|
Post by Scott on Sept 7, 2009 20:03:39 GMT -5
Perhaps the league needs a different form of trade moderation - one based on determining if a trade is "fair value" or not. I don't think so. Too many owners feel like trades are a black and white issue. Either it is fair or it is not fair. Many owners, and I can tell by the complaints that are issued are only concerned about a team in their division or a team in their league getting stronger. There are many times in this league and in real life that trades are not fair. Different teams have different value systems and different ways of building their team. A team may be overloaded at one position (with superstars all around), and will be looking to unload one of them. In this instance, they probably will not be looking for full value as they just need to find a different position. These are the instances that my Braves have taken advantage of over the years. I look at every team and find a team in a situation like this, and try to take advantage of it. The other owner is just as happy as I am, but the trade might not be viewed as "fair" by many others because they did not think of looking into a situation like that and are shocked that someone was able to come up with a deal that good. Every trade is caused by a situation, and most situations result in unfair trades. Just take one minute to look at trades that turned out to be disasters every single year in real life, and you will understand. The biggest example of this is someone going for the win right away. They need a current MLB player, so they trade away some of their biggest future stars. Something like that would get killed by many owners in this league when the trade is posted. That is why I have taken the stance that I probably will not be overturning any trades unless it is clearly blatant, which is usually the result of collusion. That is essentially what our rules in TMBL also state even though commish's in the past have strayed away from that slightly to include some of their own judgement which is fine.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 7, 2009 20:28:46 GMT -5
I agree with Scott, trades are not black and white. I have a nasty habit of trading future stars just for that chance that the slightly better than average Padres can get lucky now. I always end up regretting the deals later on. I would not enjoy having every deal I make being voted on by the people that I'm trying to take down.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 7, 2009 21:10:55 GMT -5
As the former commish who has received plenty of trade complaints in the past, I can assure you: it happens really often that the team(s) complaining on a trade isn't even in the same division or in the same league than the one(s) making the deal. In fact, almost every owner that received a trade complaint tried to guess - make that, thought he knew who the complaint came from - and the funny thing was, those guesses were wrong 90% of the time. Indeed, trades are never black or white. But the thing we need to avoid is having the league balance affected by bad trades. When good teams keep building at the expenses of bad ones because they keep screwing their owners in trades, results are awful and last for years and years. I have seen and scrutinized each and every single trade for the last, what, 18 or 19 seasons prior to this one? Sure, there were plenty of bad trades made, even by myself, and some that were good for both teams, although this tends to happen less often. And even though there has been trades that looked bad (to me or to others) in the first place and looked much better after a while, really nothing good can come up for a team which handles over a guy with a 2.77 predicted ERA and a long peak who signs long term for cheap for some pocket change. No matter how flooded we might be with relievers, or no matter how difficult the financial situation of the team selling away the player can be. If anybody thinks one team could not have done better than 3M for Bob Tufts, explain us why, and while you're at it, convince us that Lee Harvey Hoswald was really the one who shot Kennedy or that there really were weapons of mass destruction Iraq. At least, it'll be entertaining!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 7, 2009 21:19:34 GMT -5
If anybody thinks one team could not have done better than 3M for Bob Tufts, explain us why, and while you're at it, convince us that Lee Harvey Hoswald was really the one who shot Kennedy or that there really were weapons of mass destruction Iraq. At least, it'll be entertaining! I guess my issue with this argument for this particular trade, is why didn't anyone offer this then? Tufts was on the trade block for 2 days before this trade was made. Clearly, no one came up with a better offer, or the Astros would not have taken only $3M. So what do you want a team to do? Hang on to a player they want to trade (made known in trade block) or take what they can get: $3M in this case? Both owners involved have won in this league consistently. I am not going to tell either one of these owners: "Sorry, you do not know what you are doing." It is different when a new owner is involved, as they can be taken advantage of without knowing it. I would be much more likely to overturn a trade in that instance. Never am I going to overturn a trade involving two long term members of the league unless I see a consistent pattern leading to collusion which is certainly not the case here.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Sept 7, 2009 21:30:58 GMT -5
well, I was in the process of making an offer - and had asked the stros for a price, but he posted the trade before I got back to him, and what he was asking for was a lot higher than he got.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 7, 2009 22:13:50 GMT -5
Well, I certainly never thought that the Tufts trade would stir up the kind of discussion that it has.
Yes, the odds are good that it will turn out to be a good trade for me. I wouldn't have done it otherwise. Although there's always a chance that I'll spend $17M on Tufts over the next seven seasons and he'll continue to pitch as he has so far in his career.
Some trades look a lot better that they turn out to be. I seem to remember trading Ross Grimsley (70-42 career record) to Montreal for Willie Horton (.238 average for me) a few years back. And that's probably not the worst trade I ever did.
The point is that all owners have their own rationales for the trades they make. And as long as two experienced owners have agreed on the trade, it should not be up to other owners to decide whether a trade is fair enough to be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 7, 2009 22:26:49 GMT -5
well, I was in the process of making an offer - and had asked the stros for a price, but he posted the trade before I got back to him, and what he was asking for was a lot higher than he got. And I'm sure you would have been willing to give much more than 3M to get a quality player such as Tufts is. And that would have been just normal. I guess my issue with this argument for this particular trade, is why didn't anyone offer this then? It could be anything. For instance, on my part, I didn't look at Tufts because I thought, from the Astros situation and from recent blocks from everyone else, that he probably wasn't as good as I could have hoped, and also because I was a little short on time. Heck, Tom's block wasn't up very long, compared to several others. I'm sure the Brewers offer wasn't the only one. It may have been the first one, but it surely wasn't the only one. Tufts was on the trade block for 2 days before this trade was made. Clearly, no one came up with a better offer, or the Astros would not have taken only $3M. Again, two days isn't a lot of time. I'd understand if the player was a huge and bad contract that HAD to be shipped away for obvious reasons. But Tufts is exactly the opposite of that: he's cheap, he's young, he has a long peak and he re-signs soon and can be signed to a long-term deal worth below $2M annually. I mean: where was the rush? So what do you want a team to do? Hang on to a player they want to trade (made known in trade block) or take what they can get: $3M in this case? Nothing was forcing the Astros to get rid of Tutfs. Hey, the Braves have hung to players before because they couldn't get what they wanted. How about 3M for Mitterwald? I have one or two relievers I think are as good (if not better) than Tutfs. Sure, I can decide to trade them to who I want, for what I want. Still, does Minton or Brennan for 3M makes sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 7, 2009 23:17:53 GMT -5
Some trades look a lot better that they turn out to be. I seem to remember trading Ross Grimsley (70-42 career record) to Montreal for Willie Horton (.238 average for me) a few years back. And that's probably not the worst trade I ever did. Sure, we all did. The trade you refer to was made in a moment where you were looking for a DH and Horton looked like a potent candidate. For me, Grimsley was a nice prospect, but I still considered him a gamble because he wasn't always coming out great in my sims. Today, however, that trade clearly is in my favor, although we would have to double-check if you didn't later trade Horton and get something good in return. But since you are nice enough to highlight some of your previous trades, let's look at another one the Brewers were involved in: RP Bob Tufts for 3M But let's look at it from the Houston point of view. Do you think that "the odds are good that it will turn out to be a good trade for (HOU)"? How? They trade a pitcher that, yes, has not yet performed to the level he normally should be expected to. But let's not overlook some issues, here. 1) He made his debut at 21, when he was only 21 and predicted at 3.42 on April 1, 1977, with his Overall 12 points away from peak. No wonder he posted a 4.73 ERA that year. Although he has not reached the projected 92 in peak he had at that time (he peaked at 87 instead), he has totally reached the predicted peak ERA of 2.77 he was showing then. 2) How many pitchers currently have a predicted ERA better than 2.77? 21. Twenty-one out of 853 total pitchers. Or if you prefer, since so many of these are prospects that are years away, 21. Spread on 26 teams. Everyone in TMBL cannot claim to currently have a pitcher with a predicted as good as Tufts. Add to this the fact that he's 23, peaking from 23 to 32, and about to sign a deal that will be extremely cheap for someone with such tremendous potential, and you have yourself quite a deal. So all of the above is worth 3M? Really? Do you still think that "the odds are good that it will turn out to be a good trade for (HOU)"? What are the odds, really, that Tufts pitches to a career mark of five something? With a team like the Brewers? They're close to none. Oh, he might not turn out to be Dennis Eckersley either. But between the two poles, there are plenty of possibilities. I dare not believe that even if he just turned out average, Tufts is worth a mere $3M. The point is that all owners have their own rationales for the trades they make. And as long as two experienced owners have agreed on the trade, it should not be up to other owners to decide whether a trade is fair enough to be acceptable. Bless the Astros if you want for accepting such a trade. But let me bless the rule we have for allowing TMBL owners to make complaints on trades they judge to be unacceptable. For I cannot imagine what some teams will start pulling off on others if we turn into a league where "it should not be up to other owners to decide whether a trade is fair enough to be acceptable". Or no, I can imagine it. But I don't want to. "Pillage and rape", as Kevin once self-described his own trades, isn't my idea of how trades should be operated.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 8, 2009 7:41:13 GMT -5
We have a rule in place to address overly lopsided trades. The trade is reviewed by an impartial arbiter, the commissioner. That was done. The ruling wasn't that the trade was "fair". It doesn't have to be "fair", it only has to not be overly lopsided. If you don't like the rule, then lobby to change it, but don't ask that it be applied in some cases and ignored in others.
As for what Tufts is worth, yes, I would have paid more than $3M for him, but not an awful lot more. The highest-paid reliever in the league is making $5M a year. Tufts is nowhere near the best reliever in the league and I would not pay $5M a year for him if I were bidding on him as a free agent. I wouldn't pay that for ANY reliever. I wouldn't pay more than around $3M a year for Tufts as a free agent. The math is easy enough. He'll get about $2M to resign for seven years. So I should have been willing to pay the Astros up to $7M for him. And that's about the limit of what I would have paid.
All this feigned concern about the welfare of the Astros is just that, feigned. It just a few owners who wish that they had made the same deal. And if anyone claims that, if offered the same deal as I was, you would have turned it down or insisted that the Astros take more money, then you're not being truthful.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 8, 2009 7:57:15 GMT -5
as a division rival, i didnt not decide to put this trade under review. The astros are one team team that is financially cash strapped, with a boat load of pitchers. Could they have gotten more? yes. O well, ive got really good deals before, and ive been fleeced before...it happens.
|
|