SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Should the Red Sox trade Dustin Pedroia?
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 28, 2014 1:58:45 GMT -5
You can't compare Ortiz who is 39 to Pedroia who is 31. Talk about Apples to Oranges! Pedroia has a ton and a mean a ton more trade value. He is also on a long term contract that is seen as below market value. Seriously: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_orangesPedroia and Ortiz can easily be compared. You just did it. A comparison of a baseball player to a baseball player is an apples-to-apples comparison. A comparison of a baseball player to a musician is an apples-to-oranges comparison. OK Mr. Smarty Pants, going to admit your wrong and that you should include the whole definition? ? This is the second time you have done this.
The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also be used to indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an apple is faulted for not being a good orange.
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]
Saying we should trade David Ortiz because I feel we should trade Pedroia is a false analogy. Just because I feel we should trade Pedroia doesn't mean we should trade Ortiz. One is not relevant to the other.
Have a cigar on me when you are taking your shower this wonderful morning!
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265 
|
Post by TX on Dec 28, 2014 2:05:19 GMT -5
They can't. Honestly, we're talking apples to oranges. Ortiz has near zero trade value, Petey has tons. The only similarity the two have is that neither will be traded, ever, even if this dumb thread goes on for ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 28, 2014 10:14:02 GMT -5
Either way, we know the Sox aren't dangling Pedroia in trade talks so it's not a very realistic thing to talk about. My point with Ortiz is that talking about dealing Ortiz is just as unrealistic. It's great theoretical conversation, but nothing more. The Sox aren't dealing Pedroia now or anytime soon. If he declines he won't be worth a ton in trade value. If he plays well, the Sox will keep him for his strong salary and as a core member of the team. Either way he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Shame on Ben if he doesn't at least see what he could get for him. Pedroia value is still really high right now, hence why I would see what we can get. If you can't get a really good young pitcher you don't trade him. I know the chances are slim, doesn't mean you don't try. That's my point, not that I just want to trade Pedroia. Here's the thing: the mere act of shopping him comes with significant negative consequences, even (especially) if you don't ultimately trade him. If you shop him around, there's a high chance that those talks leak to the media, and if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally. If, as you concede above, there's a very small chance that there's a worthwhile trade out there, it doesn't seem worth alienating one of your clubhouse leaders to try and find that needle in a haystack. |
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 28, 2014 13:07:08 GMT -5
"Significant negative consequences"? Trades for 'franchise' players are a fairly common occurrence or at least not that rare at all, yet everything resumes afterward without the clubhouse falling apart. Can you expand on the quotes a little?
Of course it is a long shot but that was made longer by not shopping him before this most recent and easily predictable injury. Whether or not it's a long shot is not reason alone to dismiss the possibility nor for a discussion to ensue. Betts to second with Pedroia packaged with players such as Owens and Margot could land the Sox an ace type pitcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 28, 2014 19:48:27 GMT -5
"Significant negative consequences"? Trades for 'franchise' players are a fairly common occurrence or at least not that rare at all, yet everything resumes afterward without the clubhouse falling apart. Can you expand on the quotes a little? Of course it is a long shot but that was made longer by not shopping him before this most recent and easily predictable injury. Whether or not it's a long shot is not reason alone to dismiss the possibility nor for a discussion to ensue. Betts to second with Pedroia packaged with players such as Owens and Margot could land the Sox an ace type pitcher. When rumors emerge that you are shopping around one of your franchise players who signed a below-market extension, it is going to upset both him and the clubhouse in general. I don't attach a huge amount of value to clubhouse chemistry, but I do think it matters somewhat. When you're weighing the decision of whether or not to shop him, you consider the pros and cons of doing so. The pros are that you might find a beneficial trade, but if the odds of that are low, the overall expected benefit is also low. The con is that if the talks leak (and they are likely to), it almost certainly will engender ill-will amongst Pedroia and the rest of the players/coaches, and you have to weigh that against the expected benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Dec 28, 2014 20:21:27 GMT -5
There's another issue. While a team can be very successful, as the Athletics more than anyone have shown, without having a "face of the franchise" player, there is value to the franchise in having great players spend their entire careers (or the vast majority of them) with that team. It doesn't mean you should never trade them, but teams build brand loyalty by keeping these type of players. It isn't just Pedroia who would be upset, many fans would be upset, sports radio would go on and on...we don't know how to measure the negative consequences of this, but it is certain that there would be some consequences. Of course, winning takes care of most of this, but not all.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 13:48:44 GMT -5
Shame on Ben if he doesn't at least see what he could get for him. Pedroia value is still really high right now, hence why I would see what we can get. If you can't get a really good young pitcher you don't trade him. I know the chances are slim, doesn't mean you don't try. That's my point, not that I just want to trade Pedroia. Here's the thing: the mere act of shopping him comes with significant negative consequences, even (especially) if you don't ultimately trade him. If you shop him around, there's a high chance that those talks leak to the media, and if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally. If, as you concede above, there's a very small chance that there's a worthwhile trade out there, it doesn't seem worth alienating one of your clubhouse leaders to try and find that needle in a haystack. That is very true that the talks might be leaked. I do think that Ben can have conversations with GM's that won't become public. I look at the Patriots when they traded Seymour and Mankins. It came out of no where, nothing was leaked to the media before the trades happened. I would also target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for.
One thing I don't agree with is the "if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally". Pedroia is 100% a professional. One of the best in the business, if there is a player who could understand that the game is a business and not take it personally it's him. He is signed long term, so it's not going to affect contract talks or anything like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 14:06:34 GMT -5
There's another issue. While a team can be very successful, as the Athletics more than anyone have shown, without having a "face of the franchise" player, there is value to the franchise in having great players spend their entire careers (or the vast majority of them) with that team. It doesn't mean you should never trade them, but teams build brand loyalty by keeping these type of players. It isn't just Pedroia who would be upset, many fans would be upset, sports radio would go on and on...we don't know how to measure the negative consequences of this, but it is certain that there would be some consequences. Of course, winning takes care of most of this, but not all. I agree that having a face of the franchise is of value to the Red Sox and other teams. I just see David Ortiz as the face of the Red Sox and a player I would not even think about trading. I've never looked at Pedroia as the face of the Red Sox. Great player, leads by example, but is very much a laid back guy that seems to like to stay out of the spot light. Ortiz wants to be the at the center of everything, loves the spot light.
I just don't see the value of having a player play his whole career with one team. I really think the value is to the fans not to the team. They get to know and love a player and hate when you trade him. A GM should do what is in the best interest of the team, not what the fans want. If trading Pedroia can get us a pitcher that can make us a better team for the next 5 years you do it.
Also Boston Media is going to be all over Ben no matter what he does. If he doesn't get a number one starter and the team struggle it will be Ben dropped the ball. If he gets a number one starter but gives up good young players, some writers will still be all over him. If he signs let say Shields, there will be articles saying why didn't you just pay Lester more or why not get Scherzer. Only winning will quite the Media and fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 29, 2014 14:24:26 GMT -5
Please, just stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 29, 2014 14:46:41 GMT -5
I liked this thread better when it was about Sean Coyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 19:24:33 GMT -5
Not going to happen. I'm sorry it upsets you, but I feel strongly about this. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 29, 2014 23:34:18 GMT -5
Not going to happen. I'm sorry it upsets you, but I feel strongly about this. We get it, but at this point, there's absolutely nothing indicating that the Sox are shopping Pedroia. Absolutely nothing. There's nothing to speculate about. It's totally pointless. Perhaps in 1979 the Sox could have dealt Yaz to strengthen their team. Doubt they ever seriously entertained it. Pedroia isn't Yaz, but for this generation, he's basically Mr. Red Sox, somebody who has committed to play for the Red Sox for 16 seasons (2006 - 2021). Certain guys like Ortiz, Wakefield, Varitek, and Pedroia, who are willing to take team friendly contracts don't go anywhere. Period. Nobody is upset by this, I don't think. I think a lot of us think this is totally pointless. Rather talk about trade speculation that actually has a realistic shot at happening. This isn't it. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 30, 2014 10:13:26 GMT -5
Here's the thing: the mere act of shopping him comes with significant negative consequences, even (especially) if you don't ultimately trade him. If you shop him around, there's a high chance that those talks leak to the media, and if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally. If, as you concede above, there's a very small chance that there's a worthwhile trade out there, it doesn't seem worth alienating one of your clubhouse leaders to try and find that needle in a haystack. That is very true that the talks might be leaked. I do think that Ben can have conversations with GM's that won't become public. I look at the Patriots when they traded Seymour and Mankins. It came out of no where, nothing was leaked to the media before the trades happened. I would also target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for.
One thing I don't agree with is the "if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally". Pedroia is 100% a professional. One of the best in the business, if there is a player who could understand that the game is a business and not take it personally it's him. He is signed long term, so it's not going to affect contract talks or anything like that.
Since this won't die on its own lets just play a game and figure this out and end it then we can agree to disagree of agree, whichever... Let's try to not flip flop to keep our argument going. Keep open the possibility that after working through it you could be wrong. These are your latest words: you would "target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for." So now you've narrowed things way down. Since we don't know who can be trusted we will leave this aside. Who are the young pitchers you'd entertain trading him for? Give your complete list. Then ask yourself does it make sense for that team to deal those players for Pedroia. I'll start with 2 that you already used. Fernandez and Harvey. Neither the Mets or Marlins would want to trade the young cost controlled Ace of their staff and two of the most talented and promising pitchers in baseball for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Those teams would win more games with the pitchers than they would the second baseman and even if not they are not one player away from competing this year. That means Pedroia becomes less and less valuable to them, as they are ready to compete where the pitchers would become more and more valuable. Sale is another popular name. Chicago has him signed to a team friendly deal through his peak years and he's dominant. They have a good offense now and are building a team to win now. Sale is one of the most valuable guys to help the, do so, on the field and they don't have money issues. There is no reality where Sale gets moved for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Kluber? Cleveland has Kipinis like him or not they will stick with him for at least this year... Wacha? Kolton Wong It makes no sense for Ben to approach the Mets or Marlins or White Sox or Cleveland or St Louis about those players because it makes no sense for them to do either of those deals. Sometimes you do know before you ask. So who else would you want? |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2014 10:57:48 GMT -5
One thing I don't agree with is the "if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally". Pedroia is 100% a professional. One of the best in the business, if there is a player who could understand that the game is a business and not take it personally it's him. He is signed long term, so it's not going to affect contract talks or anything like that.
Pedroia is not some soft-spoken guy who is going to sweep it under the rug. He's a fiery guy who is known for having a chip on his shoulder and speaking his mind. After signing an extension which is close to half of his market rate by AAV, he will absolutely take it personally. Again, it's not a huge cost, but it's enough if the odds of a beneficial trade coming together are as minuscule as it appears. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 30, 2014 15:53:15 GMT -5
Seems to me that this is something that you think about in a years time. This year will be Pedroia's 9th, meaning that if you don't trade him during next offseason, you will need his approval to trade him the following offseason. They need to see where he is and where Betts is next year and see if they can get a better return on his projected salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 30, 2014 22:35:25 GMT -5
One thing I don't agree with is the "if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally". Pedroia is 100% a professional. One of the best in the business, if there is a player who could understand that the game is a business and not take it personally it's him. He is signed long term, so it's not going to affect contract talks or anything like that.
Pedroia is not some soft-spoken guy who is going to sweep it under the rug. He's a fiery guy who is known for having a chip on his shoulder and speaking his mind. After signing an extension which is close to half of his market rate by AAV, he will absolutely take it personally. Again, it's not a huge cost, but it's enough if the odds of a beneficial trade coming together are as minuscule as it appears. It might be if you're trying to negotiate an extension with Betts, Bogaerts, etc in the next few years... |
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Dec 30, 2014 23:46:06 GMT -5
That is very true that the talks might be leaked. I do think that Ben can have conversations with GM's that won't become public. I look at the Patriots when they traded Seymour and Mankins. It came out of no where, nothing was leaked to the media before the trades happened. I would also target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for.
One thing I don't agree with is the "if those talks leak, there's a 100% chance that it pisses off Pedroia and upsets the clubhouse generally". Pedroia is 100% a professional. One of the best in the business, if there is a player who could understand that the game is a business and not take it personally it's him. He is signed long term, so it's not going to affect contract talks or anything like that.
