davell wrote:Toonster, you literally just took every possible positive look at one guy and the opposite on the other. Being in sales, I appreciate that.
But, GM's just aren't looking at it like that.
Soler was older, under a contract, injury prone, had struggled some, and was a liability defensively.
And I'm not picking at things. Those are facts.
Sure, but here's the thing. My point isn't how we should look at those players. If that was, I'd be ridiculous for taking one extreme versus another.
Furthermore, my point, again, isn't that last year's Soler should be ahead of this year's Happ. I'm not making a sell. I'm making an argument for why last year's Soler's trade value is closer to Happ this year than what people seem to think, and essentially, that entails taking one's positives versus another's negatives.
I would argue two things as a continuation:
a) The injury prone argument was, in many respects, mitigated by the opinion that, with better understanding of health and nutrition, he would get better.
b) The contract, when juxtaposed against his potential, was hard to view as a negative. It might not be a positive, but it was hardly a negative.
Now, at the end of the day, trade value is subjective.
Essentially, what I'm saying is what Dave Cameron said last year (from his article on the trade)
Soler is, in some ways, the outfield version of Kolten Wong at this point; a mid-20s guy who hasn’t shown he can be an above-average regular yet, but has a long-term deal at cheap prices that makes him somewhat useful even if he just is what he is. Except Soler still has mythical upside: if he figures out how to hit like people think he could hit, his value would skyrocket.
The Soler trade was largely viewed as a win-win for both sides. That wasn't a knock on Wade Davis. He was viewed as a premier pen arm, and justifiably so. It was praise for Soler's perceived trade value. (I actually recall a couple blurbs about the Royals perhaps winning the trade, due to Davis' injury history).
I think there's a distinction that needs to be made - we're talking about trade value, not who is the better bet, who has proven more. Trade value is, in many ways, a thing that adjusts depending on the circumstances, hence why I always say that comparable trades are only for discussion, as each trade exists within it's own environment.