Posted by chargingryno on 10/23/2012 2:28:00 AM (view original):
obviously Aaron + someone is going to be better than 2 above average players - but that wasn't the trade - the trade was Aaron for the 2 above average players (plus Rudy May) - and so the question isn't, which team now has a better OF/team - the question is, is this trade fair?
I'm not saying the trade was in any way unethical or "wrong." But if you think you can say "this was the trade, and let's just pretend I couldn't draft another outfielder in the third round with minimal opportunity cost and wind up winning the battle. So the trade was fair" you really are extremely dense. The trade didn't include "someone," an average outfielder. But you can absolutely get that guy without costing your team much of anything, so effectively any trade includes that. I would argue that any trade that is unbalanced in numbers inherently includes the replacement player you ultimately draft. Technically it earns you your end-of-the-draft pick, but you can also look at it being Aaron + your third round pick + your last pick + moving your need/want you would have filled in the 3rd to the 4th + 4th to the 5th, etc. In most prog drafts those 3rd-4th, 4th-5th shifts are pretty painless. Frequently I find that the other guy I was considering in the 4th is still around in the 5th, if not the 7th if the draft goes that far. In the late rounds typically different teams are looking for different things. So you don't get to pretend that the extra outfielder you could have picked up if you needed him doesn't count. He does. And if you take the pitcher out, I don't think it would be a fair trade at all. As it is I have no problem with the trade, as I pointed out many pages ago, but I do think the way you're trying to justify it right now is laughable.