What was your first thought when you heard the A’s traded Josh Donaldson, their best player by a lot? I’ll tell you what my first thought was: "OK, so the big push last season turned into a terrible crash, and now the A’s are starting over." Except that’s almost certainly not what is happening.
As Dave Cameron pointed out, would a team that’s starting over commit $30 million to Billy Butler? Not unless it was a really, really stupid team. An honorific for which the Athletics hardly qualify.
So what’s happening? I think the A’s are trying to have it both ways: staying competitive while also rebuilding. Which is a neat trick if you can do it.
And yes, the A’s do need to rebuild.
No, the A’s aren’t old. But they’re not young, either. By baseball standards, they’re middle-aged. Among their key players, only Sonny Gray, Drew Pomeranz, and Derek Norris will be younger than 28 next spring ... and Gray’s the only one with any real star potential. Meanwhile, the farm system was practically denuded last summer by the trade for Samardzija and Hammel. And it wasn’t much of a farm system before that.
This is not a model for continuing success. There are only so many Brandon Mosses out there. Even if the A’s don’t want to build with young players, you obviously can’t acquire pitchers like Samardzija and Lester without a few hot prospects.
Which is where trading Josh Donaldson comes in. In return for Donaldson, the A’s picked up two young pitchers with shots at earning roster spots with the big club, plus a hot 18-year-old shortstop prospect ... oh, and a starting third baseman who might come close to making everybody in Oakland forget Josh Donaldson.
On the face of things, that last suggestion might seem ludicrous. After all, Donaldson has played brilliantly in each of the last two season, while Brett Lawrie has ... not. On the other hand, just two years ago Donaldson was a nobody and Lawrie was considered one of the game’s bright young stars. What happened? According to Jays blogger Ian Hunter, Donaldson’s missed six games in his career because of injuries, and Lawrie’s missed 185. So there’s your difference in perceived value.
But what if Lawrie could stay in the lineup for most of a season? Projections show Lawrie with around 4 Wins Above Replacement in a full season, with maybe 6 for Donaldson. That’s a significant difference after the fact — of course two extra wins might get you into the playoffs — but at this point, it’s really not. Would you trade 2 WAR in a season for three prospects, one of them with real star potential? You probably would. Especially if it meant saving a few million dollars besides.
And yes, Lawrie is four years younger than Donaldson. While Lawrie, even if healthy, doesn’t figure to match Donaldson’s production in 2015, those lines will begin converging soon, and might well cross in 2016 or ’17. Of course it’s a shame the A’s can’t keep Donaldson forever. But if they don’t sell high and buy low, they won’t be much good.
We might also guess that Billy Beane isn’t finished. For example, Jeff Sullivan suggests the A’s might well sign free agent Chase Headley, which would a) be a steal, if they can actually afford him, and b) probably push Lawrie to second base, thus shoring up the club’s single biggest weakness last season, as Eric Sogard simply isn’t good enough to play regularly.
The A’s finished last season with the best run differential in the major leagues. Were they really that good? No, they weren’t. Their two best players by the end of the season were Donaldson and Lester, and both are now gone. They’ve lost their everyday shortstop, a pretty good one, too. But if you’ve got the best run differential, you should almost fall into being at least decent the next season. Whatever the A’s lose at third base, they can make up at second base. And from there it’s largely a matter of patching a few holes here and there.
Next spring the A’s will probably be picked to finish second or third, and deservedly so. But trading Donaldson for Lawrie and three prospects isn’t so much rebuilding as reloading. Or if you prefer, rebloading.
