What's the Value of a Strong Farm System?

With less than two weeks before baseball's trade deadline, most of the talk in the sports world is about who will be buyers and who will be sellers in the trade market. To put it another way, who will concede defeat and try to get some younger prospects for their veterans, and who wants to forfeit some prospects for the chance to win this year. This leads me to wonder, though, if it's ever truly worth it to be a seller. Let's examine this a bit.

Quick, name me one team that's won the World Series in the last 10 years after being a seller. If you said the 2002 Florida Marlins, you're correct, but that franchise was terrible for years after it sold off its 1998 championship team. The fact is, while most teams never really come to fruition on the prospects' development, and often those players move on before the team has a chance to win, there are actually a few instances of young teams finding success. The Marlins are the only team that I can say took the approach of selling off its players for prospects and turned that into an actual championship, though.

Sure, you can argue that other small market teams such as the Twins, A's and last year's Diamondbacks and Rockies all have had success, at least making the postseason. But only the Rockies have played in the World Series (and you can make the argument that that was a bit of a fluke), not including the 2001 D-backs that won it all, because that was a BIG payroll team at the time. In fact, that team cost the Diamondbacks so much financially that they went into significant debt and that was basically the reason the team turned to the youth movement it currently enjoys.

Meanwhile, the Twins and A's, who have both made numerous postseason appearances in the last decade, have only won a combined 1 playoff series since the days of Kirby Puckett and The Bash Brothers (Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire in Oakland), and that was in 2006 when they faced off against each other in the first round. The A's swept the Twins then went on to lose to the Tigers in the ALCS.

Anyway, let's get back on topic here. To be a buyer or a seller. The teams mentioned above lead me to believe that being a seller on a regular basis is not likely to net you a title, or even a chance at the title. The flip side is the idea of being a buyer, giving up your prospects for the veterans to give you a chance to win now. The best example of a team like that is the New York Yankees.

Since their last World Series title in 2000, the Yankees have been the ultimate buyer in the MLB. They have routinely spent astronomical amounts of money on free agents in the offseason, and they have made numerous trades during the season to bring in veterans at the expense of their farm system (the latest example being the Bobby Abreu acquisition). This strategy has clearly not worked, in my opinion, despite the fact that they are in the postseason every year over that stretch. The Yanks have not won the title since 2000, and haven't even been in the Series since losing to the Marlins in 2002.

All this seems to lead me to one conclusion, and it may sound wishy-washy but it's the truth: teams need to be more in tune to when it's the right time to be a buyer or a seller, and be willing to take the chance accordingly. Largely, it appears that teams that make the big splash at the trade deadline are rarely the teams that go on to win the title. When was the last time a team made a major mid-season acquisition and won the championship that year? Um, I can't think of one. Teams are better off making the big moves in the offseason, because it's unlikely that one or two players can turn a decent team into a great team, and team chemistry and cohesion are major factors in winning a title. Recently, teams that have made big runs are the ones that bring up one of their big-time prospects to the Majors (see Jacoby Elsbury with the Red Sox in 2007, Miguel Cabrera with the Marlins in 2002).

On the other hand, teams would be well-advised to make the moves in the offseason when they have a chance. Where would the Red Sox be if they hadn't traded for Curt Schilling in 2003, or Josh Beckett in 2005? Would the Cardinals have won a World Series if they hadn't traded for Chris Carpenter? Who knows, but maybe the Twins or Rockies or A's win a title of they had used some of their minor league talent as bargaining chips to bring in proven players as opposed to using their veterans to fetch still more unproven prospects.

In the end, I think it's clear that a mixture of veteran players and talented youngsters are the key to postseason success, and this infatuation with minor league prospects makes Billy Beane look good, but eventually you have to take some chances and make a run. If you always build for the future, it may never come.

What do you think? Do Major League teams use their farm systems the way they should? Is there a right or a wrong way to use them?