-
Hector Santiago Gets A Ring's trade block has been updated!
Catz on
January 5, 2015 12:10 PM
-
Jeters Never Prosper's trade block has been updated!
-
Machado's Knee's trade block has been updated!
SSS Fluke on
January 5, 2015 9:34 AM
-
Machado's Knee's trade block has been updated!
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 11:19 PM
-
Jeters Never Prosper's trade block has been updated!
-
You've Been Friedman'd's trade block has been updated!
-
But that said - I was selling Cano all winter and as far as I could see, at least, nobody was interested in him as anything more than a dump. I probably wouldn't have made that move a week after arbitration ended, but it's pretty clear that Cano at 50+ isn't a hot commodity right now. So, I pulled the trigger instead of waiting and potentially just dropping him.
Catz on
January 4, 2015 4:06 PM
-
I've got no problem with people discussing merits of the deal on the board, though, what else is it for! - And if the trade does get vetoed, feel free to offer me something better than Allie, I'll probably take it!
Catz on
January 4, 2015 4:03 PM
-
Wow this board blew up! A handful of people have already pointed out what I would say - I like Allie's potential, and I've been pretty up front about wanting to move Cano all winter, with most teams not having interest, so with the deadline approaching I felt fine sending him for a prospect that I happen to like. Grumble did offer me a couple MLB players, but with my salary tight I was more interested in a low cost, possibly high upside guy.
Catz on
January 4, 2015 4:02 PM
-
I could see Allie getting some big league time this year if 1B for the buccos bombs....ill allow it
-
I personally don't veto either unless evidence of collusion or an owner just not caring and giving up . . .
-
The problem I have w the trade is that there is zero doubt in my mind that the owner could have gotten significantly more for Cano. That being said, why didn't he? There are plenty of $1 to $4 prospects that would have satisfied the goal of dumping salary while achieving a more market-appropriate return. I vetoed the trade for this reason.
One O' Cat on
January 4, 2015 12:44 PM
-
Urban Achievers's trade block has been updated!
-
I can understand the needing to clear cap space but Stetson Allie? I think if the return was at least a decent player/prospect there would be little discussion.
However, he does have a 80/80 name....
-
Stating your opinion on the message board and having other owners agree or disagree with you is not collusion. Itโs like a lawyer presenting his side to a jury. I can agree or disagree with it. Everyone is entitled to decide for themselves and even change their mind if they want. If you think the trade was unfair, then veto it. I always try and put myself in the situation when making up my mind. If I was making a similar trade, what would I want the league to do?
-
I personally don't veto either unless evidence of collusion or an owner just not caring and giving up . . .
-
Just to throw in my 2 cents. I actually offered much more, but he needed to clear cap space. If this were a league where salary wasn't involved, I would have a huge problem with this type of deal.this sort of trade happens in real life every couple of years, just maybe not with a player of Cano's caliber.
-
If a team should happen to veto of it's own accord that is one thing. Certainly teams have the right to veto even if I don't, but that being said, collusion is typically painted as 2 teams conspiring in a trade for their exclusive benefit. It also occurs when 4,6,8 teams conspire against 2 teams making a trade for their benefit.
-
My point was more that individual teams opinion of the deal doesn't really matter. If any team thinks it was a light return, there is an extremely simple solution. Offer more. Not sure how I feel on the matter, but I can easily see the teams in question saying that advocating all teams veto is collusion - which makes sense.
-
To all - Maybe I am the only one who sees things this way, and I went ahead to veto the trade which is my right. If anybody agrees, and has a bit of cash to bid on auction, Iโd suggest you do the same. I donโt see a reason to help the teams who were at the top last year to help shed the huge budgets they are carrying.
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 11:32 AM
-
@Commish - I understand your angle, and I also understand that we as a league haven't come up with any agreement as to how to asses the offseason. That being said, and since you have mentioned your players and how it seems that you are in the same situation with top talent players with astronomical salaries, I can see how a trade involving King Felix for Sonny Gray makes sense in terms of talent even the salaries donโt match, but Cano for whoโs the other player? (Exactly!)
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 11:32 AM
-
DodgerBlueMoons's trade block has been updated!