Since this won't die on its own lets just play a game and figure this out and end it then we can agree to disagree of agree, whichever... Let's try to not flip flop to keep our argument going. Keep open the possibility that after working through it you could be wrong. These are your latest words: you would "target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for." So now you've narrowed things way down. Since we don't know who can be trusted we will leave this aside. Who are the young pitchers you'd entertain trading him for? Give your complete list. Then ask yourself does it make sense for that team to deal those players for Pedroia. I'll start with 2 that you already used. Fernandez and Harvey. Neither the Mets or Marlins would want to trade the young cost controlled Ace of their staff and two of the most talented and promising pitchers in baseball for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Those teams would win more games with the pitchers than they would the second baseman and even if not they are not one player away from competing this year. That means Pedroia becomes less and less valuable to them, as they are ready to compete where the pitchers would become more and more valuable. Sale is another popular name. Chicago has him signed to a team friendly deal through his peak years and he's dominant. They have a good offense now and are building a team to win now. Sale is one of the most valuable guys to help the, do so, on the field and they don't have money issues. There is no reality where Sale gets moved for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Kluber? Cleveland has Kipinis like him or not they will stick with him for at least this year... Wacha? Kolton Wong It makes no sense for Ben to approach the Mets or Marlins or White Sox or Cleveland or St Louis about those players because it makes no sense for them to do either of those deals. Sometimes you do know before you ask. So who else would you want? I just got kershaw for pedroia on my video game |
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 3, 2015 14:15:35 GMT -5
Since this won't die on its own lets just play a game and figure this out and end it then we can agree to disagree of agree, whichever... Let's try to not flip flop to keep our argument going. Keep open the possibility that after working through it you could be wrong. These are your latest words: you would "target only a handful of teams that I could trust not to leak info but that also had the young pitchers I'm looking for." So now you've narrowed things way down. Since we don't know who can be trusted we will leave this aside. Who are the young pitchers you'd entertain trading him for? Give your complete list. Then ask yourself does it make sense for that team to deal those players for Pedroia. I'll start with 2 that you already used. Fernandez and Harvey. Neither the Mets or Marlins would want to trade the young cost controlled Ace of their staff and two of the most talented and promising pitchers in baseball for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Those teams would win more games with the pitchers than they would the second baseman and even if not they are not one player away from competing this year. That means Pedroia becomes less and less valuable to them, as they are ready to compete where the pitchers would become more and more valuable. Sale is another popular name. Chicago has him signed to a team friendly deal through his peak years and he's dominant. They have a good offense now and are building a team to win now. Sale is one of the most valuable guys to help the, do so, on the field and they don't have money issues. There is no reality where Sale gets moved for an over 30 injury prone, offensively declining second baseman even if he's a wizard with the Glove. Kluber? Cleveland has Kipinis like him or not they will stick with him for at least this year... Wacha? Kolton Wong It makes no sense for Ben to approach the Mets or Marlins or White Sox or Cleveland or St Louis about those players because it makes no sense for them to do either of those deals. Sometimes you do know before you ask. So who else would you want? Back in July/August I was challenged to name a player I wanted in return for Pedrioa which was fair enough as it is futile to suggest trading a player just to trade him as that makes no sense and on that I can agree with the crowd that puts non existent parameters on things, like not trading any player. Any good GM has to explore every possibility. Back in July the Sox biggest need was the outfield as it was historically weak with precious little on the horizon because as deep as the farm is, it does not have any top notch outfielding prospects even if I have not given up on JBJ yet. Within five minutes I came up with a very interesting name and match-up, the Angles had Howie Kendrick on his last year and a very good looking OF'er by the name of Kole Calhoun, who plays RF and was a finalist for the gold glove in his first full season. 