Papelbon's Poutine said:Home: .314/.379/.485/.864
Road: .287/.357/.410/.767
Seriously, it's the next columns to the right of the one you were looking at.
Yeah Fangraphs had it under advanced, needed to scroll down a bit apparently, my bad
Papelbon's Poutine said:Home: .314/.379/.485/.864
Road: .287/.357/.410/.767
Seriously, it's the next columns to the right of the one you were looking at.
canderson said:My head hurts reading this thread.
But I'd pity the poor soul who has to tell Pedroia he was traded. That wouldn't end well.
No, pretty sure most of us still will.BoredViewer said: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.
Well saidcanderson said:My head hurts reading this thread.
But I'd pity the poor soul who has to tell Pedroia he was traded. That wouldn't end well.
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:There should be a built in script that auto bans anyone who suggest they trade Dustin Pedroia. He's the crown jewel of this franchise and the guy they want all their up and coming farm hands to emulate.
seantoo said: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.
Exactly when he'd be of little value is a trade.BoredViewer said: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.
seantoo 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.
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:Exactly when he'd be of little value is a trade.
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.
Can you explain how this was a counter to the point in any way. What does limited mean to you?HriniakPosterChild said:
Which is why if you look at his entry in Cot's, you'll see: limited no-trade protection
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: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?
Instead of bringing up things like book burning, why don't you address the posts that people have made in here.
Jeter never did. Neither did Chipper Jones.seantoo said: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.
Edit: Franchise players are traded too, it happens.
seantoo said:I don't want to trade, Ortiz or Lester.
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: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.
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
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,
KillerBs said: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.
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:My head hurts reading this thread.
But I'd pity the poor soul who has to tell Pedroia he was traded. That wouldn't end well.
seantoo said:What does limited mean to you?
We don't burn then anymore, they just come with "trigger warnings" instead.seantoo said: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.
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:
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.
seantoo said: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.
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.
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.
Edit: I'm done with this thread, I didn't start it, but know what's up. When ideas fall on ears that don't want to hear, then at some point it simply is not worth it. I've been right here before about Beltre, Nava and others with the same pattern repeating itself. Being called a fool at the time, proven right later and never being recognized for it. At this point I question whose worse?
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: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.
seantoo said: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.
Now I'm letting it go, nothing to see here.
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.
Steve Dillard said: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?
seantoo said: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.
Steve Dillard said:
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.
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:Is anyone taking into consideration his wrist injuries last season and his thumb problems this season as factors?
I believe he mentioned Calhoun from the Angels.Stitch01 said: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 much
Did we ever get a concrete trade proposal or are we still stuck on unnamed OF?
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: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.
Now I'm letting it go, nothing to see here.
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: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.
Lies, false accusations, or a simple basic lack of reading skills have followed.