Alex Wood...

Trading Alex Wood was fine.

Trading him for a "win now-ish" piece at the beginning of a rebuild is not fine.

I think it's important to make that distinction. How HO and Wood ultimately turned out doesn't make the trade good or bad...it was bad the moment it was made.
 
The latest market inefficiency the Dodgers have been taking advantage of is injury prone pitchers. They have used the 10 day DL to essentially have a 7-8 man rotation, and have been cycling through these fragile pitchers very effectively.
 
Don't worry, he's not very good. Back end starter.

***checks fangraphs

*****HOLY ****, he's Clayton EFFING KERSHAW! It took some severe Braveitis to complement the Braves on that horrendous trade.
 
Count me in as someone that didn't want to trade Wood. When we traded him though I felt by the time we were competitive again he'd almost be into free agency. Still not happy he was essentially a throw-in.
 
Forever Fredi said:
Count me in as someone that didn't want to trade Wood. When we traded him though I felt by the time we were competitive again he'd almost be into free agency. Still not happy he was essentially a throw-in.
Click to expand...

Who was the primary piece in that deal if Wood was the throw-in? Jim Johnson?
 
Wouldn't be sad about this. Wood did well while he was here and was a great professional, I'm happy to see him doing well regardless of how it looks for the Braves.

Not like Melky doing well.
 
Enscheff said:
The Braves #1 prospect. That was kind of a big deal at the time.
Click to expand...

While that's technically true he was our preseason Number 1, I think it's unlikely Pereza was considered by most to be our top prospect at the time of the trade. More likely he had fallen a few spots by the time of the trade. We didn't trade for Wisler till the day before opening day so he would not have been on the majority of preseason lists, we drafted Allard in June, and Ozzie exploded on to the scene that year as well.
 
Carp said:
While that's technically true he was our preseason Number 1, I think it's unlikely Pereza was considered by most to be our top prospect at the time of the trade. More likely he had fallen a few spots by the time of the trade. We didn't trade for Wisler till the day before opening day so he would not have been on the majority of preseason lists, we drafted Allard in June, and Ozzie exploded on to the scene that year as well.
Click to expand...

Blurp
 
gilesfan said:
Don't worry, he's not very good. Back end starter.

***checks fangraphs

*****HOLY ****, he's Clayton EFFING KERSHAW! It took some severe Braveitis to complement the Braves on that horrendous trade.
Click to expand...

My favorite part about this trade is that they gave him up for a 30 year old minor leaguer with a decent sized contract. This article is especially hilarious in hindsight.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/baseball/...tooled-braves-offense/MRcjqXH3ddFpdkyIJQji7K/

Such a stupid trade in the first place.
 
There were a few people on this board, including quant, who pretended that there was a semblance of logic behind the trade.

I remember that the names of the players who the Braves were sending came out about 30 minutes before it became clear what the return package was. We were all speculating about Puig or Turner or Barnes. Damn - talk about blindsided.

Unlike the Wainwright trade, the Olivera deal immediately stunk to high heaven.
 
Hawk said:
There were a few people on this board, including quant, who pretended that there was a semblance of logic behind the trade.

I remember that the names of the players who the Braves were sending came out about 30 minutes before it became clear what the return package was. We were all speculating about Puig or Turner or Barnes. Damn - talk about blindsided.

Unlike the Wainwright trade, the Olivera deal immediately stunk to high heaven.
Click to expand...

Yep, I remember hearing the return and thinking "there has to be someone else. A top prospect or something." That deal made zero sense when we made it and makes less sense now.

I can take a trade that looked good at the time but just turned out bad. I can understand that some trades look bad at the time but that the front office has more information than me and the trade ends up better than expected.

But when a trade looks insanely awful the second it happens AND turns out this bad, it's a huge mark against the GM. If it wasn't for the Shelby Miller trade I'd probably be calling for Coppy's head,
 
There was a logic to the deal, but just because something is logical doesn't make it good. I think it was Kant (and I paraphrase) who said something like "the insane man argues logically from an erroneous premise." Braves thought Olivera would be a productive RH bat which they needed to take the next step. They were dead wrong, but a lot of baseball was wrong when they were wooing Olivera and tempting him with one of those giant Publishers Clearinghouse checks. And when the return hinges on one guy with no back-up in the deal (unless one considers the draft choice the back-up), the downside can be severe and rapid. Moral of the story is you don't roll the dice on guys like Olivera. There were too many question marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top