for small market teams.

 

Calling Bill Smith naive seems like a cheap shot that had nothing to do with this conversation, he was just over his head, a classic example of the Peter Principle.

[drjim]

 

You're also twisting things with the "remotely equal" talk - the point was that they thought they could replace Donaldson with Lawrie and not downgrade significantly.  That appears to have been a colossal mistake.  One that, in my eyes, was pretty forseeable. 

 

And yes, I find these moves baffling.  As a whole picture they make little sense because they haven't made the team better in the present and it's likely, over the last calendar year, that they may have downgraded their future talent base as well.  Just because some of these deals have loose parallels individually doesn't change the fact that the larger context of these deals made little sense.

 

And thanks for clarifying this. Of course they knew Lawrie was a downgrade, that is why the extra players were included. But the A's bet on convergence of their talents and lost - big.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Summary: Beane might be a bad GM who is hurting is team (especially in the last year), but he's not naive about the risks he is taking.

 

Bill Smith sometimes struck me as a naive GM.

 

The correct summary would be: Beane is a good GM, but seems to have had a rough stretch. Unfortunately, it appears that acknowledging or analyzing his mistakes is very difficult because some people will defend anything and everything he does solely because he did it.

 

You particularly didn't appear to be doing that, but this is a frequent pattern by some who look at praising people like Beane or the White Sox as a thinly veiled way to jab the Twins.  And this is coming from someone that is more than willing to criticize the Twins.  I just prefer to keep my analysis of all parties as unbias as possible and from the outset of this deal (in context with other moves) - I thought it was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Calling Bill Smith naive seems like a cheap shot that had nothing to do with this conversation, he was just over his head, a classic example of the Peter Principle.

Not my intent at all.  Just saying this specific allegation against Beane -- that he somehow thought Lawrie wasn't a big downgrade from Donaldson -- sounds more like it would apply to an inexperienced GM, or one who is largely just executing the recommendations of others.  (Or even a GM who trades much more selectively.)  Smith had a number of moves to replace players that were real reaches.

 

There's basically no evidence to suggest that Beane thought that here.  He was just adhering to his well-established pattern of trading, early, everybody he can get a multi-piece return for, while trying to project in the hunt.

 

The mistake in this case seems to be that, while Beane was able to effectively deal decent players like Swisher, Gio Gonzalez, Cahill, etc., it's VERY hard to get good value in return for trading a superstar, particularly one with 4 years of cheap control left.  Guys like Trout and Harper, it's basically impossible to construct a trade for them.  Donaldson is not quite in that class, but he's closer to that than to Nick Swisher circa 2008.  Beane probably would have been better off breaking his aggressive early trade pattern for Donaldson.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Putting aside defense, since they are both well-regarded and we know Oakland has much different methods of defensive evaluation than are available to us:

 

ZiPS had them projected about 1.5 wins apart with the bat for 2015.  That's projecting a slight improvement for Lawrie over 2012-2014, and a pessimistic outlook for Donaldson (worse than 2014, which in turn was notably worse than his 2013).

 

And they are on pace to be 3 wins apart with the bat in 2015, a 1.5 win difference over ZiPS.  It's highly unlikely that this was not in Beane's expected range of outcomes for these players.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And as bad as it was to trade Donaldson, I don't think this trade is what sunk them (so far) in 2015.  Lawrie is a league average bat playing everyday at 3B.  Graveman, as suspect as he is, has been an effective member of the rotation.

 

They have the 5th best pythag record in the league, but the 12th best actual record.  BaseRuns tells a similar story.  Looking up and down their roster, it's far from perfect, but they should be in the thick of things.  That's got nothing to do with Donaldson's wins above Lawrie, really.

 

Their bullpen seems to be a big culprit, and that's an area where Beane didn't do much messing (he let Gregorson walk, and added Clippard).

 

They might still wind up at .500 for the season, which probably wasn't far off from the expectations of Beane and most observers, but it will have been a weird and roundabout way of getting there.

[drjim]

I don't really buy that getting OK production from the two guys you got in return for a borderline MVP candidate isn't a culprit for your team's struggles. It is a huge part, in addition to what you mentioned.

 

There is also a good point, that players so rarely get traded in the 2 plus to 4 plus years of control window for the reasons you mentioned. So hard to get an equitable return, as this trade proves.

[TheLeviathan]

In addition to what Jim said about losing an MVP bat - Beane's current left-side of the infield were direct trade targets and they have piled up a total of 45 errors.  The A's lead all of baseball in errors and several metrics show them as a pretty subpar defensive team.

 

I don't believe in bad luck when you don't field well and make all sorts of mistakes catching the baseball.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Their pythag already accounts for defense and errors. Anything that leads to runs (or keeps runs off the board, on the offensive side).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Their pythag already accounts for defense and errors. Anything that leads to runs (or keeps runs off the board, on the offensive side).

 

I could really care less what their pythag record is, that's not the one that matters.  I think their inability to record outs on the left side of the infield is a major part of their problem.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I could really care less what their pythag record is, that's not the one that matters.  I think their inability to record outs on the left side of the infield is a major part of their problem.

I know that pythag doesn't "matter".  But if you want to claim that errors and defense are a major part of their actual wins and losses, it helps if it also correlates to their actual runs scored and allowed.

[TheLeviathan]

Except that defense is only, at best, crudely calculated by run differential.

 

Leading the league in errors (and having 60% more than league average) is clearly part of the problem. Their bullpen would be the other major part of that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Except that defense is only, at best, crudely calculated by run differential.

Not sure I understand, is defense not contained in the run differential?

 

Bullpen I get because it is disproportionately applied to late and close situations.

 

Are they just bad clutch fielders?