I skipped this thread when it first came out, but activity on it tonight caught my eye. I'm trying REALLY hard not to second-guess now that we have this follow-up news. But I want to say a couple of things.
Someone brought up Buxton in this discussion, and Greene's remaining contract indeed resembles Buxton's. Moderately priced for a guy who (in their respective ways) can carry a team, "when healthy."
The thing with Buxton, though, is that we signed him to the contract without having to give up any prospect capital. I mean, well, as a #2 overall pick, that represents prospect capital in a way. But far from the same. With Greene, we'd have to cover a rather similar contract, but also give up a haul of prospects. If I were a fan of another team, even if I like Buxton "in a vacuum" I'd be hard pressed to advocate to my team's FO that they give up a lot to get Byron.
Huh. Aside from 10/5 trade protection, a hypothetical Buxton-Greene swap straight up would be a fun "challenge trade."
The other thing that came to mind: it's fascinating to see posters' varying approaches to risk. Again, I say that as neutrally as I can, given recent news colors everyone's views about Greene. Risk (health is not the only one) lurks in every discussion of talent evaluation. For on the field performance we can look at measures such as RBIs or OPS or WAR - use them or dismiss them to our own tastes - but I can't think of anything remotely similar when it comes to judging risk. I got to chat for five minutes the other day with the Guardians' chief of analytics Keith Woolner (a very humble and engaging man), and he claimed to have no handle on this topic - perhaps he has a good poker face, perhaps he was being candid as he seemed about other topics during his panel discussion that morning at SABR.