-
What other possible conclusion should I draw from those statements?
-
"Is not about me, I did talk to m about Trout and wouldn't move him Bradley (among others)."
-
"Made sure every team got a chance to bid, and basically moving him for a young SP, however highly touted, is a nightmare given pitcher durability issues"
-
Are you sure that was what I said? Because, um, it wasn't. Go back and read. It's beneath you to misstate just bc you're pissed
-
That logic doesn't make sense
-
Nothing snarky about it. You said WGW took a lesser deal than he could have gotten because it was built around a pitcher, implying elite guys like Trout shouldn't be traded for that risk. Then you said you wouldn't move Bradley for Trout.
-
[grabbing some popcorn...]
-
Lucky, your snarky false statements and mischaracterizations about what I've said fell off the front page, you might want to re-post so you can try to rile more people up wrongly against me
-
I'm not sure how many different ways I can try to make the same point. You guys just make the deal. This is exhausting.
-
Of course you did. That's not the point. The point is that you should be as deliberate and transparent as possible when trading elite players. You didn't even bother to field an offer from all the interested teams.
-
I also got a significantly higher return
-
Sure Trout is different than Walker by a mile...
-
Where do we draw the line with quality player being traded?
-
how is publicly stating that trading Walker is different from seeing my trade block updated and checking it out?
-
Again, he explicitly said in a public forum that Walker was going to be traded. That's a pretty big difference. More importantly, you don't think there's a difference in what you should do when seeking a trade partner for Taijuan Walker and Mike Trout?
-
my point though remains that he didn't contact me or wait from an offer from me...not sure why that is different from Trout who was on the Trade block for 24 hours
-
I must have missed that in all the other conversation posts
-
Crying began soliciting offers for SP immediately after draft and explicitly said on the message board that Tijuan would be traded before the end of yesterday.
-
If I know what I want, then that is the best offer I'm going to get...I don't 'have' to hear from everyone or wait until they bow out of negotiations
-
I wasn't aware Tijaun Walker would be traded before games started either....if that's your complaint then propose a rule that there are no trades prior to games starting
-
before getting the best offer from every team in the league is a rush job by definition.
-
Shopping him in the offseason when there is a firm salary cap in place and shopping him post-draft when you can cover the salary are two very different things. We'll have to agree to disagree because in my view, trading Trout before games even begin
-
him on the trade block, but he had been there the whole time and still don't see this as detrimental to the whole league....maybe some other owners chances to win though
-
Durham...this was anything but a rush deal...I have been shopping Trout all off-season and if you didn't know that he would be available at all points this season, then you just missed all the headlines. You may have missed the 24 hours since I posted
-
I'm just voicing my complaint - which are the same I've made several times in the past - that the rush to make trades is at best just poor form and at worst detrimental to the league.
-
I'm not going to propose anything because I agree with WAR that we should've let the veto process play out. I'm not interested in making a deal with an asterisk next to it.
-
One important lesson from this debate: If WGW wants to take the very best offer, it can?t be one built around a starting pitcher?because all starting pitchers are too risky?but Archie Bradley is untouchable.
-
It should be a little easier to beat my offer now that the inner-workings of the negotiation and all the parts of the deal are now on the table for everyone to see. WGW is in an enviable position, for sure.
-
I?ve encouraged WGW to reengage owners & to feel free to seek out better offers than the deal we made. This should be painfully obvious though since WGW is a savvy owner who nearly won in 2013, and since that?s exactly what he did 48 hours ago.
-
But if you guys want to repropose that same deal, you should go for it. If nothing else at least every owner now knows that they have a chance to add Trout to their roster.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 7:15 AM
-
I think this debate has been useful. We touched on a few different pain points for the league, some of which have arisen in past seasons.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 7:12 AM
-
WGW, let's get this done. Grady Freakin' Sizemore for Trout. Old school always beats new school. This is a fair trade offer.
-
i hadn't vetoed either, and presuming that Taveras/Bradley/Correa are the only guys that WGW had interest in, I'm not beating it either
-
the cap is still meaningful to keep free agent bidding under control...Strikes still only had $4 in cap space to acquire someone else. Sure we can swap players and funds, but it keeps us from bidding stupid amounts of money on cheap pickups in season
-
I've said more than enough on the subject, and would've been content to let the trade go through the approval process as the final word. WGW if you still feel that's the best deal you'll get for Trout this season, then go for it. Not saying I can top it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:16 PM
-
And not because I didn't get Trout -- my roster isn't built to make super-competitive bids with these kinds of trades.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:14 PM
-
The amount of the loans, the waiting period between the auction and the ballooning of salary caps...this is all subjective territory. All I can say is that blowing up the $400 cap in March really rubs me the wrong way. Subjectively. Viscerally.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:13 PM
-
I guess you could draft a Trout or Verlander or Braun only to deal him 5 days later, but then you're kind of gaming the salary cap, aren't you? Again....what is the point of the $400 cap? Auction-day fun? I don't get it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:12 PM
-
I think it's smart and responsible to acknowledge early that you don't have the horses and focus on the following season, like Trey did last year.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:11 PM
-
What if Knights drafted a $46 Verlander simply to deal him now. I'd think that's a good strategy. It maximizes value and helps mitigate injury. I could care less how much he loans another team as long as he gets what he wants in return.
-
Do I have to wait to hear from everyone that they aren't interested before moving on an offer I like?
-
We Got Wood's trade block has been updated!
-
Agree 100%
-
that's our format and the whole point of having a keeper league...you can't win every year so maximize your future
-
The clock is now reset. But let's say Durham offers C. Gomez, Pederson, and Bradley (hypothetical). Is everyone gonna be upset the WGW loans him $55 to make it happen? I'm not, if WGW thinks that's the best package. The loan amount is irrelevant.
-
But I have stated that I am out of the championship race since before the auction and building for 2015
-
The timing of the deal -- between auction and opening day -- makes it feel like some kind of post-auction bonus. The reason why the salary delta is so massive is because one team was beginning the 2014 season with zero investment in the 2014 season.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:04 PM
-
The timing of the deal -- between auction and opening day -- makes it feel like some kind of post-auction bonus. The reason why the salary delta is so massive is because one team was beginning the 2014 season with zero investment in the 2014 season.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:04 PM
-
That's fine, maybe it would have turned out to be the best offer, but we now know of at least two teams (Durham, knights) who weren't involved. I think the league is best served if everyone knew
-
I'm sorry Durham wasn't at the computer during those 24 hours....I've missed out on players before as well. I didn't know we would need to wait two days to make a trade after updating our "on the block" status
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages