As the flowers of Spring blossom fully, the fancies of young men turn to ... the trade deadline. Baseball is unique among sports for many reasons, not the least of which is the annual mid-summer night's schemes -- that time when each club decides whether to go for it this season, or surrender immediate gain for future potential. It's also a time for fans and pundits to wax poetic and produce prodigious amounts of speculation on the machinations of the men running these teams.

In pondering this annual Pinata Game, where better teams swing prospect sticks at lesser teams, hoping that candy prizes spill forth, my first thought is that the whole system in many ways borders on insanity. For every team making a deadline deal, they must believe not only are they currently legitimately in the hunt for the post-season, but also that whatever part they are acquiring will by itself put them over the top. In a game where the worst team wins routinely 40% of its game, and where the star players only get 11% of the ABs, (or 13% of the innings pitched), there's a lotta faith being placed in these mercenaries.

After much analysis and introspection, it has become my opinion that the primary reason behind many of these moves is NOT to actually significantly change the likelihood of victory. (Which is not the same as saying that isn't *A* factor). But, I believe the primary goal is simple ... money. When clubs acquire pieces at the deadline, they send a message to fans that they are "going for it", which most fans appreciate and reward by coming to see more game. Likewise, teams that trade away their stars are often punished by their fans for giving up. This is a pretty cynical view of the situation, of course. But, how much of a difference do these trades REALLY make?

The #1 "winning" trades in 2008 were Sabathia to the Brewers and Manny to the Dodgers. In both cases, there is zero doubt that the players acquired had fantabulous results. Sabathia went 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA, while Manny posted a 1232 OPS in his 53 games with the Dodgers, (including 17 HRs). But, how much of a difference did these players REALLY make? Milwaukee was 49-40 when CC was acquired, (and 4 games out of 1st place in the Central). They'd finish 90-72 and 7.5 back of the Cubs. So, they went 41-32 with Sabathia. Nine games over without him. Nine more with him. Of course, he was only a rental and left for more money. So, the club crashed and burned in the wake of this, right? Not exactly. They're 33-24 as I write this, sitting in first place, 2.5 games ahead of the Cards.

The Dodgers got Manny right at the deadline, and were 54-54, (2 games back in the NL West), when Manny arrived. They finished 84-78, winning the division by two games. But, it certainly wasn't a smooth ride. They fell to 65-70 and were 4.5 back on August 29th, and suffering an 8-game losing streak, as the first month of Manny was winding down. Then they won 8 in a row and never looked back. Certainly Manny was a key player in that streak. But, wasn't he a key player in the losing streak, too? During that 8-game winning streak that vaulted them into first place, the club allowed only 18 runs in 8 games. They scored 52. How much was Manny REALLY needed?

There's no simple answer. But, ultimately, neither of these teams made it to the World Series in 2008. The Phillies did. Of course, they acquired Joe Blanton from Oakland during July. And this is where it gets tricky to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy. If EVERY team that is in the running makes deadline deals, then whoever succeeds can point to the deadline deal as causal. But is it? Sabathia is gone, and Milwaukee is in first anyway. Manny is suspended for 50 games, and the Dodgers CONTINUE to run away with their division, not just having the biggest division lead of any team, but also having the best record in baseball.

Of course, since almost every team makes these types of moves when in the hunt, the majority of them FAIL, because if 20 teams make these moves, and there are only 8 spots are available, 12 MUST fail. Ultimately, only 2 teams get to the World Series each season, so most of these rental players don't win rings. Teixeira didn't get Atlanta to the playoffs when they rented him, nor did he help the Angels get to the World Series. But the Rangers are enjoying the play of Elvis and Salty.

The current system is not likely to go away any time soon. But, the first foundation block of making that choice of acquiring the mid-season star or fishing for propsects begins with assessing the ENTIRE situation of the club. This means looking beyond just the 40-man roster and considering the length of every contract and the development status of every guy on the farm. It means considering the moves the competition may make, also. (This is a major reason why many deals don't happen until the 31st -- because if you make your move on July 7th, you give your competition a lot of time to counter your move and potentially render it moot).

