-
This whole argument would make a lot more sense to me if this had been a keeper player - I just made the damn acquisition a few hours prior.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:31 AM
-
Just one correction: The Red Sox got 1 major leaguer and 4 prospects back; this trade is nothing like their trade of Crawford/Gonzalez
-
That's the part that confuses me - any of you saying you'd give more than $45, why was I able to acquire him for $42 at auction?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:30 AM
-
In that scenario you'd likely be paying $55+ for Pujols - why not just bid more at auction?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:29 AM
-
it's easy to say that now after the fact. If you like Pujols that much you can likely still get him from Strikes.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:28 AM
-
It would only cost me $11 in the end, which I would have been willing to pay.
-
Though I like him, I absolutely would have cut Freddie Freeman to create the cap space for Pujols.
-
How would you offer $45 when you have $28 in cap space?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:22 AM
-
Of course I could top it. I'd offer a player plus $45. And no, you couldn't have bid more on some of my players because as you've pointed out several times, you couldn't bid for the last third of the draft.
-
You can have that opinion, I disagree.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:22 AM
-
if you were to offer trading your players that have excess value, that wouldn't have helped me as much as you might think because I wanted the cap space, and you aren't going to trade those players and the cash I wanted - wouldn't make sense to you.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:21 AM
-
And applying the salary cap restrictions that were in place during the auction to the post-auction world is a flawed premise. What someone would pay at auction becomes irrelevant as soon as the auction was over.
-
You couldn't top that offer Durham, nor could anyone else. I wanted cap space above anything else - if I wanted your players, I would;ve bid more for them when I had the opportunity.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:19 AM
-
so I took the cap space. My right, and the league rules support that and I wouldn't be in favor of changing them. League rules give the rest of you an option to veto, and that didn't happen.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:19 AM
-
I absolutely agree you should be able to seek out value for your assets. My issue with this trade is that you didn't do that. You took the first offer, which I can assure would have been topped by myself and likely others, given the opportunity.
-
I tried to get useful players back in addition to the cap space from Strikes, but he wouldn't deal the guys I wanted.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:18 AM
-
Sure, other teams would've preffered those players were cut so they could bid, but the Red Sox owned those rights and had the option of trading them - they unloaded most of that salary and got useful players back as a bonus.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:18 AM
-
That's basically what the Red Sox and Dodgers just did this off-season, so it's not like there isn't an MLB equivalent to this
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:16 AM
-
There is not always an opportunity to shop players around, and I shouldn't be forced to cut a player if I can move him for added benefit.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:16 AM
-
My risk was getting stuck with him and not being able to extract that same amount of value - I went with the decision to take the profit while it was on the table.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:15 AM
-
I was presented with an offer that was $4 more valuable then the league had just valued him 2 hours prior - if I had offered him to the rest of the league, that initial offer probably goes away because Lucky spends the money at auction.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:15 AM
-
With Pujols, the league obviously valued him at approximately $41 if I was able to sign him as a FA for $42. Why would someone be willing to part with more than $41 in value an hour after the auction if I had made him available?
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:14 AM
-
Durham - the reason I should be allowed to trade him for cash is because he's currently my asset, not a free agent. If I can get more value out of that asset than I could be simply cutting him, I should be allowed to do that.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 10:13 AM
-
if anyone had the opportunity to make an offer.
-
Nobody thinks he's worth $2 extra. If a player is worth more than his salary, he's an asset you should be able to get a player in return for. Like, for example, Albert Pujols. Knights could have gotten a player and the same amount of cash
-
Everyone has the same opportunity and transactions aren't made because one person was closer to a computer when the transaction presented itself.
-
What I'm proposing is really no different than the underlying rationale for why free agency is done through an auction system.
-
but not the extra $2 that the rest of the league thinks he is worth
-
Again, I'm not going to concern myself with someone forfeiting $1-2 when the alternative is allowing susperstars to move from one team to another for nothing.
-
but this league has decided already that it is simply just a stupid decision to trade a superstar for cash and not something hindering the competitiveness
-
You are allowed to drop him now and you'll get $2 for him immediately and the other $2 when/if he gets auctioned again.
-
and he gets picked up for $6 because that is what someone was willing to pay for him...why shouldn't I also be allowed to benefit from that extra $2 in a trade if someone is willing to pay it?
-
as they did when I made him publicly available....no one wanted him so I was stuck with that salary during the auction knowing I was going to cut him ASAP. However, what if I had just been allowed to drop him....
-
Because I feel the benefit of having a rule like this in place (superstars can't get traded for cash when it's the first bid that come around) outweighs the cost of potentially depriving an owner of a dollar or two.
-
My point, Wood, is that if someone wants to pay $4 for Rymer, then why does it matter if it happens through trade or cut? You get the same benefit either way and the entire league gets the change to bid.
-
why shouldn't you be able to trade him for that potential extra $1 or so that he goes for at auction if he is worth that over just the cleared cap space?
-
I made the same argument last year when the same kind of deal was made with a player of less consequence when offered to the first person who made an offer.
-
like I was trying to do in trading Rymer Liriano before the auction
-
I don't agree with that...I think its is fair and even helpful to both teams sometimes...like a minor leaguer for $4 in cap space....
-
If you want cash back for a player, he should be cut and every owner should be allowed to bid on him. There is no downside. If an owner if wlling to trade you $X for a player, he'll also be willing to bid $X on that player in an auction.
-
I'd like to propose a rule change that says no player can be traded for cash alone. I've had this same issue in the past with other deals and I don't think trading is right forum for this kind of transaction.
-
This isn't and shouldn't be coming across as an attack on Knights...just the process and decision
-
However I end up using it - cap penalties or not. Honestly I expected at least a few of those guys to bid on, didn't think I'd get them all.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 9:23 AM
-
by the time I realized I couldn't use the space the way I wanted to, he had already backed out on several players - it was too late in my book, that's not the way I do business, especially since I'm still happy with the cap space
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 9:22 AM
-
but I do agree with Durham that you both should have seen a way to back out fairly quickly
-
True...by Lucky backing out on other players there was certainly a Gentleman's agreement in place
-
I simply don't agree with the notion that you couldn't have backed out of the deal when it should have been immediately apparent to both of you that you couldn't get the benefit you thought from making the deal.
-
and it's not as simple as you just having $3 less...you would have used that $42 completely differently and gotten other player(s)
-
You keep making the argument that cap space is so valuable but you traded him for only $3 more than you would have gotten if you cut him and will burn those $3 on cap penalties before the season even starts.
-
And the deal was agreed to during the draft, and Lucky stopped bidding knowing he had to save that money - there was absolutely no way I could back out after. That logic that I should've shopped after the auction is flawed.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 6, 2013 9:16 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages