AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:vinsanity wrote:The scales don't matter.
As I said further down in my post, I understand the point. But by using that as long as they are both getting paid market value they are even in is kinda bull. I mean I understand the theory/idea behind it sure. But that would mean if Ryan was a .5 WAR player making league minimum he'd be worth more than a $10M player only worth 2 wins.
When the monthly note on your car doesn't matter, let me know, because I'm all about buying a lamborghini instead of a toyota.
This car analogy is getting way out of hand.
Oswalt's Salary is a drop in the cost bucket of a major league franchise. It's worth paying his salary to not become the cheap owner who let one of the city's more beloved baseball stars walk for a replacement level player, just because he's worth his salary this year and next.
Regarding Ryan/10M player only worth 2 wins..... if you were a GM and had a 10M player worth 2 wins and had no shot at the playoffs, wouldn't you straight up trade that player for Ryan (making 400K this and next year I believe plus little more than that for the next 3 years) then go spend that 9.5 Mil, 9 Mil, 8 Mil and 7 Mil in the remaining years on a 2 win player and have both..... Of course you would. Mo is looking at giving up more than Ryan and likely why he wants money back in return.
Oswalt's standing in the city is worth something. The way mgmt appears is worth something. Ryan will be over paid after next year, so you'd be moving backwards.
The point is, I understand this 'in a vacuum two players being paid exactly their contributions are equal, because you can allocate the money on one else where'.
But this isn't a vacuum, Ryan won't be worth his production in a few years (likely), Oswalt has an intrinsic value to the franchise over his production, Oswalt's production isn't easily replaced at market value in a FA market and the trade market has deemed Oswalt is worth more than a replacement level short stop.
To my dismay, if you buy your Lambo for $350K and the next day you decide to sell it, if you ask for $350K you won't get it. So you ask for $1M, and someone offers $350K (exactly what it's worth) and the guy next door sells the exact same car fore $500K, wouldn't you hold out for more too?
Edit - To sum it up, in theory there's no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is. I would argue trading is too complex with too many variables on value and cost to sum it up with Y wins are worth X Dollars. If a Players X=Y than P1 and P2 are equally valuable is great when comparing value of a contract, comparing the value of two players etc, but when it comes to a trade you can't use that as the sole barometer of the 'fairness'.
