kellmellus50 wrote:Let the season begin and we will see how the tigers trades worked out,and see who got the best of the deal DET orN.Y.
Well part of our trade receipts was that pitcher Daniel Schlereth, and he is in the minors. So if it was an equal trade, then we by default should see less, cause part of our value is in a minor league pitcher that will take time for us to realize. We should expect to see a short term hit in exchange for a long term plus. Since the amounts are small and subjective, it will be impossible to know who got the better end of this deal for many years if one of the players doesn't stand out exceptionally bad or poor. Bottom line is this isn't the kind of trade that is worthwhile spending any more time thinking about. It was a wholesale change of getting younger and cheaper at CF, and there's a lot of subjective value tied into what that is worth. I just don't like analyzing trades after the fact, because there isn't really any benefit to that. If AJ ends up being a star, then the trade looks great, if he busts, then the trade looks bad. So there's not really any point in waiting because either one could pan out and the only time that it makes sense to evaluate a trade like this is BEFORE you know for certain. AJ is like a straight draw in poker that you are gambling on because you have the pot odds. If your odds are 15% of getting the card you want, then you have to use the number 15 as the basis to justify the trade. It's not a guarantee either way, it's a specific 1/6 dice roll shot. You are paying to get that shot.
So if the die is thrown and your number doesn't come up, that doesn't make it a bad trade, because you lost the bet. You paid for the right to throw the die, and you already received that right and used it. Sometimes it hits and sometimes it doesn't, and the fact that you hit or don't hit your die later, doesn't change how good the trade was or wasn't at the time. He's worth that dice roll, nothing more, nothing less, and to say that will change in the future isn't relevant to the evaluation process of the trade. The only thing that changes in the future is it gives credibility or takes credibility away from the scouting skill. And scouting skill has nothing to do with trade skill, they are separate games that must be analyzed separately and not comingled. If you scout well, you basically are just creating positive and negative modifiers for your trade results, but still the art of trading skill can only be evaluated BEFORE you know what a player is worth, and you have to judge it on the present known odds and never the let the future undo your logical rationalizing of the trade at the time the trade was made.
So if there is "x" dollars in the pot, and you figure out the exact percent chance you need to get the straight has to be 12% or higher, then you MUST take the gamble if your real odds are 15%. The scouting skill sets the percent, if you are perfect and find the answer, you get 15 and realize you must do it. If you screw up and only find 10, then you are hurting the team by not taking a favorable odds gamble, and if you screw up on the other side and don't see 12% but instead see 20%, then you take a gamble with bad odds. But the trade decision is a no-brainer, so the 15 that matches up with the 15 is a wash, thus you just look at the stuff left over. The reason I do it this way is because if you just look IN GENERAL at the players after the fact, you can't count the 15% draw portion that paid you off or screwed you cause that's all FAIR gamble and left to fate decide. You have to back that out, and once you back that out, now you have a different assessment to make AFTER the trade. So you need to analyze AJ in a different light if you want to find a logical way to understand what the trade meant at the time and if it was a good deal.
If you trade a nickel for Barry Sanders, and Barry breaks a leg and never plays a down, then that looks like a bad bet AFTER the fact. But the AFTER the fact isn't relevant to the fact that you always take the gamble when you get a Barry for a nickel, it was still a GOOD deal despite losing the bet later. And it was a GOOD deal because you can only evaluate deals at the time they are made, once that time has passed, you aren't allowed to go back and evaluate the deal logically because you will want to use FUTURE information to justify if it was good or bad, and that is against the rules of logical trade evaluation.