-
Underrated's trade block has been updated!
-
Being new to the league also, I feel it needs to be a blatant unfair trade to be considered for a veto. Owners should be able to run their team as they see fit. If an owner seems to be making unfair trades, get rid of the owner. I personally think Cano at $53 is a bit high, but an offseason trade to get something for him should be allowed. Now if this trade happens in the heat of a pennant race, that might be a time to question the trade and the fairness of it.
-
I personally don't veto either unless evidence of collusion or an owner just not caring and giving up . . .
-
As far as collusion goes, I certainly don't believe there is any. Just as I don't believe us debating the merits of a deal is collusion against the two owners who made a trade.
-
I don't veto any trades personally. I don't think this deal warrants a veto either. Cano was available, teams knew Cano was available. It doesn't make sense to penalize either team for the trade by vetoing when any team could have stepped up at any time with an offer.
-
Being new to the league this is an interesting trade. Do we as a league evaluate based solely on the merits of value vs. value? Does the value need to come close in order to be "fair"(we are talking about a top ten player for a top ~600 player)?Or are we using the veto if there is clear collusion?
-
Similar scenario could probably be applied to my squad: Do teams wait and hope that I cut (Felix/Kershaw/Posey/Kinsler) or risk that one of their competitors will trade for one of them? Certainly it's nice for a group trying to save money to spend in the auction if they are cut (though some are going to be kept) but if money is saved, and elite talent is not available, then teams are left to bid on less elite 2nd tier talent at more elite prices.
-
Considering how open Tom was about Cano being available, I do not believe him trading a player to weaken the FA pool (and hurt other teams chances in auction) is an issue. Any easy way to combat this would be for any team to offer more than Stetson Allie in return (which probably isn't hard).
-
The other side of this is that there is not reason for teams who plan to spend in FA to wait. If you know there are 5-8 owners who are looking to buy top talent in the auction, would you really want to bid against those owners for the same 1 or 2 players? I know I wouldn't. The other side of this is that it could very well be strategy for Tom. By making a trade like this it just weakens the talent pool for those who will try to bid on top FA talent ...
-
@Machado - I understand what you are saying, but only works if the teams that would have interest in FAs collectively work together and agree to not trade for higher priced talent. Certainly there is rarely a verbal agreement, and I do not believe one is taking place here (a uniting of teams to not trade for high $ players) or that would pretty clearly be collusion. As is probably clear, It is difficult for all teams to (even subconsciously) sign off on this type of agreement.
-
@Commish - Trades are trades, and I understand dumping salary after a season of getting players and salary help from other teams. That being said, itโs the offseason. Shouldnโt we as a league try to at least keep players from blatantly dumping salary instead of favoring players to land in FA for all of us to bid on them?
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 10:33 AM
-
@Machado, Are you saying that you do not believe the Cano trade is in the best interest of the league? Do you have a reason? (I'm not saying I support it, just trying to better understand what you are saying).
-
Is it on the best interest of the league to allow that trade? Or to have Cano land as a FA for bidding on draft day?
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 10:01 AM
-
!!!
SSS Fluke on
January 4, 2015 9:27 AM
-
Totally, I have no problem with it - just never thought I'd see those guys traded for each other. . . . gotta get what you can, if you are not going to keep him.
-
@NotMyPadre - salary DUMP!
-
Wow, that is a trade that I thought I'd never see.
-
Trying to move Cj Wilson and / or Tanner Roark for high end relieving pitching or pitching prospects. Hit me up. Not looking on taking on extra salary, though.
SSS Fluke on
January 3, 2015 11:13 AM
-
Not My Padre's trade block has been updated!
-
You've Been Friedman'd's trade block has been updated!
-
Grumble Grumble's trade block has been updated!
-
Not My Padre's trade block has been updated!
-
You've Been Friedman'd's trade block has been updated!
-
Hector Santiago Gets A Ring's trade block has been updated!
Catz on
January 1, 2015 3:38 PM
-
Not My Padre's trade block has been updated!
-
Not My Padre's trade block has been updated!
-
Urban Achievers's trade block has been updated!
-
Tough Actin' TANAKA's trade block has been updated!
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages