Thread: Injury Updates
View Single Post
  #143  
Old 06-06-2013, 04:22 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 53,737
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
This is a 100 loss team. It was obvious in May.

Peavy is a ticking time bomb. That was obvious before we signed him.

It's a loss. At best, it was a gamble that didn't pay off. But it didn't pay off. That's something he needs to be called out on. Especially since it's been lauded as the one thing all offseason that wasn't an absolutely stupid move.

You don't get anything for players in a walk year. Not anymore. He needed to be traded this year.
OK, first off, this "you don't get anything for players in walk years" is 100% bull****. Off the top of my head, I know the Braves had a nice offer on the table for Ryan Dempster last year before he used his NTC to block that deal and the Angels gave Milwaukee a nice package of playes for Zack Greinke last July, as well, centered around Jean Segura, a Top 100 prospect who is now the Brewers' starting SS and leads the NL in batting. Both Dempster and Greinke were in the last months of their contracts when they were traded.

Now, I'm sure you'll spout off something like, "well, Peavy's no Greinke or Dempster," and sure, maybe you're right (actually no, you're not, Peavy's WAR the past 3 seasons easily outclips both those guys... Easily), but the point remains that if you're argument revolves around this notion that teams don't give anything up for playes in walk years, you're already wrong.

But aside from that, what, precisely do you think the Sox would have gotten for Jake had they dumped him in May and given away their leverage (caused by the trade deadline). There's going to be a few teams looking for a veteran arm in July, and that bidding is what drives guys' prices up. When a team knows they're bidding against no one, it usually doesn't create demand for players. I shouldn't have to be explaining this. I can't remember any blockbuster trade happening recently this early in the season for a long time.

So, then the idea that the Sox "gambled" by keeping Peavy is clearly wrong, as the term gambling implies some kind of potential for a loss. How would the Sox's long term future been dramatically altered if they had dumped Peavy for a middling prospect two weeks ago or, at worst, just let him finish his next year and a half here? Maybe there'd be some kind of argument for this if Peavy's contract was so long and expensive that it limited the team's ability to rebuild, but it's not. Or maybe if the Sox had some hot shot SP in AA or AAA who was being blocked by Peavy, but there isn't. Essentially if the Sox were to trade him for nothing today or release him in October 2014, the path of the franchise would be identical. The only sane thing for the team to do would be to hold him to July and see if there's any kind of market for him, you can still legitimately land a good prospect for a veteran pitcher with a good deal that expires soon. This idea that there's no market for Peavy is completely ridiculous. There's a reason why a man of your obvious genius has been reduced to shouting your factually light ideas around on an internet message board.
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-4

LAST GAME: May 31 - Padres 4, Sox 2
NEXT GAME: Maybe never? Apparently I am bad luck
Reply With Quote