03 Mar 2017 18:04:13
Royals trade: Cain, moustakas, hosmer, and mondesi
Dodgers trade: urias, Pederson, stripling

1.) 03 Mar 2017
03 Mar 2017 18:30:41
This is terrible for the Royals. They are trading their core players and only getting 3 players back. Trading them separately will get them more in return. Also I'm pretty sure i've said this before, but one thing is clear, you are not the best.

2.) 03 Mar 2017
03 Mar 2017 19:56:08
Yeah, this is really bad. This makes 0 sense for the royals. Like Batman said, they can get way more than that for those first 3, and they aren't trading mondesi. The royals will trade those first 3 at the deadline, if they are out of it and can't resign them.

3.) 03 Mar 2017
03 Mar 2017 21:13:00
How would turning three guys who are all free agents next year for two of baseball's best young players a bad deal?

If it's bad for anyone, it's the Dodgers.

4.) 03 Mar 2017
03 Mar 2017 21:46:50
I don't consider Joc Pederson one of the best young players in baseball. His MLB average is .224.

5.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 01:57:25
Jeez, I hate to say it, but I agree with exposfan.

6.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 05:41:20
Its a bad deal because if you trade everyone separately you will get triple the amount of talent back. I've said this numerous times.

7.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 12:31:16
There is not any combo of two of those three that brings anything close to Julio Urias. Adding in Pederson is just a bonus.

Young, controllable talent isn't going to be brought in by trading three average rental players.

8.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 12:33:55
Jkolti, batting average is now what determines good players?

Also, saying .224 is deceptive. He's had two full seasons and was closer to .250 with huge improvements in 2016. Most in the game consider him one of the best young players.

9.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 12:34:47
Red Sox Guy, I know it's hard in this day and age, but you shouldn't struggle to agree with facts. Regardless of who shares them.

10.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 14:10:45
You didn't present facts, expos, you presented an opinion.

You said:

How would turning three guys who are all free agents next year for two of baseball's best young players a bad deal?

If it's bad for anyone, it's the Dodgers.

A fact would be a statistic. You present an opinion, which has probably been formed based on facts.

You're welcome for the lesson.

11.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 16:04:00
Although, based on past experience, your opinions are often based on a specific set of facts that you use to justify your preconceived and erroneous opinion.

Consider all information, and base your opinion on the full set of facts at hand, rather than vice versa.

12.) 04 Mar 2017
04 Mar 2017 18:24:09
This is a bad trade for both teams, but if this happened, the royals win this trade. The Dodgers infield is set with A-Gon, Forsythe, Seager and Turner.

They get 1 year of Moustaukas and Hosmer who would be blocked so where would they play? Cain would be the only one that would start. Mondesi has potential, but when he's blocked by Seager and Willie Calhoun next year, how will he contribute?

Meanwhile, the Royals boost their future with Urias and Stripling to help their rotation and bullpen, and Joc Pederson is their starting CF.

The Royals win this trade, but the Dodgers would never do this. If they wanted to trade all of their players, they would be better trading them in separate deals. You get a better future when you trade one for multiple players.

13.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 00:11:56
Kind of like how you argued Jay Bruce was really, really good. And when I presented facts, you argued against them by cherry-picking a small handful of lesser stats to make your claim?

You remind me of every time Dan Rather lectures on journalistic integrity. It's laughable.

14.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 03:14:06
exposfan, you still think Mark Trumbo is a better defensive player than Jay Bruce?

15.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 13:28:04
Past three seasons in RF. (Past 3 seasons because it gives us a much better understanding of how they've played recently. )

Bruce: -12 DRS, -19.1 UZR, -37.9 DEF rating (an overall rating considering all defensive factors)

Trumbo: -12 DRS, -8.5 DZR, -15.5 DEF.

Not only would I suggest Trumbo is the better defender, Fangraphs would as well.

16.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 13:30:18
And before you go spouting your same tired nonsense of "well, Trumbo is so bad they relegated him to DH. " I'll beat you to the punch:

If Jay Bruce were on a team that had a DH, he'd play DH.

17.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 13:41:37
But I must say, I'm eagerly anticipating to see how you'll ignore inconvenient stats and cherry-pick useless ones to claim Bruce is better. (Because you've done it in the past)

Before you do such thing, let's heed your own lesson: "Consider all information, and base your opinion on the full set of facts at hand, rather than vice versa. "

Otherwise, you'll be guilty of your own claims: "your opinions are often based on a specific set of facts that you use to justify your preconceived and erroneous opinion. "

Now that the parameters are set, I look forward to seeing you be wrong (AGAIN) .

18.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 16:15:11
Those are your hand-picked stats. I've provided a counter in the past which proved my point, Nancy.

19.) 05 Mar 2017
05 Mar 2017 18:07:15
The three most widely accepted defensive metrics are cheery-picked?

Please, provide me your apology for Jay Bruce's elite defensive prowess.

20.) 20 Mar 2017
20 Mar 2017 15:36:21
Not only does this trade not make sense, but it's also unnecessary. It doesn't help either team enough that they would do this trade and these are all good, well-known players that would be hard to part with.