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 redsox04071318champs on Jul 26, 2015 20:00:50 GMT -5
My goodness, if it were 1959 and Ted Williams was coming off an injury plagued season where he only hit .254 I swear a lot of people here would be clamoring for him to be dealt. I get this is a business and there's very little room for sentiment, but when Ortiz and Pedroia have made their affinity for the Red Sox clear, and could have made more elsewhere, and aren't having any major contract disputes with the Sox, it's pretty clear they will be Red Sox for life, much the way Williams and Yaz were. And like Tek and Wakefield later on. Two way loyalty between a player and an organization is rare, but in the case of Pedroia and Ortiz, it clearly exists, so I'd be absolutely stunned if the Sox ever dealt either of those two players. I get Loyalty and Ortiz and Pedroia have earned it from the Sox, but it can't be blind loyalty either. Look at the Patriots, they show very little loyalty, but the team is better because they don't. As much as I want to see both player finish their great careers as members of the Red Sox, if the team is better off without them, we need to move on. I think this applies a lot more to Ortiz then Pedroia. I think a very good case can be made that going forward Hanley at DH makes the team better. If you could get a good package for Ortiz you have to think about trading him. Maybe just maybe a team like the Angles see Ortiz leadership and post season heroic as the missing miss and offers you a good return. Granted this is a Looong shot, but doesn't mean you don't at least consider it and see what's out there in a trade Well perhaps the Yankees should have tried to get Jeter to waive his 10-5 rights when he came back from his injury as he had two mediocre seasons and his range went from his left foot to his right foot. But they didn't. It's the same thing for Ortiz and Papi is not where Jeter was those last two seasons. I don't think you can compare the guaranteed contracts of baseball to football. Mostly the teams have the leverage in football and it was the Pats, within the confines of a more stringent salary cap system, severing the loyalty. It's different with baseball. Papi should and will retire as a Red Sox, the way both he and the franchise want it. Talk of trading him makes no sense whatsoever. And to the poster who said he wouldn't trade Pedroia for Trout. I can't agree with that, but I won't worry about it. Pedroia isn't going anywhere other than the DL, and the Angels aren't insane enough to offer Trout in a deal for Pedroia, so I won't worry about that.
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jul 26, 2015 23:40:25 GMT -5
I get Loyalty and Ortiz and Pedroia have earned it from the Sox, but it can't be blind loyalty either. Look at the Patriots, they show very little loyalty, but the team is better because they don't. As much as I want to see both player finish their great careers as members of the Red Sox, if the team is better off without them, we need to move on. I think this applies a lot more to Ortiz then Pedroia. I think a very good case can be made that going forward Hanley at DH makes the team better. If you could get a good package for Ortiz you have to think about trading him. Maybe just maybe a team like the Angles see Ortiz leadership and post season heroic as the missing miss and offers you a good return. Granted this is a Looong shot, but doesn't mean you don't at least consider it and see what's out there in a trade Well perhaps the Yankees should have tried to get Jeter to waive his 10-5 rights when he came back from his injury as he had two mediocre seasons and his range went from his left foot to his right foot. But they didn't. It's the same thing for Ortiz and Papi is not where Jeter was those last two seasons. I don't think you can compare the guaranteed contracts of baseball to football. Mostly the teams have the leverage in football and it was the Pats, within the confines of a more stringent salary cap system, severing the loyalty. It's different with baseball. Papi should and will retire as a Red Sox, the way both he and the franchise want it. Talk of trading him makes no sense whatsoever. And to the poster who said he wouldn't trade Pedroia for Trout. I can't agree with that, but I won't worry about it. Pedroia isn't going anywhere other than the DL, and the Angels aren't insane enough to offer Trout in a deal for Pedroia, so I won't worry about that. Yes they would offer Mike Trout!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 12, 2015 15:33:59 GMT -5
A single 2 week DL stint doesn't reinforce the idea that Pedroia is injury prone. It wasn't caused by being wreckless, he just slipped over a base while running. Could happen to anyone. He's back on the DL, at what point do you concede the point? And now he's at 38 games and counting, and he just may miss the rest of the season. Whatever people once thought of him he's no longer that player and it's time everyone realizes that as well. When the Sox started the season with multiple rookies last year (2014) it was obvious the rebuild had begun but over on SOSH I was told by the masses the Sox never rebuild. Well that point is beyond debate-able and the masses once again were wrong. That fact, rebuilding, along with the realization it takes about 2 years for 95% of rookies to acclimate themselves to the MLB level made my realize if Pedroia continues to get hurt and see his performance decline now what will he be like by then (2016). The Sox foolishly attempted to rebuild and contend at the same time and it likely set them back further with fairly large contracts to 2 players who everyone would like to see moved to another position or another team even. That is limiting the team now. Instead of allways trying to take a step forward just to take 2 steps back it's better to take a step back so you can go 2 forward. Trading Pedroia when I said to would have had long term benefits to the club, perhaps we'd have a cheap #2 pitcher already. Not rushing JBJ and he'd likely have been up for good last season and improving quickly with his bat already, trading Dustin and we'd have Betts playing second, a #2 pitcher (especially if we combined him with a #5 to #15 prospect), and we'd have saved money to spend on a top pitching FA this offseason. The rush to sign Porcello to a long term deal would not have been as urgent and may have not happened at all.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 12, 2015 17:20:21 GMT -5
He's back on the DL, at what point do you concede the point? And now he's at 38 games and counting, and he just may miss the rest of the season. Whatever people once thought of him he's no longer that player and it's time everyone realizes that as well. When the Sox started the season with multiple rookies last year (2014) it was obvious the rebuild had begun but over on SOSH I was told by the masses the Sox never rebuild. Well that point is beyond debate-able and the masses once again were wrong. That fact, rebuilding, along with the realization it takes about 2 years for 95% of rookies to acclimate themselves to the MLB level made my realize if Pedroia continues to get hurt and see his performance decline now what will he be like by then (2016). The Sox foolishly attempted to rebuild and contend at the same time and it likely set them back further with fairly large contracts to 2 players who everyone would like to see moved to another position or another team even. That is limiting the team now. Instead of allways trying to take a step forward just to take 2 steps back it's better to take a step back so you can go 2 forward. Trading Pedroia when I said to would have had long term benefits to the club, perhaps we'd have a cheap #2 pitcher already. Not rushing JBJ and he'd likely have been up for good last season and improving quickly with his bat already, trading Dustin and we'd have Betts playing second, a #2 pitcher (especially if we combined him with a #5 to #15 prospect), and we'd have saved money to spend on a top pitching FA this offseason. The rush to sign Porcello to a long term deal would not have been as urgent and may have not happened at all. What masses are wrong? It's more a realization of reality - the Red Sox aren't inclined to deal Pedroia no matter if the masses say get rid of him or keep him. The masses don't make trades. The front office does.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 9:11:25 GMT -5
And now he's at 38 games and counting, and he just may miss the rest of the season. Whatever people once thought of him he's no longer that player and it's time everyone realizes that as well. When the Sox started the season with multiple rookies last year (2014) it was obvious the rebuild had begun but over on SOSH I was told by the masses the Sox never rebuild. Well that point is beyond debate-able and the masses once again were wrong. That fact, rebuilding, along with the realization it takes about 2 years for 95% of rookies to acclimate themselves to the MLB level made my realize if Pedroia continues to get hurt and see his performance decline now what will he be like by then (2016). The Sox foolishly attempted to rebuild and contend at the same time and it likely set them back further with fairly large contracts to 2 players who everyone would like to see moved to another position or another team even. That is limiting the team now. Instead of allways trying to take a step forward just to take 2 steps back it's better to take a step back so you can go 2 forward. Trading Pedroia when I said to would have had long term benefits to the club, perhaps we'd have a cheap #2 pitcher already. Not rushing JBJ and he'd likely have been up for good last season and improving quickly with his bat already, trading Dustin and we'd have Betts playing second, a #2 pitcher (especially if we combined him with a #5 to #15 prospect), and we'd have saved money to spend on a top pitching FA this offseason. The rush to sign Porcello to a long term deal would not have been as urgent and may have not happened at all. What masses are wrong? It's more a realization of reality - the Red Sox aren't inclined to deal Pedroia no matter if the masses say get rid of him or keep him. The masses don't make trades. The front office does. The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. I recognize that with each passing injury by Dustin his trade value diminishes which is exactly why I wanted to do it well over a year ago. Betts natural position is second base. Recognizing the team was years from true contention and that we had a dynamic very good defensive rookie at second base with an aging veteran whose best days were behind him whose signed to a good contract at the same position and with holes to fill on the team it should be logical to explore the idea of moving him regardless of whether or not you think he should have actually been traded. Now we have top prospect Yoan Moncada on the horizon what happens when he's ready?, move him for Pedey's sake too? This is getting like the NFL, digging in it's heals even when it's apparent they are in the wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 13, 2015 10:01:01 GMT -5
What masses are wrong? It's more a realization of reality - the Red Sox aren't inclined to deal Pedroia no matter if the masses say get rid of him or keep him. The masses don't make trades. The front office does. The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. Ok but you're also ignoring the fact that he played very well this year when healthy. So he pulled a hammy, you're nostradamus. It doesn't change the fact that he's signed to a very team-friendly contract that he will almost certainly justify even if he slips back to his power numbers from a year or two ago. We're not talking about crippling injuries that change careers here. And he's signed through 2020 and isn't particularly old, so he could very easily be an important player for us next time we contend, which could very easily be next year. Beyond that, it's really not like they couldn't deal him now because he's had a couple of minor injuries. If he played 140-150 games at the rate he performed this year, he's a 4-win player, and that's with much worse defensive numbers than we usually see from him. Despite your assertions, there's no reason that he couldn't be that guy going forward, given that he'll play almost all of next season at 32. He's had 2 seasons when he's played fewer than 135 games, and given that he's cheap and we have Brock Holt, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade him unless you can get a top of the line starter for him
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2015 10:50:42 GMT -5
What masses are wrong? It's more a realization of reality - the Red Sox aren't inclined to deal Pedroia no matter if the masses say get rid of him or keep him. The masses don't make trades. The front office does. The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. I recognize that with each passing injury by Dustin his trade value diminishes which is exactly why I wanted to do it well over a year ago. Betts natural position is second base. Recognizing the team was years from true contention and that we had a dynamic very good defensive rookie at second base with an aging veteran whose best days were behind him whose signed to a good contract at the same position and with holes to fill on the team it should be logical to explore the idea of moving him regardless of whether or not you think he should have actually been traded. Now we have top prospect Yoan Moncada on the horizon what happens when he's ready?, move him for Pedey's sake too? This is getting like the NFL, digging in it's heals even when it's apparent they are in the wrong. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. I think my point flew totally over your head. I'm not saying the Sox should keep or get rid of Pedroia, and there's certainly nothing wrong with exploring ideas - that's how this works. My point is that it seems pretty obvious the Sox aren't inclined to trade Pedroia and made the type of deal they made with him, for alot of years, that clearly take him past his prime - because they want him to be a career long Red Sox, just the way they wanted Ortiz to stick around, just the way they wanted Tek and Wakefield to stick around, too. They like players that are willing to sacrifice top $ and show loyalty as Pedroia clearly does. In their opinion his contract doesn't break the bank and when he's on the field he's worth his contract. So whether you can predict injury or not (Hey, I bet you Pedroia misses time next year with injuries - the guy plays very hard so it's not surprising - and eventually in a few years, his decline might become steeper when he does take the field - how's that for being Nostradamus?), it's totally irrelevant to what the Sox are doing. They aren't going to deal him. And the straw man argument you present with the "masses" is a joke. My guess is a lot of people on SOSH or here would deal Pedroia, but it totally doesn't matter in the least because there is zero evidence that the Sox are even thinking about trading him, so what's the point of the "I told you so" attitude? And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2015 11:23:04 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Pedroia "well over a year ago", that would've been the 2013-2014 offseason...you know, a few months after a World Series Championship and before the seven year extension signed only a few months back actually began. This was also before Mookie Betts had played a game above Salem.
