Hey, How About They Trade Pedroia!

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
So you think you are smarter than the GM's of at least several teams?  Got it.

 
Well, start with Omar Minaya. And then..., uhm...

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
Well, start with Omar Minaya. And then..., uhm...

 
You could start with Haywood Sullivan.
 
My favorite nook of the argument has been that the perception of Pedroia's value has "lagged" around the league's GMs--but not for seantoo. That's what flawless logic gets you I s'pose.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The idea of Pedroia's skills declining is based on a shallow and faulty understanding of Dustin's OPS.

 
Wait, no. The idea of Pedroia's skills declining is based on a knowledge of how baseball reality operates. He's 30 years old and it's normal for decline to start happening around that age. Sure, declines come in all shapes and sizes--from early-and-precipitous to late-and-slow, and every combination in between. But they come, sooner or later. We should worry about the decline only if seems to be accelerating. Otherwise, yeah, he's 30 and he's probably going to lose value from here on in. In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.
 
This argument is in danger of devolving into a stupid dichotomy: either Pedroia is falling off a cliff and we need to trade him stat, or he is a god who will be the same player at 35 he was at 25, because he's DUSTIN PEDROIA!
 
The larger point is, no, we shouldn't trade him, because
 
1) We negotiated a deal with him based on the assumption we wouldn't trade him, and doing so would cost the Sox hugely in credibility with fans, media, and most importantly, baseball players and their agents.
 
2) His approach to being a baseball player provides leadership-by-example that will be of huge value to a team in the process of breaking in multiple prospects.
 
3) Since his offensive skills are especially suited to Fenway Park, he is a better player in a Red Sox uniform than in just about anybody else's; therefore, a deal for him is almost guaranteed to return inferior value, unless the other team's GM is an idiot.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

This thread has a third page. Oh, the humanities!

 

[E5 Yaz]

The conspiracy grows:
 
http://www.metro.us/newyork/sports/mlb/2014/07/02/dustin-pedroia-trading-block-red-sox-2012/
 
See? All they need is a Delorean and the plan begins to take shape.
 
But, of course, if it were 2012, then Pedroia would be better and cheaper than he is now. Time travel gives me a headache

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Edit: Never mind.  Not worth the time it took to type it.  I'm out.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
You could start with Haywood Sullivan.

If you want to include dead people, the list could go on and on.

 

[BoredViewer]

 
Wait, no. The idea of Pedroia's skills declining is based on a knowledge of how baseball reality operates. He's 30 years old and it's normal for decline to start happening around that age. Sure, declines come in all shapes and sizes--from early-and-precipitous to late-and-slow, and every combination in between. But they come, sooner or later. We should worry about the decline only if seems to be accelerating. Otherwise, yeah, he's 30 and he's probably going to lose value from here on in. In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.
 
This argument is in danger of devolving into a stupid dichotomy: either Pedroia is falling off a cliff and we need to trade him stat, or he is a god who will be the same player at 35 he was at 25, because he's DUSTIN PEDROIA!
 
The larger point is, no, we shouldn't trade him, because
 
1) We negotiated a deal with him based on the assumption we wouldn't trade him, and doing so would cost the Sox hugely in credibility with fans, media, and most importantly, baseball players and their agents.
 
2) His approach to being a baseball player provides leadership-by-example that will be of huge value to a team in the process of breaking in multiple prospects.
 
3) Since his offensive skills are especially suited to Fenway Park, he is a better player in a Red Sox uniform than in just about anybody else's; therefore, a deal for him is almost guaranteed to return inferior value, unless the other team's GM is an idiot.

 
 
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
 
Media credibility?  Agent credibility?  Fan credibility?
 
Players will come to the Sox because they offer the highest value contract.  No-trades and everything else are negotiable.  
I don't even know what you mean by media credibility?  ESPN won't like the Sox?
 
