clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Isn't It Ironic?

So by this point, if ever I hear of a trade--like I heard about the somewhat shocking Brandon McCarthy for John Danks trade--I just jump over to the respective SBNation sites for the authoritative rundowns from both sides.

Where else you gonna take the pulse so accurately, huh?

Anyway, I thought that that what I read tonight was kinda funny.

The amassed commentators at Southside Sox suggest that the Sox get the best of the deal because

. . . BMac is probably a middle of the rotation guy; Danks is probably a top of the rotation guy.

Meanwhile, Adam at Lone Star Ball thinks his Rangers gained the upper hand because

McCarthy can come in and join the rotation immediately, and could be a legit #1 starter. Danks is a half-year to a year away, and his upside is generally seen as a #2 or #3.

It seems the grass is always greener, and that familiarity always seems to find fault. The fans of each team thought that the talent they were trading away was average, and that the talent they would receive in exchange was better than that.

As for me, the background I had on the trade is laughably skimpy. I can say that I'd at least heard of McCarthy and his fairly high potential, which is something I can't say about Danks.

But it may be true what I'm taking from this, that we as hardcore fans never give enough credit to the talent on hand, or recognize the flaws in the talent we covet.

Those Astrofans wanting to trade Ensberg see a .235 batting average, while I'm sure Giants fans, or Brewer fans, who had to watch Pedro Feliz or David Bell, see a .396 OBP, or even an .859 OPS.

Or is it even possible that a Cub fan--having watched Ronny Cedeño play arguably the worst short in the majors--might actually covet the oft-reviled Adam Everett?