Now, lets assume the Red Sox would've "won" that hypothetical Pedroia trade (a big assumption): would the trade actually help the franchise enough to be worth the negative impact of dealing a guy like Pedroia, especially considering the timing? I'd say it's doubtful, even given hindsight of the 2014-2015 teams being worse than anyone could've projected, and Mookie going through the system faster than anyone could've projected. To compensate for that type of a deal, the Red Sox would likely have to start handing out real no trade protection in deals going forward. Money talks but people actually do value security, especially home grown players who've already settled into the area and might consider extensions before free agency. If you take away that feeling of security you'll absolutely need to compensate in terms of dollars, so you'll end up tangibly paying in dollars for creating that perception. The Red Sox could've got a real haul for Pedroia, but it's a mistake to assume that haul would be more valuable than Pedroia in the first place, let alone the impact in the clubhouse and the perception of the franchise in the short term.
If the Red Sox had dealt Pedroia during that offseason the past two teams would still be horrible, and the narrative would be the Red Sox alienated the clubhouse and lost their way. If you're one of the people who think the Red Sox didn't negotiate in good faith with Lester, how could you possible ask for this type of move? The Red Sox have made a lot of poor decisions since that World Series Championship, this really isn't the thing to focus on. I wouldn't even close the door on dealing Pedroia going forward, it just wasn't an option that made sense well over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 13, 2015 11:49:06 GMT -5
And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career. The Red Sox may have bigger problems than Pedroia, but he's still a potential long-term problem for the team if he cannot stay on the field for 135-140 games each year. It's hard to argue that the Red Sox are doing everything in their power to win, if they are not exploring Pedroia's trade value before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next August. My July 23 post still holds.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2015 11:50:58 GMT -5
And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career. The Red Sox may have bigger problems than Pedroia, but he's still a potential long-term problem for the team if he cannot stay on the field for 135-140 games each year. It's hard to argue that the Red Sox are doing everything in their power to win, if they are not exploring Pedroia's trade value before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next August. My July 23 post still holds. Glad the team didn't think the same thing about Papi when he was 32.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 12:25:55 GMT -5
The Red Sox may have bigger problems than Pedroia, but he's still a potential long-term problem for the team if he cannot stay on the field for 135-140 games each year. It's hard to argue that the Red Sox are doing everything in their power to win, if they are not exploring Pedroia's trade value before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next August. My July 23 post still holds. Glad the team didn't think the same thing about Papi when he was 32. Glad Papi was a DH and stays on the field and/or does not have his production suffer on the field because of playing through injuries. I like Pedroia alot but seeking to improve the team goes beyond that. (Not to mention we have in-house solutions at 2B now and in the future and we have several holes to fill. Trading 101 indicates to trade your strengths to cover weaknesses) In the end we root for the uniforms and not the players even if during the journey we have players we like or cling to more than others and root for them even more, that's human nature.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2015 13:20:11 GMT -5
And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career. The Red Sox may have bigger problems than Pedroia, but he's still a potential long-term problem for the team if he cannot stay on the field for 135-140 games each year. It's hard to argue that the Red Sox are doing everything in their power to win, if they are not exploring Pedroia's trade value before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next August. My July 23 post still holds. My point is that performance out of 2b isn't their biggest issue. Having Brock Holt around mitigates a lot of Pedroia's absences from injuries. 2b doesn't become a big hole if/when Pedroia gets hurt. If the Sox are actively seeking Pedroia's trade value, it's a well kept secret. Nobody in the media is sniffing around anything resembling Dustin Pedroia trade rumors. I get that in a vacuum the Sox are supposed to leave no stone unturned, etc. However, they'd probably need to be overwhelmed to deal him. A marginal upgrade or gamble does them no good in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 13, 2015 13:26:04 GMT -5
Not to mention we have in-house solutions at 2B now and in the future and we have several holes to fill. You put it in parenthesis but I think it's the central aspect. I'm not a believer in Hanley to 1B - notably because I think he will need an adjustment period and will feel it's not worth putting in the work when he's going to be moved to DH once Ortiz retires anyway. Better leave him in LF for one more season. But then we've also got a significant investment in Castillo and I still want to have the best defensive CFer in the majors. I suppose you could barely squeeze Mookie in there if you decide that JBJ and Castillo form a platoon, but really the most convenient thing would be to just move him to 2B. In a way, it's really hard for Mookie-the-outfielder and JBJ to both be starting players monthe same team because they both lose too much value if you move them to a corner.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 13, 2015 13:38:42 GMT -5
Not to mention we have in-house solutions at 2B now and in the future and we have several holes to fill. You put it in parenthesis but I think it's the central aspect. I'm not a believer in Hanley to 1B - notably because I think he will need an adjustment period and will feel it's not worth putting in the work when he's going to be moved to DH once Ortiz retires anyway. Better leave him in LF for one more season. But then we've also got a significant investment in Castillo and I still want to have the best defensive CFer in the majors. I suppose you could barely squeeze Mookie in there if you decide that JBJ and Castillo form a platoon, but really the most convenient thing would be to just move him to 2B. In a way, it's really hard for Mookie-the-outfielder and JBJ to both be starting players monthe same team because they both lose too much value if you move them to a corner. I don't agree that moving mookie to a corner costs him a ton of value. Carl Crawford was an extremely valuable defensive player in left field for the Rays for years. No reason Mookie couldn't play left with Castillo in RF, Bradley in CF and us with the rangiest outfield in baseball. I get that having the monster minimizes the impact of a speedy left fielder, but even so, I think that would be fine. I would much rather see Mookie in a corner, Pedey at 2b and Hanley at 1B next year than deal Pedroia and keep Hanley in LF
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2015 13:41:38 GMT -5
I wish there was a way to 'ignore thread' and then it disappears from my view.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 13, 2015 13:53:41 GMT -5
The Red Sox may have bigger problems than Pedroia, but he's still a potential long-term problem for the team if he cannot stay on the field for 135-140 games each year. It's hard to argue that the Red Sox are doing everything in their power to win, if they are not exploring Pedroia's trade value before his 10-and-5 rights kick in next August. My July 23 post still holds. Glad the team didn't think the same thing about Papi when he was 32. Not comparable. Take a look at Alex Speier's article in the Globe today on Pedroia and the aging of second basemen.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 14:01:29 GMT -5
The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. Ok but you're also ignoring the fact that he played very well this year when healthy. So he pulled a hammy, you're nostradamus. It doesn't change the fact that he's signed to a very team-friendly contract (a point in my favor not yours) that he will almost certainly justify even if he slips back to his power numbers from a year or two ago. We're not talking about crippling injuries that change careers here. And he's signed through 2020 and isn't particularly old, so he could very easily be an important player for us next time we contend, which could very easily be next year. Beyond that, it's really not like they couldn't deal him now because he's had a couple of minor injuries. If he played 140-150 games at the rate he performed this year, he's a 4-win player, and that's with much worse defensive numbers than we usually see from him. Despite your assertions, there's no reason that he couldn't be that guy going forward, given that he'll play almost all of next season at 32. He's had 2 seasons when he's played fewer than 135 games, and given that he's cheap and we have Brock Holt, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade him unless you can get a top of the line starter for him Is it that easy to talk out of both sides of your mouth? first he's not really hurt, then we can't trade him because he is hurt, then you claim well he played hurt so we have to excuse the numbers. You can't have your cake and eat it to. I hilighted alot of ifs and when and could up above in your statement. Not a compelling rebutall at all. I want to trade him if it helps the team obviously and not for trades sake. I did not know that had to be stated as it's very obvious.