Fan credibility?  If Pedroia were traded for a couple of top prospects... prospects that (along with other maturing talent) over the next 2 or 3 years turned into cornerstones of pennant winning teams... Fenway would be sold out.  Mookie would be the new fan favorite. And, Pedroia will just be another guy that gets warm applause on his returns to Fenway.
 
He's a guy that plays 2B for the Sox.  He's not magic.  He has played 2B on championship teams.  He has played 2B on terrible Sox teams.  If he were to go, games would continue to be played.  The team would still win games.  Fans would still show up at the park.

 

[Reverend]

 
 
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
 
Media credibility?  Agent credibility?  Fan credibility?
 
Players will come to the Sox because they offer the highest value contract.  No-trades and everything else are negotiable.  
I don't even know what you mean by media credibility?  ESPN won't like the Sox?
 
Fan credibility?  If Pedroia were traded for a couple of top prospects... prospects that (along with other maturing talent) over the next 2 or 3 years turned into cornerstones of pennant winning teams... Fenway would be sold out.  Mookie would be the new fan favorite. And, Pedroia will just be another guy that gets warm applause on his returns to Fenway.
 
He's a guy that plays 2B for the Sox.  He's not magic.  He has played 2B on championship teams.  He has played 2B on terrible Sox teams.  If he were to go, games would continue to be played.  The team would still win games.  Fans would still show up at the park.

 
The conditional statement is the key problem with this post.
 
SH was pointing out that there are several different reasons that Pedroia is worth more to the Red Sox than to other teams. The point that he is making is that Pedroia's value to the Red Sox is X + N, whereas his value to other teams is X. Insofar as N is positive, there is no reason to expect that the Red Sox get enough value in a trade as to be worth trading Pedroia.
 
The offensive splits SH points out on their own would be enough to make N high enough to discard the idea. But as far as team character, the organization has decided it matters after witnessing 2012 and after 2013, I'm inclined to agree. They sat down and decided who to use as a core to build a Total Baseball team and Pedroia was a unanimous choice--trading Pedroia signals that they are bailing on what they are trying to build as an asset. (FWIW: Lester was a close to a consensus pick as well, according to Farrell.) 
 
Player value is context dependent, not absolute. If they trade Pedroia, they will be trading him for players/prospects of less value. Any argument for trading Pedroia needs to explain that the value in the future of what would necessarily be a net negative trade is better than the value today. That can be done, of course, but it must also be noted that the future is probablistic; once you discount future value for that, it seems hard to imagine a valuable Pedroia trade.
 
Also: he's the motherfucking bomb.

 

[Myt1]

Fan credibility?  If Pedroia were traded for a couple of top prospects... prospects that (along with other maturing talent) over the next 2 or 3 years turned into cornerstones of pennant winning teams... Fenway would be sold out.  Mookie would be the new fan favorite. And, Pedroia will just be another guy that gets warm applause on his returns to Fenway.

The Red Sox won the World Series last year.  And tickets still weren't getting sold this offseason.  The Valentine fiasco combined with the wearing off of the "new, cool thing" factor did enormous damage to the Red Sox brand and even a championship didn't fix that.  This down season will do more damage.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

The Red Sox won the World Series last year.  And tickets still weren't getting sold this offseason.  The Valentine fiasco combined with the wearing off of the "new, cool thing" factor did enormous damage to the Red Sox brand and even a championship didn't fix that.  This down season will do more damage.

 
I've noticed seats empty in every ballpark.  Maybe the economy has something to do with it + the high price of tickets now?  

 

[maxotaur]

There continues to be no way the Red Sox will trade Pedroia, I don't understand why you keep beating your head against this brick wall. 

Thank you. Exactly.

That's said I'm not sure why I stopped into read this preposterous thread. I just wanted to see if it was started by "The Onion" I suppose.

 

[maxotaur]

How the hell did this thread get to a second page and why the hell did I read it?

My thoughts exactly. Ras beat me out.

