So Jamie probably thought I made that decision pretty quickly. He sent me the email, I immediately responded with a “yes”, and that’s all there was to it. On the surface.
The reality was that I’d been thinking about trading Heyward for some time. Here are my reasons to trade him:
- he’s in his last contract year
- he’s never lived up to his billing
- since the Cardinals traded for him, he’ll probably be better now, right?
That last bullet point looks like it might favor keeping Heyward, but really it just represents the popular–Flint Hill, in this case–mind-set. (Not accusing you of anything, Jamie, this was all happening in *my* head, not necessarily in yours.) What it does is make Heyward look better, whether he is or not. This, when it’s more intentional, is known as “marketing.”
Here are the reasons I wanted to keep Heyward:
- he is the last Original Cheese, drafted with my first-ever first-round rookie pick in 2011
- he’s got a 4.6 fielding rating (also a marketing point, actually)
- his fifth-year rookie salary is low
- maybe he will figure it out
But he isn’t looking good at the plate, and I see no signs that he’ll turn the corner. At this point his value to the Cheese is in his defense, which is pretty significant, but much of that will be replaced when Zobrist gets back in the lineup. And Zobrist should hit better.
So we wiped a furtive tear from our Cheesy eye, and typed a positive response to Jamie, and swiped the underachieving Hutchison – whom we should never have traded away – back from the Tornadoes.
I agree with all of your assessment, except the part where his offense will not rebound, which is obviously why I wanted to make the trade. And look! Today he is so excited to be a Tornado that he is 3 for 3 with 3 runs and a SB!
I told him to do that, so you would be encouraged, and not try to back out of the trade.
Trade analysis is usually done from an objective point of view. This is more in the vein of trade apologetics.
True. Wish I’d thought of it. I’ll adjust the title.