2 years ago in limited playing time he had a 128 OPS+ last year in his first 'full' year he had a 122 OPS+, numbers Dustin has not reached in 4 years and very close to his peak seasons of 2010 (127) and 2011 (131). There are post about how weak 2B is in the league right now and then there are post about how secondbaseman Dustin Pedrioa is more valuable to us then any other team. Those thoughts appear to be contradictory. With uber prospect Betts whose natural position is second and he plays excellent defense there as well (not to mention additional depth in the minors) there are other possible trades the Sox could do to improve the team that's not necessarily about landing an ace like pitcher. An outfield of Haney Ramirez, Castillo and Calhoun with an infield of Panda, XB, Betts and Napoli (whose gone in at most 1 year) is a hell of a young team that could be together for at least 4 years and would be cheap enough to spend money on an ace or a first baseman as needed. The Sox will also have another year to see if Marrero or Cecchini is ready and then depending on wether Devin or Gavin is ready could move pieces around the infield, with Panda going to first, and either XB or GC at third and either XB or DM at short. |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 25, 2015 23:16:45 GMT -5
It's too bad about pedroia' no trade clause, because the nationals still need a second baseman.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 26, 2015 0:29:02 GMT -5
It's too bad about pedroia' no trade clause, because the nationals still need a second baseman. Meh. They have Yunel Escobar slated to play second, and besides 2014, he's always been a plus defender who can be a league-average-ish hitter. Steamer foresees a 2.1 WAR in 2015, so while Pedroia would be a massive upgrade, they don't "need" a second baseman. Also, we're talking a guy in Pedroia who's going to be a 4 to 7 WAR player for us (while being a team leader and all that good stuff) -- So I wouldn't say it's "too bad" that we may not be able to dump him as he gets paid the $/WAR equivalent of a ~2 WAR player. Mookie is amazing and all, but Pedroia doesn't have to be moved for him to flourish. Our team is best with both of them on it, unless we miraculously come across a trade opportunity for an ace with more than 2 years of team control left. |
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jan 26, 2015 15:15:18 GMT -5
I can't believe that there are a few people on this board that are so eager to trade Pedey and Vic. I would like to see how they both perform in spring training before we do anything at all. It would be unwise IMNSHO to trade Pedey because he adds so much to the makeup of this team helping out Xander and other young players assimilate into the team concept. He is the heart and soul of this team and I believe he will have a big year to shut some people up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2015 15:26:23 GMT -5
I can't believe that there are a few people on this board that are so eager to trade Pedey and Vic. I would like to see how they both perform in spring training before we do anything at all. It would be unwise IMNSHO to trade Pedey because he adds so much to the makeup of this team helping out Xander and other young players assimilate into the team concept. He is the heart and soul of this team and I believe he will have a big year to shut some people up. I agree completely about Pedroia, but wouldn't add Victorino to the untouchable list. Given the stories about Craig and how he's able to work out all winter this year unlike last year, I am somewhat more optimistic about him turning it around than I was. There is just no room for 6 outfielders plus Holt. |
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jan 28, 2015 1:19:09 GMT -5
I added him because he was injured last year and couldn't be evaluated fairly, but i agree that he is only here for 1 more year and there is big glut of outfielders that has to be sorted out. what a difference from last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 28, 2015 12:41:27 GMT -5
Meh. They have Yunel Escobar slated to play second, and besides 2014, he's always been a plus defender who can be a league-average-ish hitter. Steamer foresees a 2.1 WAR in 2015, so while Pedroia would be a massive upgrade, they don't "need" a second baseman. Also, we're talking a guy in Pedroia who's going to be a 4 to 7 WAR player for us (while being a team leader and all that good stuff) -- So I wouldn't say it's "too bad" that we may not be able to dump him as he gets paid the $/WAR equivalent of a ~2 WAR player. Mookie is amazing and all, but Pedroia doesn't have to be moved for him to flourish. Our team is best with both of them on it, unless we miraculously come across a trade opportunity for an ace with more than 2 years of team control left. Like Gio Gonzalez? (If he was available) |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 28, 2015 12:45:56 GMT -5
Meh. They have Yunel Escobar slated to play second, and besides 2014, he's always been a plus defender who can be a league-average-ish hitter. Steamer foresees a 2.1 WAR in 2015, so while Pedroia would be a massive upgrade, they don't "need" a second baseman. Also, we're talking a guy in Pedroia who's going to be a 4 to 7 WAR player for us (while being a team leader and all that good stuff) -- So I wouldn't say it's "too bad" that we may not be able to dump him as he gets paid the $/WAR equivalent of a ~2 WAR player. Mookie is amazing and all, but Pedroia doesn't have to be moved for him to flourish. Our team is best with both of them on it, unless we miraculously come across a trade opportunity for an ace with more than 2 years of team control left. Like Gio Gonzalez? (If he was available) Is that what we're calling an ace now? |
|
|
? This is the second time you have done this.
