-
Maybe the issue is that we are beginning a season with multiple teams out of the race by their own declaration. This type of trade can be frustrating but it's part of the format.....in June or July.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 11:03 PM
-
EP, you wouldn't give half of that....what would be a good package for you that anyone else would consider fair?
-
At least four other teams were in on Trout. WGW said he did his due diligence. It's my job to accept an offer that makes my team better. Now everyone can have ample time to throw their hat in the ring.
-
My opinion is that basically cole/yelich for trout isn't great, but to be clear my issue is NOT, regardless of how many times you misstate it, the package.
-
Trey if you're going to try to counter my arguments, listen to them -- my problem was that teams like Durham had no idea he was moving. Don't know if there're were others.
-
But there is a world of difference between $425 and $470. $25 is the cost of doing business with a star who costs $20+ more than all other stars.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:57 PM
-
Knights has some great prospects that I am interested in but have not heard from him since December or so when he said he wouldn't trade Springer for Trout because we were both playing for 2015 and Trout's salary was too much to hang onto for that long
-
EP flat out said in the off season he wouldn't offer his best prospects to rent Trout for 60 days. Now he says he wouldn't do it to rent Trout for 162 games. How can he say WGW didn't get the best deal?
-
Chiefs was also in on it and was making all/most of his prospects available (obviously not all together). However, his are further away from MLB and don't really have a higher ceiling than Cole
-
That is a fair point -- it's completely subjective and arbitrary on my end. Trout's salary is exceptionally huge, which makes a significant loan likely.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:54 PM
-
So it's ok to begin the season with $425, but not $470? I don't see the logic there. I see that as "it's unfair for one team to begin the season with Trout, when others didn't"
-
I mean at this point I think everyone should publicly post their best offer and let me decide from there. How in the world can EP say that package was "weak" when he wouldn't offer half of it?
-
Gerrit Cole's salary may be only $14, but he's "worth" probably $30+. That's exactly why WGW wanted to trade for him. Trout has zero surplus value. You can't just say salary = value.
-
Anyway no sense beating a dead horse. But if it would have been unfair for one team to have a $470 salary cap on March 10, then I'm pretty sure it would be unfair on March 17 as well. It's just a hell of an advantage to begin a season with $470 in talent
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:52 PM
-
I'd love to know what the mysterious cutoff is between "acceptable" and "ridiculous". Is $20 acceptable? $30? If EP were to trade Taveras & Bradley for Trout, is $51 ridiculous?
-
If Trout's price is a fuction of his value, so are cheaper players like Yelich, Cole, Baez. They just happen to cost less than the players you were offer. That just happens to make the gap wider. Covering the loan is the same, and both are allowed.
-
I'll restate that I can't see how you can argue that $65 or $25 makes no difference. The money is not funny money -- it's based on salaries, which are in turn based on player value as determined by league-wide bidding!
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:47 PM
-
I could care less about the veto vote. Evidently too many people feel like they didn't get a fair shot. Go for it. Should be a fun few days for WGW.
-
I appreciate that as commish you are taking the league's feedback seriously, but you should've just let the veto process unfold. All whining aside, I don't think enough of us were anti- to overturn the deal by veto. It would've been upheld.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:45 PM
-
What is the difference between $20, $30, and $65 if the full loan has to be covered for all? I see no difference. It's the same principle. If you can honestly tell me you were offering to buy Trout without having him cover the full cost, I'll relent.
-
I've cancelled the trade. I'd love to have Trout, but I see a lot of bitter feedback about not having a fair shake at Trout. Would love to make the trade again, but WGW can now have more time to decide (if he needs it). Get your offers in.
-
Just keep going back to the purpose of a league-wide salary cap. Which is, in my mind, to ensure competitive balance. It's mid-March and a team just got a $470 salary cap and a 400-600-point net gain in the standings. Through one preseason trade.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:42 PM
-
I am making Jean Segura available for a short time, just so everyone knows if anyone has interest, thanks.
-
What if the trade was McCutchen in the package instead of Trout? That's only $34. Is that ridiclous? Where's the cutoff, where's the line? Any team trading for Trout would need a massive loan.
-
FWIW, WGW explained why he failed to counter my Stanton/Gray offer, and it made total sense. So it's not sour grapes that I didn't get Trout.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:38 PM
-
that player's availability has to be advertised widely, and multiple teams should have a chance to match or exceed.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:36 PM
-
Still think trades in which $50+ changes hands are ridiculous, and they're patently ridiculous in March. But bottom line is if you are poised to trade an elite player who can impact the standings,
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:35 PM
-
What Durham said (bc as I said I wouldn't move Bradley for him so it's not the package that bothers me -- though I think it's weak -- it's the process)
-
I wouldn't have a problem if he told me he liked your deal better than mine. My problem is that I didn't even get the opportunity to make a proposal. That should never happen when elite players are shopped, especially in the offseason.
-
Appreciate the effort in putting that proposal together, Trey.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:31 PM
-
At this point I'm not convinced its possible for a team to trade Mike Trout without pissing off at least six other owners.
-
Why is it assumed very team can put together an equal offer? Seems more likely WGW spent all off season reviewing rosters and targeted the exact players he wanted. I know for a fact he said he had Cole and Baez near the very top of his list.
-
Being told it's my problem for not constantly proposing trades makes me even less excited.
-
Missing an opportunity to negotiate for the best player in baseball because I didn't happen to check the website during the 24 hours he was available doesn't make me super excited about the league.
-
From what possible vantage point can you say with any authority he didn't get the deal he wanted? Because he didn't choose your players? How can you know what he was offered or who was in on it?
-
Durham is one of the leagues best and most active owners and didn't know he was moving. There may be others who didn't know. For a player like trout, that's a problem imho
-
Is not about me, I did talk to m about Trout and wouldn't move him Bradley (among others). Agreed short term it's that owners problem, but longer term I think we all want this league to keep going- failing to maximize I fear wont contribute to that goal
-
In summary, send more trade offers, open up dialogues and negotiations. You will get to know other owners better, and get a better sense of what players are available, and what it would take to acquire them.
-
If an owner makes a deal without shopping an asset and doesn't maximize his return, it is his own fault. However, if he is receiving multiple offers from teams for that asset, he would more likely shop him to highest bidder.
-
I didn't like the trade at all, but there was nothing illegal about it. All those complaining that they didn't have a shot at Trout, should have been sending offers for him on a regular basis if they really wanted him.
-
Classic Enrico comments...
-
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
-
Totally against the lottery idea. And last time I'll make the point on the trout dump, the problem isn't the trade or the loan, it's that it's not clear it was the best deal he could get. With two weeks until the season started no reason not to have
-
also, there may be some people that finish in the top 3 that would rather have an arb discount for the future than another jersey or $25 cash
-
I like the lottery suggestion to a point. I don't like though that the 9th place team has just as good of odds to get $5 as the 4th place team. Maybe weight the lottery
-
My final thoughts on the great Trout debate of March 2014...and a possible solution: http://bit.ly/Oqyhaj
-
I have gotten some interest in both Ervin Santana and Justin Upton. These guys won't require as large a loan.
-
So how bout that Grady Sizemore?
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 7:41 PM
-
The Syndicate's trade block has been updated!
-
For those rebuilders out there, Patrick Corbin ($9) would be available for things that might help me this year. He'll go on the 60 so I can keep, but would let him go
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages