It's about shifting pitching risk. Not super complicated.
As these pitching prospects continue to drop like flies, maybe you'll start to understand.
We are already starting to see it with the Braves, and we have seen it happen with the pitchers the ChiSox got from the Nats. We have seen it with the Mets.
I'm guessing no amount of data will make some of you most ardent pozzies admit the FO is making a mistake.
Yes, I understand this is your argument. Pitching prospects are risky, so we should be reducing that risk however we can. I get that; you're right, it's not complicated.
But we have to have pitching, and we have to have enough of it to field a team capable of winning something significant. That is the goal. If concluding that pitching is risky, therefore we should steer clear of it, you're going to do a few things:
1) Draft very little pitching, and all that you draft will be college pitching.
2) Trade pitching prospects at any opportunity.
3) Sign the least risky pitching possible.
But you're going to end up with a farm system with very little pitching, especially any with a high ceiling, and you're going to have to shell out a ton of money in free agency. Since you do have to have pitching, at the end of the day, the discussion is and has always been how to end up with the most of it in the most efficient and effective way.
I'm not saying it would be dumb to trade Gohara and Anderson (and likely more) for Gray. I see the merits of it. I just disagree with it in this specific instance. You are a constant supporter of the philosophy that you trade all pitching with 2 years of control left. So we get Gray for this sweet stretch run for a team probably not truly capable of anything significant, then...what? Trade him in the offseason? For likely less than you gave up for him?
Or do you keep him past your 2-year line, knowing that he himself also carries the constant risk of injury?
My philosophy is not that we should stockpile as much pitching as we possibly can, to the detriment of other areas, because pitching is risky. But since we do have to ultimately have pitchers and the good ones cost a ton of money on the FA market, I do think it is wise to have enough to counter the bust rate to the extent that you likely end up with at least 2-3 good ones.
But regardless of overall philosophy, this single move comes down to value, as all deals do. I think Gohara and Anderson, even with their potential to bust and get injured, offer us more, given our timeline to truly compete and their talent level, than Gray does for this half a season and two more. It is not because pitching is risky, that has nothing to do with it. And I have disagreed with the FO on plenty. The fact that you think anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a stupid 'pozzy,' again, supports the notion that your arguments are weak. You bring good data and opinions. Your ability to understand another's point of view and intelligently argue it? Not good.
