Re: That Trade for Peavy looks real good!
posted at 10/17/2013 8:15 PM EDT
In response to S5's comment:
In response to dgalehouse's comment:
Substitute Doubront or Workman for Peavy, and we would be in the same situation. And , we would still have Iglesias. In fact , there were other pitchers available at the deadline that were comparable to Peavy , and would not have cost nearly as much.
A friendly word of advice here - give up on this crusade.
The people who have bought into how good this trade was will be saying the same thing in spite of how much empirical evidence is used. Not you, not me, not evidence, is going to change their minds because they'd have to admit that they were wrong - and they've taken such a strong stand that they can't do it now.
BUT... continuing to beat this dead horse accomplishes nothing other than giving the supporters of the trade another opportunity to try to defend it - a defense which it sorely needs. Instead find your old pal Jack Daniels, have a talk with him, and put it behind you.
Good trades happen. Bad trades happen. We got stuck on this one. Put it behind you and move on.
Yeah, I guess you are right. Time to give up. I think if some of these guys were around in 1919, they would have defended selling Ruth to the Yankees. After all , he only projected to be a number four starting pitcher on the Sox. And ," No, No Nannette " figured to be a smash hit. Who knew that Ruth would become the " Bambino " , and the play would bomb ? It was a good deal at the time. Not comparing Iglesias to the Babe, just suggesting how stubborn some of these guys can be. I am going to let this debate end. I am sure sure the others will carefully monitor Iglesias' career and be sure to point out any problems that he may have.