Papelbon's Poutine said:
Yeah Fangraphs had it under advanced, needed to scroll down a bit apparently, my bad
Hey, How About They Trade Pedroia!
- Thread starter seantoo
- Start date
Yeah Fangraphs had it under advanced, needed to scroll down a bit apparently, my bad
We have plenty of years to revisit this conversation. Let's reconvene in a season when he's dinged up and sporting a sub .700 OPS. I think a few more people will the find idea of trading him not quite so ridiculous.
canderson said:
Forget having to tell him, there's a small part of me that's worried that he's going to find out about this thread.
No, pretty sure most of us still will.BoredViewer said:
EDIT: It's been pointed over and over again, there are a ton of none baseball reasons to not trade Pedroia. Eventually, yes, he may get to the point where he's sporting a .700 OPS or less, but unless that happens in the next season or two, I doubt it's going to make us wish we could retroactively trade Pedroia.
It's pointless to just sit there and say "we should trade this guy or that guy" but not say who we would be trading him for. What other teams value Pedroia more than the Red Sox do, and what would they give us for him? Trade him for who, exactly?
"We should trade this guy for good value, good players who are young and play different positions" is really pointless. You want to make up some trades? Fine, at least make up the whole trade, not half of it.
But no one wants to do that, because that is a whole lot harder and their suggestions would get shot down because their suggestions would probably be totally unrealistic or silly. But at least that would be something to discuss. "We should make good trades! We should trade anyone if the deal is right!" isn't anything to discuss, it's just a waste of time.
"We should trade this guy for good value, good players who are young and play different positions" is really pointless. You want to make up some trades? Fine, at least make up the whole trade, not half of it.
But no one wants to do that, because that is a whole lot harder and their suggestions would get shot down because their suggestions would probably be totally unrealistic or silly. But at least that would be something to discuss. "We should make good trades! We should trade anyone if the deal is right!" isn't anything to discuss, it's just a waste of time.
We should all start burning books too because some of them have ideas in them. We don't want people getting upset by ideas, burn them all.rembrat said:
seantoo said:
Yeah, that's an overreaction. The notion of trading Pedroia is kind of like the notion that your mother's got a nice ass. As much as you want all ideas to be free to see the light of day, there are some that just won't ever go anywhere that isn't terrible.
Exactly when he'd be of little value is a trade.BoredViewer said:
I was at someone birthday party yesterday and starting talking about baseball with another person whose intelligent and loves baseball. His reaction was the opposite of most here. He said other GM's would see what I saw and not want to offer up a #3/#4 hitter who plays a corner outfield spot. That was a refreshing response to which I had little to counter with.
Seantoo, let's imagine this scenario. They trade Pedroia for somebody marginally better. Then they do the same with Ortiz, and Lester, and Uehara, and all of the guys who won last year. They also trade all the kids we've been following through the minors (Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts). In 2015 we have a team full of guys from all over the place that we never rooted for before, including some Yankees and Rays that we've been rooting against. To fully embody this notion, let's say they trade Ortiz for David Price! The 2015 "Red Sox" win the World Series. Meanwhile, all of our former favorites, like Pedroia, labor on in obscurity in various corners of the major leagues. Would that be a joyful experience for you?
I like it when the Red Sox win, but I really like it when the Red Sox win -- the guys I've been following for years. As people are saying, Pedroia is the heart and soul of this team. You don't trade away your heart and soul for a bunch of mercenaries. Even the Yankees, who are Mercenary Central, have stayed loyal to their homegrown favorites.
They've made countless movies, inspiring movies with soaring music, about soldiers who win impossible battles. They don't make those movies about mercenaries. They make them about Dustin Pedroia.
I like it when the Red Sox win, but I really like it when the Red Sox win -- the guys I've been following for years. As people are saying, Pedroia is the heart and soul of this team. You don't trade away your heart and soul for a bunch of mercenaries. Even the Yankees, who are Mercenary Central, have stayed loyal to their homegrown favorites.
They've made countless movies, inspiring movies with soaring music, about soldiers who win impossible battles. They don't make those movies about mercenaries. They make them about Dustin Pedroia.
I don't see where people are saying that the Sox wouldn't get a #3 or #4 corner OF for Pedroia. What I do see are people saying that the very idea of trading Pedroia is ludicrous. All of the reasons have been stated already, so I'm not going to post them again. Where are people saying that other GMs wouldn't offer up that type of player for him?seantoo said:
Instead of bringing up things like book burning, why don't you address the posts that people have made in here.
Can you explain how this was a counter to the point in any way. What does limited mean to you?HriniakPosterChild said:
A lot of people thought I was foolish to suggest we trade for A. Beltre about a year and a half before we signed him as a free agent. Back then everyone thought Beltre was of little value blah blah blah. Then when he succeeded here and the same people acted like they know he'd do well because blah blah blah. I claimed we should trade Nava after what was clear to me a career year and people thought I was foolish for that, now the tunes changed again.
History has a way of repeating itself. My initial post started with this was a pipe dream, but the logic behind it is flawless and the rebuttal by the masses has been anything but flawless, logic less and nonsensical gibberish akin to, "I like by binky not having it makes my head hurt and I want to play in a sandbox".
Ideas that make you think are good ones even if you find skat in the sandbox. It should challenge you to question your position to why you believe what you do. Is it logical or am I being biased or holding onto dated information. Or Is it time to let go of my binky?
How are trading for Beltre or trading away Nava even close to similar to trading away Pedroia? One guy is the cornerstone of the team and one of the faces of the franchise.
How is your logic flawless? Please explain that to all of us.
He posted about the limited no-trade because that would cut down on the teams that Pedroia could be traded to without his permission. What players could you see Pedroia traded for? either with, or without, his permission?
How is your logic flawless? Please explain that to all of us.
He posted about the limited no-trade because that would cut down on the teams that Pedroia could be traded to without his permission. What players could you see Pedroia traded for? either with, or without, his permission?
The funny thing is I was thinking when people actually address what I wrote then I could address them. Several have responded by making up foolish things up I never claimed. I don't want to trade, Ortiz or Lester. I don't want to trade Pedroia just to trade him. I want to utilize a position of abundance to cover a position of dire need. I thought that was trading 101. Maybe your suggestion should be directed at those posters.absintheofmalaise said:
Edit: Franchise players are traded too, it happens.
Edit 2: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860
Why do we want the Red Sox to win? Because we have an emotional connection to the team. There is nothing logical about it. If you want to be ruled by logic, you should not be a sports fan. So if people are being "logic less" by wanting to keep Pedroia here so they can root for him, well, all you're saying is that they are fans. Are you some other, higher level of being that can root for a team logically? (I'm trying to imagine Mr. Spock as a Red Sox fan.)
Jeter never did. Neither did Chipper Jones.seantoo said:
Anyway, why does it have to be Pedey that has to be traded in your scenario? Why not Mookie? Mookie actually probably has more value than Pedey right now, all things considered.
People are addressing trading Pedroia and what they believe that would mean to the team now and in the near future. Why don't you address those points.seantoo said:
Yes, trading from a position of strength to acquire a need is Trading 101. One strength of this team are the prospects. Pitchers and position players. Trading some of those assets while keeping the core intact is also Trading 101.
Let's go through this the logical way.
The Red Sox want to compete every year and even if this year has fallen off enough that it would take a minor miracle to get back in the race, contending in 2015 is far from a pipe dream. Fact is, the influx of youngsters means the Sox are going to have good young cheap talent at a number of positions for several years which enables them to go out and buy free agents to fill in the gaps.
Which is to say, the Red Sox are poised to be very good for a lot of years.
Dustin Pedroia is a gold glove fielding, better than average hitting second baseman. He is signed for a contract through 2021 at a rate that is low enough that he's going to be worth the money even if his skills deteriorate.
If the Red Sox were in a position where they had squat for talent and were looking at a rebuilding project that was going to take several years, trading Pedroia would make sense. That's not the case. Even if, as you stated earlier in this thread, the Sox were two years away from contending, trading Pedroia wouldn't make any sense. He's a very valuable asset signed for a period of time during which the Red Sox are very likely to be strong contenders. Trading him away makes winning a world series harder and further away. It's just a nonsensical non starter.
I look it a little differently. It is not hard to conjure a deal for Pedroia that makes baseball sense. He isn't the best player in the game after all. Trout, Miggy, Kershaw and probably a dozen others would provide sufficient return in a fantasy baseball model. The reaction here I think is largely based on the sentiment of Sox fandom that even IF you could get demonstrably clearly superior value back (unlikely) we would rather just watch Dustin.
KillerBs said:
The problem with this is you would never be able to get a Trout, Miggy or Kershaw back. Any realistic return isn't likely to be worth it, especially when you consider that Pedey is more valuable to the Red Sox than he would be to pretty much any other team. He's a great Fenway hitter from the statistical side, and there are a ton of "off the field" reasons the organization should want him staying in Boston and you have to flat out ignore all of them (which have been repeated several times in this thread so I won't waste time listing them again) in order for a Pedroia trade to make any sense. seantoo referred to these with his "binky" line which means he either doesn't understand the value Pedroia has beyond his ability to hit and field, or he isn't interested in any perspective that isn't in lockstep with his own. In either case, people should probably stop wasting time responding to him. It's the same shtick every time. Make a claim, get called on it for being wrong, insist a word means something it doesn't, then deflect deflect deflect until people give up.
That Pedroia is a BUM! Not being able to keep his foot on the bag in the eighth and then not beating the relay throw to first was pathetic!! He is washed up...!!! Let's trade him!!!! :barf: I hope everybody realizes my tongue is planted firmly in cheek and I don't think we should trade Dustin unless of course we were offered Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw etc...The problem is we would never be able to get a player of that caliber to even make it worthwhile. Seantoo, I don't want to keep beating a dead horse but maybe you should take a moment and consider what everybody is saying about you and your idea. Sometimes it is better to admit defeat than to double up on the stupidity.canderson said:
Pedroia wouldn't bring back Stanton or Felix Hernandez or Mike Trout in a trade and those are the kind of guys that the Sox would consider moving Pedroia for. They are close to never getting more value from another team for Pedroia than his perceived value to the Red Sox.
So yes, if the Marlins would trade Stanton for Pedroia and it got by the no trade issues than the Sox should do it. Since it's not going to happen, the topic is just mental masturbation (saying trade Pedroia for generic unnamed all star OF and swinging your dick around about it is definitely an odd approach)
So yes, if the Marlins would trade Stanton for Pedroia and it got by the no trade issues than the Sox should do it. Since it's not going to happen, the topic is just mental masturbation (saying trade Pedroia for generic unnamed all star OF and swinging your dick around about it is definitely an odd approach)
seantoo said:
This isn't a 1960's Ex-Lax commercial, so it doesn't matter what limited means to me. What matters is what's in Pedroia's contract.
We don't burn then anymore, they just come with "trigger warnings" instead.seantoo said:
I really like the Ida of trading Fenway Park. The Red Sox should let a different team, maybe the Rays, have the rights to play their home games there in exchange for Longoria and Price, the tge Red Sox can play in The Trop. If you don't like this idea., you're a fanboy.
Saying it wouldn't make sense does not make it so and THAT it the issue I have with many of the "rebuttals". There is no factual evidence used, just words of opposition. It reminds me of the Monty Python skit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=kp where the guys hires someone to argue with and he makes the point that an argument is not just contradicting.Rasputin said:
Why are we going to be strong contenders next year? We could but it will take a major trade or two for that to happen, I proposed one. I pointed out the the Dustin everyone loves has not been the Laser Show for years now as his OPS+ has decreased for 3 straight years down to a 102+ right now and next month he's 31. While it's fun to cheer for a guy the same height as me, I'm a bigger fan of seeing the Sox back in contention year after year. We have several viable prospect/rookie options (Holt, Betts & Coyle) at second base and no-one other than JBY for three OF positions. His deal is affordable to a lot of teams which increases the amount of teams that could afford his contract. With so many rookies beginning to mature now (Ted Williams suggest not judging young players until they've had 1,000 at bats in the majors) 2 years from now we will begin to see these rookies reach their potential, by then the small framed balls to the walls all out player who swings from the heals will be 33 years old. I have doubts his size/approach/swings will age well and would like to maximize the perception that many here hold, that the Laser Show is alive and well. Perception lags behind reality, so I'd like to turn him into an asset that we badly need going forward. We badly need a #3/#4 type batter who plays a corner OF position, ideally one good enough to play right although that maybe asking for to much and I'm not sure any exist. I'm assuming the window for this opportunity closes by the end of next off-season. How many players play their whole careers with 1 team anymore? Ray Bourque, Paul Pierce, Pedro were all faces of a franchise traded away or let go as free agents. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant to the discussion because you have no control over it. h
Someone suggested that without mentioning an actual player that this is an exercise in futility, and that's a good point. In five minutes I found a solid suggestion in Calhoun from the Angels. I don't know enough about his defense other than it appears average. But his OPS+, albeit in limited time has been better than Pedrioa and this season it's higher than Dustin's has ever been and by a solid margin. After next season 2b Howie Kendrick's contract expires and a team such as the Angels are clearly going for it and have a payroll that matches ours and Dustin only makes a few million more than Kendrick does, so that part of it works.
So, if it's really true that Pedroia's offense this year is the new normal, then why on earth do the Angels want him? More specifically, why do they want him badly enough to give up a good young outfielder who won't be a free agent till 2020? What's in it for them?
You're arguing as if the Sox are trading a player in a downhill skid, and our trade partner will be paying for a player in his resplendent prime. You can't have it both ways.
You're arguing as if the Sox are trading a player in a downhill skid, and our trade partner will be paying for a player in his resplendent prime. You can't have it both ways.
Again, Beltre and Nava are completely different situations that have absolutely NO SIMILARITY to this situation. That you've ignored abs, and continued to wave that around like it means a thing shows you've done nothing but ignore most of the replies here.
A legit point. I'm banking on perception lagging behind reality. It seems you believe that Dustin can return to 120 OPS+ level and maybe he can but I doubt he can for more than 2 years if at all. A team such as the Angels may take that chance and maybe they won't but exploring the idea with an open mind is always a good thing and you are one of the few that has, thanks for that.Savin Hillbilly said:
Now I'm letting it go, nothing to see here.
Thanksfully the GMs, particularly those of WS champs, are always smarter than the posters on this board. See contra, Pierzynski, A.J.
I've never seen a board that prides itself (1) on statistics, and (2) payroll flexibility against long term commitments rally to ridicule the notion of trading a popular player whose statistics are in a four year decline. Not saying its a good idea, but the thread seems to be more snarky comments, than a discussion of whether Pedroia is actually in decline, and if so, at what point his value would be less than his contract.
Is the point of this thread that Pedroia cannot be traded because of his goodwill, no matter how weak his production becomes?
or is the point as stated by Savin and Snodgras:
Virtually every trade is because teams have differnt projections on a player. Whether a trade is "smart" depends upon which guy is right -- the guy seeing a 4 year decline, or the guy who thinks they can fix it. Lots of teams would take Pedroia, some for the "hustle" intangibles that even Mo Rivera alluded to, and some because they believe his stats will rally. Are the stats-based fans now buying into the Jeter "CI premium" after spending years ridiculing it, or are you predicting that his stats will rally back to a 2011-2012 level?
I've never seen a board that prides itself (1) on statistics, and (2) payroll flexibility against long term commitments rally to ridicule the notion of trading a popular player whose statistics are in a four year decline. Not saying its a good idea, but the thread seems to be more snarky comments, than a discussion of whether Pedroia is actually in decline, and if so, at what point his value would be less than his contract.
Is the point of this thread that Pedroia cannot be traded because of his goodwill, no matter how weak his production becomes?
or is the point as stated by Savin and Snodgras:
Virtually every trade is because teams have differnt projections on a player. Whether a trade is "smart" depends upon which guy is right -- the guy seeing a 4 year decline, or the guy who thinks they can fix it. Lots of teams would take Pedroia, some for the "hustle" intangibles that even Mo Rivera alluded to, and some because they believe his stats will rally. Are the stats-based fans now buying into the Jeter "CI premium" after spending years ridiculing it, or are you predicting that his stats will rally back to a 2011-2012 level?
Steve Dillard said:
Of course. No one's saying they wouldn't. The question is how much he's worth on the market. What I was objecting to is the double-tracked argument that says we really need to trade him because his value is falling fast, yet other teams will give up their hottest young players for him*, because he's DUSTIN PEDROIA.
Fair point about teams' evaluations differing, but that's offset by the fact that everybody knows he's a better hitter here than elsewhere.
*Well, OK, Calhoun is not the hottest young player on his team. But he would be on a lot of teams.
seantoo said:
We basically agree about this. I think it's possible we could still see a 120-type season from him in a hot year, but it will be the exception not the rule.
OTOH, I'm not sure he's slipped all the way to a league-average hitter yet either; I think it's reasonable to hope that what we're seeing this year is not so much the new normal as the downside of the new normal, and that for the next few years we can expect a typical line to be something like .280/.350/.400. In other words, the answer to the question, "is he having an off year, or has he declined?" is "a little of both."
Either way, I think the 2008-2011 Pedroia--the guy who flirts with a .500 SLG--is history.
There is, of course, a point where his statistics would make the contract an overpay, but his bat would have to deteriorate to such an extreme degree for him to reach it, that it's a much better bet to keep him around. His defense is possibly the the best the Red Sox have ever had at the position and is arguably the best in the majors. He can provide positive value by a comfortable margin with a 100 OPS+. If his bat drops off to the 85 or even 80 range, yeah, we're starting to look at his contract and cringe, but he's so far from being that kind of hitter it's a bit ridiculous to want to cash in on his contract being so valuable. The signs of a steep decline just aren't there. His strike out and walk rates are consistent over the last four and half seasons, his ground ball, fly ball and line drive rates are not trending in a negative direction (in fact, he's hitting line drives more often this year than he has at any other point in his career), his contact rate within the zone has been in the same low 90's range for the last three and a half years, his outside the zone contact rate has been in the same general range for the last four and a half, though is a touch lower this year, and his swinging strike rate has been consistent for the last four and a half as well.
The idea that he has been declining is based solely on a cursory glance at his OPS+ over the last 3 years and comparing it to 2011. This approach lacks context and, well, isn't even factually correct. He hasn't been declining for three years in a row. He's gone from 131 in 2011, to 114, to 116 to 102 this year. That is not a steady decline. Using wRC+ we see something similar. 133 in 2011 followed by 114, 115 and 100. If we look a bit further back we see that 2011 and 2010 before that appear to have been a spike in production rather than his baseline. Here are his OPS+'s throughout his career, followed by his wRC+'s. I'm starting in 2007.
OPS+: 112, 123, 110, 127, 131, 114, 116, 102
wRC+: 117, 127, 112, 128, 133, 114, 115, 100
What I see there is a guy who his a roughly 115 OPS+ or wRC+ hitter who has had a few seasons where his numbers exceed his talent level and who got off to a cold start this year. I'll be surprised if he doesn't end the year closer to 110 in both metrics. Not surprisingly, those seasons where he was in the 125-135 range his SLG was also near .500. Like Savin above me, I don't think that's who he is and I'm not betting on that kind of power from him going forward. But I'm not seeing evidence of a decline, either.
seantoo's premise is built on a very shallow understanding of Pedroia's offensive talent and indicates he didn't look any further than that one statistic in a cherry picked sample.
The idea that he has been declining is based solely on a cursory glance at his OPS+ over the last 3 years and comparing it to 2011. This approach lacks context and, well, isn't even factually correct. He hasn't been declining for three years in a row. He's gone from 131 in 2011, to 114, to 116 to 102 this year. That is not a steady decline. Using wRC+ we see something similar. 133 in 2011 followed by 114, 115 and 100. If we look a bit further back we see that 2011 and 2010 before that appear to have been a spike in production rather than his baseline. Here are his OPS+'s throughout his career, followed by his wRC+'s. I'm starting in 2007.
