Paying for pedigree vs overpaying for pedigree, I feel is the crux of the confusion. IF there are three guys in a basketball draft who everyone knows are going to go 1,2,3 and one of them is Michael Jordan's son, it may make sense to take him first , even if he might have gone 2 or 3 had he not been MJs son.
Similarly, a guy goes 1 overall and struggles his first year in the minors, he'll prob retain more trade value than someone who went in the 19th round and struggled....
Understood these examples dont have very much to do with Adley, but they show that pedigree can often be included in the price. In Adleys case, of course it was. But the debate between JB and MVP from my third party eyes, appears to be whether you are paying that premium because of the brand name/name recognition/PR or because the fact that he was a 1 overall pick + a top prospect + one of the best catchers in the game, and is still under 30, he has the upside of getting back there and becoming/maintaining a top 3 overall catcher like he once was.
I think the debate is: did we pay for the pedigree for marketing reasons (PR) or for the baseball reasons (upside)....and the answer is probably a little bit of both....But I dont think you include Eyoreson (son of a cute pessimistic famous donkey - so some pedigree of his own) in a deal for a player you are getting in large part for name-recognition reasons. So I think the bulk of the pedigree premium was for valid reasons (upside) vs whats moons word for this....oh right......sham reasons.