clvclv (11-26-2016)
This concept of replaceability puzzles me a bit. If you have two houses and decide to sell one, do you sell it cheaply because you have two? I don't think so. You try to get a price that is reflective of the value of the house. So regardless of what you think of the merits of Demeritte or any other player who could play second in our system, any trade we consider involving Albies should be based on our undertanding of his market value.
clvclv (11-26-2016)
You might have read that in the "Chris Sale Is God" handbook.
If those extra years mean "little to nothing", why in the world is everybody trying to lock players up early? Why is everyone lining up to get players (particularly SPs) with as many years of control remaining as they can get??? Inexpensive, controllable, young starting pitching has ALWAYS been the most desired asset in the game - and it will continue to be for as long as most people on this board are around. Why in the world do you think Julio Teheran is such a valuable commodity? It's not because he's got a 91 MPH fastball. Tell someone working in a front office that those extra years of control mean nothing and you'll get laughed out of the city you're in.
Hate to say it, but if you think 2 extra years of Chris Archer for significantly less than what Castrovince proposes for Sale isn't a much better deal, you're nuts. Seriously.
If Coppy could get Archer for Newcomb and Albies, they'd have already had a press conference.
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
I think there would be a premium on the Rays side for perceived uncertainty of the prospects. While those two might result in that much surplus value there's a wider range of variance in the outcomes which would require Tampa to need more. I'd be inclined, of course, to give it to them.
Trades should hurt. That way the other guy gets something and hopefully makes him better. And then the other pieces who have had some success in the lower minors, well, you're probably right about Riley, but there's a chance he makes adjustments that keep him moving forward. He's already done it once. And it's okay to let the other guy wait on him.
Meanwhile, we get our man. As you say, that's not gutting the farm. You've got lots of farm left. That's why we built it up.
Last edited by GovClintonTyree; 11-26-2016 at 01:56 PM.
I agree with this thinking. There's a real synergistic effect that comes from an addition like this that isn't captured by valuing the past statistical value of the other players. Perhaps some of that could be quantified - for instance, looking at the performance of relievers who pitch less or less often.