OPS+: 112, 123, 110, 127, 131, 114, 116, 102
wRC+: 117, 127, 112, 128, 133, 114, 115, 100
What I see there is a guy who his a roughly 115 OPS+ or wRC+ hitter who has had a few seasons where his numbers exceed his talent level and who got off to a cold start this year. I'll be surprised if he doesn't end the year closer to 110 in both metrics. Not surprisingly, those seasons where he was in the 125-135 range his SLG was also near .500. Like Savin above me, I don't think that's who he is and I'm not betting on that kind of power from him going forward. But I'm not seeing evidence of a decline, either.
seantoo's premise is built on a very shallow understanding of Pedroia's offensive talent and indicates he didn't look any further than that one statistic in a cherry picked sample.
Part of this conversation is driven by Pedroia having a relatively slow start, just like he has his entire career. OPS by month, career:
769, 788, 810, 857, 866, 814.
OPS this year by month:
676, 787, 699, 748.
769, 788, 810, 857, 866, 814.
OPS this year by month:
676, 787, 699, 748.
Steve Dillard said:
His stats aren't in a four year decline, though. His slugging is, but his OPS+ the last four years are 131, 114, 116, 102 (partial season). His OPS declined (by 0.010 from 2012 to 2013), but league average decreased faster. There was hope that Pedroia's thumb injury was responsible for his relatively poor slugging in 2013 and that he would rebound in 2014, but that has not seemed to be the case. Ultimately, though, he had his best year in 2011, two relatively similar years in 2012-13, and a poor (for him, which is still better than league average hitting from a GG second baseman) 2014. I wouldn't expect him to put up a 2011ish OPS again, but the magnitude of change between 2013 and 2014 is the same as from 2008 to 2009--i.e. normal-ish variation in a player's offensive performance.
Here's his year by year wOBA (fangraphs doesn't have OPS+, but they're similar and if nothing else wOBA is better
Sure there's a trend but I wouldn't call it cause for alarm, especially with 2014 only half over.
Is anyone taking into consideration his wrist injuries last season and his thumb problems this season as factors?
Sure, but given how often he hits the ground I'm not sure I'd expect him to start avoiding the nagging injuries going forward. Even if he does, I'm not sure he'll get back to that level of power again.
Thought of this, on the positive side it means his skills may not be atrophying at all but if he gets banged up every year I'm not sure it matters muchDogman2 said:
Did we ever get a concrete trade proposal or are we still stuck on unnamed OF?
I believe he mentioned Calhoun from the Angels.Stitch01 said:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/calhoko01.shtml
Seantoo, take a look at same of the more recent posts particurly by Snodgrass Muff (standing ovation to you, Muff). You would see how someone put in alot of time effort and research into debunking your ideas. The idea of Pedroia's skills declining is based on a shallow and faulty understanding of Dustin's OPS. Perhaps you should take some notes in how to construct an argument instead of saying "nada nada nada" everytime tried to talk back to you.seantoo said:
Beyond that, it's otherworldly, fantasy baseball, an example of thinking outside the box that places one even outside the sandbox.
Context: the chances of losing Lester appear increasingly not good, but excellent. If that happens, the chances of replacing him with an established pitcher of comparable quality appear low. Ortiz is on his last one or two laps. They have the highest ticket prices in the League and cannot possibly sell a Miami-style tear down and turnaround project even if they have the skill to pull one off. They do have to sell tickets
Context: the chances of losing Lester appear increasingly not good, but excellent. If that happens, the chances of replacing him with an established pitcher of comparable quality appear low. Ortiz is on his last one or two laps. They have the highest ticket prices in the League and cannot possibly sell a Miami-style tear down and turnaround project even if they have the skill to pull one off. They do have to sell tickets
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.Snodgrass'Muff said:
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'm just going to put a fine point on it--there is literally nothing interesting or compelling about what you're saying. "Trade Dustin Pedroia." Wait, why? "Because I am fond of copying and pasting stats and lavishing undue praise on my old posts with my newer ones."
Sure, the universe would not collapse if the Red Sox traded Dustin Pedroia. Yeah, your bold stance on how we should all pause and realize that franchise players often are traded is positively revolutionary. Sure, you sat and constructed a series of events under which we could possibly improve the team by doing it, provided literally everything goes exactly as you've lined it out.
They're not getting a corner OF 3/4 hitter for him. It isn't happening this deadline. Move on.