I've played in enough sim-leagues to learn that a decent GM needs to be looking at least 3 years in advance, and also that projecting much beyond 3 years is practically impossible because the number of unforseen turns climbs exponentially. But baseball is a game of threes, so three year windows of concern is not at all unreasonable. And I believe the best GMs make choices where they balance the immediate needs of the club with the needs for year 2 and 3 of that window. When you trade away that 3B prospect you were hoping to be the next Brooks Robinson, you need to ALREADY have a good idea what your plan is to replace him, (be it draft and wait - or acquire from the FA market). The worst GMs are like the worst chess players -- they simply aren't paying attention to the 2nd and 3rd and 4th moves after this one. This is why they can suddenly find themselves trapped in a prison of their own making, saddled with bloated salaries for useless players, and having no prospects to speak of and no talent to deal to acquire any.

After the 2007 season, the Ms management looked at their situation and believed they were just one key player away from being a playoff team. They were wrong. But, that mistake cost them a whole lot of potential for the future. It also was made with a roster that was rife with aging players and suspect prospects showing modest (if any) development. Today, there are those arguing to give up on 2009 and play for the future, while others are pleading, "If we could just pick up a good bat, we could do it THIS year." Typically, the answer to the question is difficult, because teams floating near .500 and just a few games back could go either way - get hot and win, or go cold and fold.

But, I believe for good ORGANIZATIONS, the decisions are easier, because even if wrong, the moves aren't disasterous. If your farm system has 8 players you think have a legit shot at being decent major leaguers, then trading away a couple for a rent-a-player still leaves you with six, and a good trade or draft can remedy that dip. But, if you only have 2 or 3 guys you're confident will be contributing in the near future, then trading away 2 or 3 guys is not simply a gamble, it is one that could have dreadful consequences for YEARS - whether it works or not.

For Seattle, the farm had become dreadful before Bavasi arrived. Overall, it likely improved during his stay, but it wasn't exactly busting at the seams with talent. The Bedard deal wasn't bad because Bedard didn't work out as well as hoped. It was bad because it gutted a relatively thin minor league talent base. And with the success of 2009, the concept of going and getting a big bat to help the offense is being suggested. But, you cannot get something for nothing. The first Z trade was an incredible coup in that it brought so many bodies to the club that the PERCEPTION changed to that of the farm being much healthier. But, in all honesty, while a very good trade, the Mariner farm system remains questionable at best, very weak at worst.

It took Z *YEARS* to draft and develop the talent that turned Milwaukee around. Success at any endeavor typically requires time and hard work. The deadline trade is borne of the quick-fix mentality of America. If you're paying to have a house built, sure you'd like it to be finished as quickly as possible, so you can move and and quit renting. But, a rush job will just move you into a house in constant need of repair work.

I believe Seattle has the opportunity to become one of the jewel franchises in all of sports. They have passionate fans and a good economic base. But, I believe they also have the opportunity to become the Yankees of the West, if they choose to go the route of the quick fix, expecting their money to simply buy them out of their mistakes, (except with far less money, and therefore far less success than the Yankees).

Good things take time. You can put 9 men and 9 women together, but no matter how much you may want a baby next month, you're not going to get one. It's also important to understand that sometimes "throwing in the towel" doesn't mean you get worse. The Phillies were 48-54 on July 30th when they traded away Abreu and Lidle in 2006. They finished 85-77, winning 18 games in both August and September. Moreover, they got the additional playing time needed for some of their prospects, (Victorino), and found themselves in the playoffs the next season, and world champs the year after that.

For 2009, the direction is clearly and without question far, far more enjoyable than the direction in 2008. Whether the club can continue moving in a positive direction, only time will tell. But, I believe it is important to understand that the direction is vastly more important than the SPEED at which the team chooses to move.