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 14:03:29 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Pedroia "well over a year ago", that would've been the 2013-2014 offseason...you know, a few months after a World Series Championship and before the seven year extension signed only a few months back actually began. This was also before Mookie Betts had played a game above Salem. Now, lets assume the Red Sox would've "won" that hypothetical Pedroia trade (a big assumption): would the trade actually help the franchise enough to be worth the negative impact of dealing a guy like Pedroia, especially considering the timing? I'd say it's doubtful, even given hindsight of the 2014-2015 teams being worse than anyone could've projected, and Mookie going through the system faster than anyone could've projected. To compensate for that type of a deal, the Red Sox would likely have to start handing out real no trade protection in deals going forward. Money talks but people actually do value security, especially home grown players who've already settled into the area and might consider extensions before free agency. If you take away that feeling of security you'll absolutely need to compensate in terms of dollars, so you'll end up tangibly paying in dollars for creating that perception. The Red Sox could've got a real haul for Pedroia, but it's a mistake to assume that haul would be more valuable than Pedroia in the first place, let alone the impact in the clubhouse and the perception of the franchise in the short term. If the Red Sox had dealt Pedroia during that offseason the past two teams would still be horrible, and the narrative would be the Red Sox alienated the clubhouse and lost their way. If you're one of the people who think the Red Sox didn't negotiate in good faith with Lester, how could you possible ask for this type of move? The Red Sox have made a lot of poor decisions since that World Series Championship, this really isn't the thing to focus on. I wouldn't even close the door on dealing Pedroia going forward, it just wasn't an option that made sense well over a year ago. I already pointed out this was early 2014, not 2013 so your premise it moot.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 14:09:35 GMT -5
The masses that thought we were not rebuilding. The masses thought that Pedroia cannot under any circumstances be traded because he's (input poor explanation of said favorites binky here) a "dirt dog". The masses that told me I could not predict his injuries going forward. What's sad is that it is over a year later and everything I claimed, time has shown to be correct. Several faces of the franchise have been traded since then and they always have been and there has been an injury both seasons since I made my claim. We explore ideas here all the time, including 'what can be done to fix the Sox'. I was ahead of the curve on this one. Often when someone proposes an idea that people are not emotionally ready to handle their knee jerk reaction is to ridicule it. I recognize that with each passing injury by Dustin his trade value diminishes which is exactly why I wanted to do it well over a year ago. Betts natural position is second base. Recognizing the team was years from true contention and that we had a dynamic very good defensive rookie at second base with an aging veteran whose best days were behind him whose signed to a good contract at the same position and with holes to fill on the team it should be logical to explore the idea of moving him regardless of whether or not you think he should have actually been traded. Now we have top prospect Yoan Moncada on the horizon what happens when he's ready?, move him for Pedey's sake too? This is getting like the NFL, digging in it's heals even when it's apparent they are in the wrong. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. I think my point flew totally over your head. I'm not saying the Sox should keep or get rid of Pedroia, and there's certainly nothing wrong with exploring ideas - that's how this works. My point is that it seems pretty obvious the Sox aren't inclined to trade Pedroia and made the type of deal they made with him, for alot of years, that clearly take him past his prime - because they want him to be a career long Red Sox, just the way they wanted Ortiz to stick around, just the way they wanted Tek and Wakefield to stick around, too. They like players that are willing to sacrifice top $ and show loyalty as Pedroia clearly does. In their opinion his contract doesn't break the bank and when he's on the field he's worth his contract. So whether you can predict injury or not (Hey, I bet you Pedroia misses time next year with injuries - the guy plays very hard so it's not surprising - and eventually in a few years, his decline might become steeper when he does take the field - how's that for being Nostradamus?), it's totally irrelevant to what the Sox are doing. They aren't going to deal him. And the straw man argument you present with the "masses" is a joke. My guess is a lot of people on SOSH or here would deal Pedroia, but it totally doesn't matter in the least because there is zero evidence that the Sox are even thinking about trading him, so what's the point of the "I told you so" attitude? And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career. You missed my point and talked past it. Your point is without any merit. Did they not want Fisk or Evan or Pedro to stay around. This goes beyond the idealism of fans and not how teams operate. How do you know or pretend to know what the team is doing when it suddenly appears they are questioning themselves? 99% of the people thought the idea was foolish last year and until fairly recently the idea took little traction. The Sox have bigger problems so why bother attempting to improve the team? is that what your saying or please ignore one of the few pieces that makes the most sense to attempt to trade because you suspect the FO wants him to be the Yankees version of Jeter? Who is joking who here? get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 13, 2015 14:14:27 GMT -5
I wish there was a way to 'ignore thread' and then it disappears from my view. It's called ignoring it, then it disappears as you've stated your position several times. You're hoping to ignore something that has gained traction because you disagree with it. Then counter with reasons that make sense and it has to go away.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2015 14:20:01 GMT -5
I wish there was a way to 'ignore thread' and then it disappears from my view. It's called ignoring it, then it disappears as you've stated your position several times. You're hoping to ignore something that has gained traction because you disagree with it. Then counter with reasons that make sense and it has to go away. And so have you. There is no traction. Let's argue when he's playing like an All-Star next year instead of out hurt because of a weird freak accident.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2015 14:49:44 GMT -5
If the Red Sox traded Pedroia "well over a year ago", that would've been the 2013-2014 offseason...you know, a few months after a World Series Championship and before the seven year extension signed only a few months back actually began. This was also before Mookie Betts had played a game above Salem. Now, lets assume the Red Sox would've "won" that hypothetical Pedroia trade (a big assumption): would the trade actually help the franchise enough to be worth the negative impact of dealing a guy like Pedroia, especially considering the timing? I'd say it's doubtful, even given hindsight of the 2014-2015 teams being worse than anyone could've projected, and Mookie going through the system faster than anyone could've projected. To compensate for that type of a deal, the Red Sox would likely have to start handing out real no trade protection in deals going forward. Money talks but people actually do value security, especially home grown players who've already settled into the area and might consider extensions before free agency. If you take away that feeling of security you'll absolutely need to compensate in terms of dollars, so you'll end up tangibly paying in dollars for creating that perception. The Red Sox could've got a real haul for Pedroia, but it's a mistake to assume that haul would be more valuable than Pedroia in the first place, let alone the impact in the clubhouse and the perception of the franchise in the short term. If the Red Sox had dealt Pedroia during that offseason the past two teams would still be horrible, and the narrative would be the Red Sox alienated the clubhouse and lost their way. If you're one of the people who think the Red Sox didn't negotiate in good faith with Lester, how could you possible ask for this type of move? The Red Sox have made a lot of poor decisions since that World Series Championship, this really isn't the thing to focus on. I wouldn't even close the door on dealing Pedroia going forward, it just wasn't an option that made sense well over a year ago. I already pointed out this was early 2014, not 2013 so your premise it moot. I didn't say during the 2013 season, I said after the 2013 season during the 2013-2014 offseason. You stated you wanted him traded "well over a year ago". Last year's trade deadline was a year and two weeks ago, if you wanted him dealt then I don't know why you wrote "well over a year ago". Even if you want to backtrack it to Opening day 2014 and make it 16 months ago (I guess that might quality for "well over a year ago"?) it still doesn't sense. Why would you not call for him to be dealt during the offseason only to change your mind a month into the season? Players like Pedroia don't get dealt in April or May regardless, the earliest possibility for a trade would've been last July, almost exactly a year ago. If you meant you wanted to trade him last trade deadline fine, maybe you just worded it wrong. I'd argue whatever the Red Sox could've dealt Pedroia for last year is probably close to what they could get now, his value hasn't really fluctuated that much even with this injury. It's not like they would've been selling high last July, he was in the middle of his worst offensive season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2015 15:42:50 GMT -5
Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. I think my point flew totally over your head. I'm not saying the Sox should keep or get rid of Pedroia, and there's certainly nothing wrong with exploring ideas - that's how this works. My point is that it seems pretty obvious the Sox aren't inclined to trade Pedroia and made the type of deal they made with him, for alot of years, that clearly take him past his prime - because they want him to be a career long Red Sox, just the way they wanted Ortiz to stick around, just the way they wanted Tek and Wakefield to stick around, too. They like players that are willing to sacrifice top $ and show loyalty as Pedroia clearly does. In their opinion his contract doesn't break the bank and when he's on the field he's worth his contract. So whether you can predict injury or not (Hey, I bet you Pedroia misses time next year with injuries - the guy plays very hard so it's not surprising - and eventually in a few years, his decline might become steeper when he does take the field - how's that for being Nostradamus?), it's totally irrelevant to what the Sox are doing. They aren't going to deal him. And the straw man argument you present with the "masses" is a joke. My guess is a lot of people on SOSH or here would deal Pedroia, but it totally doesn't matter in the least because there is zero evidence that the Sox are even thinking about trading him, so what's the point of the "I told you so" attitude? And what's the point on harping about his presence here? Frankly the Sox have much bigger problems than Dustin Pedroia, whom the Sox almost regard the way the Yankees regarded Jeter, who had his decline and injury years with the Yankees because they considered him a Yankee for life, just as I suspect the FO considers Pedroia a Red Sox for his career. You missed my point and talked past it. Your point is without any merit. Did they not want Fisk or Evan or Pedro to stay around. This goes beyond the idealism of fans and not how teams operate. How do you know or pretend to know what the team is doing when it suddenly appears they are questioning themselves? 99% of the people thought the idea was foolish last year and until fairly recently the idea took little traction. The Sox have bigger problems so why bother attempting to improve the team? is that what your saying or please ignore one of the few pieces that makes the most sense to attempt to trade because you suspect the FO wants him to be the Yankees version of Jeter? Who is joking who here? get a grip. Umm.. No, they really didn't want Fisk to stick around. I guess you didn't read the history books or have no memory of how it went down. Haywood Sullivan did not like Fisk, nor did he want Fisk retained. That's why they "accidentally" sent his contract to him late, thus allowing him to become a free agent. The Sox wanted Pedro - as long as it was for two or three years max, not at the 4 years at big money that Pedro wanted. The Sox wanted Evans to call it quits. Evans wanted one more year. So no, they really didn't want to those guys to stick around. Sox management likes guys who don't demand top dollar, such as Pedroia, and even Big Papi who makes less because he's a DH. Tell you what dude, I'll apologize to you if I'm wrong, but this talk about Pedroia being dealt is theoretical BS and will not happen. Period. Want to waste your time tilting at windmills? Go for it. I don't even necessarily disagree with the premise, but I think it's ridiculous to expect this to happen in reality. This isn't Nomar squabbling about his contract.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 19, 2015 9:42:02 GMT -5
You missed my point and talked past it. Your point is without any merit. Did they not want Fisk or Evan or Pedro to stay around. This goes beyond the idealism of fans and not how teams operate. How do you know or pretend to know what the team is doing when it suddenly appears they are questioning themselves? 99% of the people thought the idea was foolish last year and until fairly recently the idea took little traction. The Sox have bigger problems so why bother attempting to improve the team? is that what your saying or please ignore one of the few pieces that makes the most sense to attempt to trade because you suspect the FO wants him to be the Yankees version of Jeter? Who is joking who here? get a grip. Umm.. No, they really didn't want Fisk to stick around. I guess you didn't read the history books or have no memory of how it went down. Haywood Sullivan did not like Fisk, nor did he want Fisk retained. That's why they "accidentally" sent his contract to him late, thus allowing him to become a free agent. The Sox wanted Pedro - as long as it was for two or three years max, not at the 4 years at big money that Pedro wanted. The Sox wanted Evans to call it quits. Evans wanted one more year. So no, they really didn't want to those guys to stick around. Sox management likes guys who don't demand top dollar, such as Pedroia, and even Big Papi who makes less because he's a DH. Tell you what dude, I'll apologize to you if I'm wrong, but this talk about Pedroia being dealt is theoretical BS and will not happen. Period. Want to waste your time tilting at windmills? Go for it. I don't even necessarily disagree with the premise, but I think it's ridiculous to expect this to happen in reality. This isn't Nomar squabbling about his contract. Why are you pretending to know what the Sox are doing even as there has been major changes from on top likely changing the method of operation perhaps to it's core. I'm being practical that this be explored. I never advocated a trade for it's sake. Some will wax and wane that he's a leader and a young team needs players like him. A leader of what exactly? Of a team that has had what is likely to be 3 out of 4 last place finishes? Is that a feather in his cap or a knock? This thread is akin to how non-Patriot fans view deflategate, full of opinions with precious little to nothing to back up their opinion. There is not a GOOD reason other than nostalgia to not explore his value to other teams. We need front end of the rotation badly, he is a prime trade chip at a position the team is stacked at with multiple high end options now, Betts and soon Moncada and this is not even taking into account SS in the farm who could be converted to 2B too. BTW Nomar was a shock to everyone at the time too.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 19, 2015 9:44:54 GMT -5
In addition Dustin's extension does not even begin to next season. What was the rush?
|
|
|