 

[maxotaur]

That's crap. You inserted that you do not see steady decline because one year jumped .002, it's still an overall decline, you cherry picked words to rebut my claim which still stands. He has declined there is no way around that and I already stated I think he may have a year or even two where he could get back to 115 OPS+. I never said we had to trade him merely made a suggestion with stats to support my premise. I addressed the 'he's the face of the franchise' comments which isn't a reason to not trade someone, as most franchise players are traded. I don't want to trade him to trade him and stated this many times, I want to trade him if we can get back a #3/#4 type hitter whose a corner outfielder. I see on another thread there are others who share the same idea I have, so it's not exclusive to me, yet I'm ridiculed for it. Lies, false accusations, or a simple basic lack of reading skills have followed. Is that necessary or does it lower the whole board? Varying opinions are necessary for growth otherwise you have mental inbreeding.akin to the X-files home episode.
 
No-one has debunked anything richgedman's ghost in fact some people are beginning to state things I have all along, he's a small framed person who plays all out and increasingly getting hurt. His offense has declined. People who do not even read what I wrote are making claims that I have not responded to others. I have all along and the basic premise was flawed from the get go, that you don't trade franchise players. Kudos to Steve Dillard for opening the level of discussion instead of shutting down what others don't want to hear. It's obvious why and sad to see on a board that prides itself on stats and being smarter than the typical espn board.

I thought you were letting "this go as there's nothing to see here".

 

 

[Myt1]

I've noticed seats empty in every ballpark.  Maybe the economy has something to do with it + the high price of tickets now?  

The downturn for the Sox didn't really track the recession or anything. And the bottom has really fallen out of the secondary market. My understanding is that TV ratings and ad buys are down, too.

 

[Sprowl]

The downturn for the Sox didn't really track the recession or anything. And the bottom has really fallen out of the secondary market. My understanding is that TV ratings and ad buys are down, too.

 
I blame the 1968-throwback offenses, and the offseason furrowed-brow committee will too. Look for Titleist baseballs, lower mounds, aluminum bats and anything else they can cook up.
 
All that, and they still won't automate the strike zones.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
I blame the 1968-throwback offenses, and the offseason furrowed-brow committee will too. Look for Titleist baseballs, lower mounds, aluminum bats and anything else they can cook up.
 
All that, and they still won't automate the strike zones.

 
Next rule change: 2 DH's in every AL lineup.

 

[EastCoasterOutWest]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq1d07gYl8o[/media]

 

[seantoo]

 
The conditional statement is the key problem with this post.
 
SH was pointing out that there are several different reasons that Pedroia is worth more to the Red Sox than to other teams. The point that he is making is that Pedroia's value to the Red Sox is X + N, whereas his value to other teams is X. Insofar as N is positive, there is no reason to expect that the Red Sox get enough value in a trade as to be worth trading Pedroia.
 
The offensive splits SH points out on their own would be enough to make N high enough to discard the idea. But as far as team character, the organization has decided it matters after witnessing 2012 and after 2013, I'm inclined to agree. They sat down and decided who to use as a core to build a Total Baseball team and Pedroia was a unanimous choice--trading Pedroia signals that they are bailing on what they are trying to build as an asset. (FWIW: Lester was a close to a consensus pick as well, according to Farrell.) 
 
Player value is context dependent, not absolute. If they trade Pedroia, they will be trading him for players/prospects of less value. Any argument for trading Pedroia needs to explain that the value in the future of what would necessarily be a net negative trade is better than the value today. That can be done, of course, but it must also be noted that the future is probablistic; once you discount future value for that, it seems hard to imagine a valuable Pedroia trade.
 
Also: he's the motherfucking bomb.

The conditional statement is the key problem with this post. afterall he IS the motherfucking bomb, "you can't have it both ways". See how I did that.

 

[Dogman]

I see how you did that wrong, sure. 
 
It's ok to just let it go and this thread can die. It wants to die.  It needs to die. Don't die with it, seantoo.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

I see how you did that wrong, sure. 
 
It's ok to just let it go and this thread can die. It wants to die.  It needs to die. Don't die with it, seantoo.