And you've been adamant with that stance, but I don't agree.
You are essentially saying that trading for a prospect is always a bad move. After all, nobody knows for sure if they'll make it.
I'm guessing the FO evaluates deals like this based on EV (expected value). I'm sure that as many variables as they can attempt to calculate are baked into this EV decision.
The fact is, some prospects WILL make it. And the ones that do, will contribute to varying degrees.
Each prospect has an EV. It's never 0, even though many will never contribute. And it's never 100, even though some prospects are near locks.
I don't want my FO passing up +EV deals, just because they are shortsighted.
They may be wrong in their evaluation, but that is a separate issue.
I want them making evaluations, then trusting them.
You do have to factor in opportunity cost as well, of course. I'll grant you that.
It'd be foolish to risk your entire net worth on a coin flip given 51% odds. Even though it's technically +EV, it's not worth the devastating risk of losing everything for such a small gain.
But, I don't view Pressley as being a devastating enough loss to pass up +EV in this case.
Again, we don't have to agree on whether this return actually was +EV, none of us know.
What matters to me is that if the FO believes it was, then I'm happy they didn't pass on it.
I want a long term, perennial contender. I don't believe that's possible for a mid budget team to accomplish by only making short term decisions.
Point one: Chief isn’t saying all trades are bad. Just ones that trade away pieces that you need and that you control during that time of need.
Second point: That’s an ironic statement. Trading away Pressly has been one of the few decisions this FO has made with long term (more than one season) implications. The others are signing Jason Castro, Addison Reed and Marwin Gonzalez. As well as the extensions of Polanco and Kepler. So, this FO track record on making non-short term decisions has not been very good - and that’s being kind.