-
WAR Horse's trading block has been updated!
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 7, 2013 12:53 PM
-
Shoeless Joes's trading block has been updated!
-
Nevermind, I know there's a lot of competition there I thought he might've lost that job. As of now still has it.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 7, 2013 11:19 AM
-
Why?
-
But he won't be closing this season, right?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 7, 2013 11:03 AM
-
For anyone looking for a closer, Putz available. Was 9 points/IP last season.
-
I think he'll be in the 90-92 range by start of season and will still be a top starter - 1200 points probably not, 1000 likely. Likely in the minority, but that's why I bid so high.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 7, 2013 9:22 AM
-
Fun fact...Strasburg's changeup was faster than Halladay's fastball in yesterday's game.
-
I think Halladay will still flash several elite games. He's one of the smartest pitchers in the game
-
Wasn't trying to bag on someone else's player, just interesting read. Halladay never relied a lot on velo so it's not really crushing news if he can't break 90 anymore.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 7, 2013 9:05 AM
-
"Halladay should be a very good #3 starter..."
-
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies/Roy-Halladays-velocity.html
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 7, 2013 7:15 AM
-
Apparently I missed 94 messages today. Yikes.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 6, 2013 5:40 PM
-
Jose Tabata, expert cap penalty provider
-
he got frustrated by being shelled and switched to the cutter for one at bat against Reyes and struck him out in 3 pitches.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 4:03 PM
-
feel better about Hamels outing against DR - he was instructed to throw only fastballs for the first 60 pitches and focus on location. No secondary pitches at all.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 4:02 PM
-
I guess it's now safe to say that Enrico really is going to camp without any RP since every bullpen arm in MLB has hit our auction board this week...
-
If I could do it again I obviously would've shopped him, knowing now I couldn't use that money at auction. My fault for not understanding the rules, but it's done.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:10 AM
-
Which is fair
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:10 AM
-
It sounds like most of this comes back to you being upset you aren't the acquiring team.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:09 AM
-
I'd like to know how you propose we fix it though, while keeping intact the right of an owner to obtain more value for a player than he would by cutting him.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:09 AM
-
And I disagree with premeir players changing hands for very little when another team would have given up more if given a chance to make an offer.
-
I'm fairly certain you are in a small minority with that one.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:08 AM
-
Yes, I disagree with the rules and I made the same argument last year.
-
Next offseason maybe we can bring it to a vote whether these deals will continue. Even if we say no, the obvious workaround is that the acquiring team throws in a throwaway player and the cap space stays pretty much the same.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:05 AM
-
So the issue is more that you disagree with the rules of the league than anything else - I think the rules are fine, but we can discuss. I see no problem whatsoever with trading a player for cash.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 11:05 AM
-
and with the concept of players being traded for cash alone.
-
I absolutely do disagree with your thought process and your valuation of a 43rd, 44th, and 45th cap dollar but my issue is with the process of how the trade happened.
-
You made a generic 'I'm interested' statement with no actual offer or even the parameters of an expected offer well after the deal was done, all I was waiting on was the auction to finish and the official offer to come through.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:56 AM
-
If you want to discuss rule changes, that's fair, but I think everything is fine how it is.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:53 AM
-
Also "it's easy to say that now after the fact" is fairly disingenuous. I expressed my interest in Pujols before the draft was even over.
-
I understand everyone's position now, thank you for that. We can agree to disagree.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:53 AM
-
I think the issue is that Durham thinks because he disagrees with my thought process I must've done something wrong. I did everything within the rules and both Strikes and myself are happy with the result - there is no problem.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:52 AM
-
Gotcha. Sorry, I kind of just saw the discussion was involved again, and I thought the issue was long forgotten.
-
To be fair, it isn't all that strange someone might have a slightly different opinion about the value of the 5th player auctioned after another 136 transactions.
-
Because Knights asked for an explanation.
-
Once again, it doesn't make sense to apply the salary cap restrictions present at the auction to post-auciton situations
-
Why is this still a discussion? It happened, the trade went through, both teams got what they wanted. They aren't idiots and knew what they both were getting. Suffice to say, some people didn't like it, but they both did. Why criticize how they manage?
-
that would've been fine if that productive player was something I needed, I didn't see that being offered after I had just acquired him for $42 because nobody would bid $43.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:37 AM
-
so I basically just undid that acquisition and made a $3 profit in the process.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:37 AM
-
fair enough, but the underlying point remains...a productive $30 player plus $15 in cap
-
I never would've acquired Pujols in the first place had I known I'd get EE for just $28
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:36 AM
-
One of Pujols, EE, and Ortiz had to go. Pujols to me had the least value - disagree all you want, but that's the way I saw it.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:36 AM
-
Acquiring Freddie Freeman would've put me in the same situation - 3 1b/Util guys.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:35 AM
-
I wish I could've done that Enrico, that goes back to this trade being agreed to during the auction. I could not back out after the auction after Strikes has resisted acquiring players because of the deal - that'd be wrong.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:35 AM
-
Is that much cap space worth it? Out of curiosity...would you rather have the $45 you got or Freddie Freeman plus $15 in cap space?
-
the team that paid $215mil to buy him would look ridiculous for not bidding $201 prior to that. Angels would be happy to have that $15 million for nothing. That is what happened here.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:33 AM
-
What was the urgency? So far the 7 players have been freed to acquire by dumping Pujols for nothing have cost like $7 and nobody else has even bid on them. Seems like you could have afforded to find out what else Pujols would have returned
-
This is more like the Angels signing Pujols for $200 million, then another team giving the Angels $215 million a few days later to buy him off of them.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:32 AM
-
Yes they did, but the primary motivation was cas. If I could've gotten a player PLUS saved all the money like they did, I would have. Why should I expect to be able to do that three hours after nobody was willing to bid $43?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:32 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages