|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 7, 2010 20:19:32 GMT -5
There's always the wildcard. A team can get into the postseason without winning its division. A stacked division means what? It didn't get in the Pirates way. Good teams will miss the postseason, but it doesn't mean the owner shouldn't try. Bad teams, however... The real question is always "Why is this team so bad?" We can't blame the competition for every team. Some teams in TMBL haven't made it to the postseason in over 20 seasons, now that's not the Indians fault, nor is it the Braves fault...
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 7, 2010 22:10:15 GMT -5
^^^ no its not...Im just saying theres certain teams that if we kicked the owners out, that team could become a revolving door because of the circumstances. The royals would be a hard sell to get an active owner to stay for 10 + years...
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Aug 8, 2010 8:36:11 GMT -5
I think the waiver system in place works good as is. I understand the need for a bit of oversight by the Commish or the trade commitee. I know that most of the claims have been made on lower tier teams, but maybe thats a good thing. This helps keep those teams from tanking in order to improve their draft status.
On a side note, the trade of Jim Rice that was cancelled by the review commitee brings up an interesting thought. Since that trade was cancelled there was no active pursuit to trade him, but if he had tried and still failed to trade him for what everyone else perceives as equal value, should'nt the A's been allowed to take the best available offer? Maybe when a trade is cancelled it should be postponed instead, allowing time for better offers to come in. If there isn't anything better offered, then maybe these trades should be allowed.
Also, some of the talent like Rice and Cecil Cooper's value in trades would be greater if the NL adopted the DH. I know I would try to pick up either one and would pay more if I had a spot for them, not just now but for seasons to come.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 8, 2010 10:57:39 GMT -5
I had tried to trade for Rice (last season?) while Zeke was getting his surgery and the team had a caretaker. I was essentially told that if the other trade got canceled then the one I tried to make would get canceled too. The owner who said this to me has some experience with canceled trades Which I think brings up another side issue that I don't believe the trade review committee really takes into account: A "star" player on a team with only 1 star player isn't really very valuable to that team. OAK will finish last again this year and the only thing they'll have gotten for the privilege of keeping Rice these last few seasons is 24M less in their dismally low cash total. I'm around 50/50 for an NL DH. I try to at least pretend we're playing historical ball, even with all other evidence to the contrary, but when I look at the defensive stats on some of my guys..... ^^^ no its not...Im just saying theres certain teams that if we kicked the owners out, that team could become a revolving door because of the circumstances. The royals would be a hard sell to get an active owner to stay for 10 + years... We probably wouldn't find immediate replacements. Good caretakers could increase the team value though, make intelligent trades and sensible draft picks. Another good thing about relying on caretakers is that we know they'll probably stick around. Getting LittleBilly as the new owner of Shit-Team #3 probably means LittleBilly doesn't yet realize how bad the team is, and he'll be MIA after a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Aug 8, 2010 11:30:49 GMT -5
Which I think brings up another side issue that I don't believe the trade review committee really takes into account: A "star" player on a team with only 1 star player isn't really very valuable to that team. OAK will finish last again this year and the only thing they'll have gotten for the privilege of keeping Rice these last few seasons is 24M less in their dismally low cash total. I agree with you to a point, that is why I suggest that these trades be put on hold, rather than cancelled. Just because a player is not as valuable to the team he currently plays for, does not mean he doesn't have more value in a trade than is currently being offered. A lot of these "bad" deals happen when an owner doesn't feel the market out before accepting the first offer that comes around. We are walking a fine line because it can be perceived that since Rice is on the A's he isn't a problem for me, where if he was traded to a contender, he is. If we had the DH in the NL i wouldnt have to trade Brock, or I might have a great deal of interest in a player like Rice. I have the cash, he has the ability, I just don't want to displace a player thats cheaper that may be as productive in LF for a longer period of time. I am all for DH in the NL.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Aug 8, 2010 11:56:06 GMT -5
In fact, I might go as far as to say, that maybe before a complaint can be officially filed it must be accompanied with a "better" offer. AKA put up or shut up
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 8, 2010 12:30:19 GMT -5
In fact, I might go as far as to say, that maybe before a complaint can be officially filed it must be accompanied with a "better" offer. AKA put up or shut up How about taking both your ideas one step further. If a trade is challenged, and the committee upholds the challenge, then have other owners make offers right on the message board. If there are no better offers, either the original trade can go through or the owner can be allowed to free release the player. His choice. I'd expect to get something decent for Jim Rice, especially back in 1982, and I agree that he would be valuable on some other teams, but in the end OAK still played like hell and still paid a lot of money that they really could use right now.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Aug 8, 2010 12:41:24 GMT -5
In fact, I might go as far as to say, that maybe before a complaint can be officially filed it must be accompanied with a "better" offer. AKA put up or shut up How about taking both your ideas one step further. If a trade is challenged, and the committee upholds the challenge, then have other owners make offers right on the message board. If there are no better offers, either the original trade can go through or the owner can be allowed to free release the player. His choice. I'd expect to get something decent for Jim Rice, especially back in 1982, and I agree that he would be valuable on some other teams, but in the end OAK still played like hell and still paid a lot of money that they really could use right now. I really like the Idea of posting a better offer on the boards for everyone to see if a trade gets vetoed.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Aug 8, 2010 12:52:23 GMT -5
But I can see this "public" offering after a veto turning into a situation where a GM has to sift through a list to find the "best of the lowball offers"
once other GM's see what a guy is willing to accept for a player (and in this case it almost becomes an announcement of desperation) are they going to climb the ladder that high to make a better offer?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Aug 8, 2010 12:53:55 GMT -5
How about taking both your ideas one step further. If a trade is challenged, and the committee upholds the challenge, then have other owners make offers right on the message board. If there are no better offers, either the original trade can go through or the owner can be allowed to free release the player. His choice. I'd expect to get something decent for Jim Rice, especially back in 1982, and I agree that he would be valuable on some other teams, but in the end OAK still played like hell and still paid a lot of money that they really could use right now. I really like the Idea of posting a better offer on the boards for everyone to see if a trade gets vetoed. Ditto. I am one of the owners on the committee and I really thought better offers for Rice would have poured in...they obviously did not. Ultimately if the trade committee over estimates a players value than the trade should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Aug 8, 2010 13:16:17 GMT -5
But I can see this "public" offering after a veto turning into a situation where a GM has to sift through a list to find the "best of the lowball offers" once other GM's see what a guy is willing to accept for a player (and in this case it almost becomes an announcement of desperation) are they going to climb the ladder that high to make a better offer? They will climb that ladder if they see a division rival is about to land an impact player.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 8, 2010 15:39:09 GMT -5
I put in Great offers for Rice. I might lowball some trades, but when i WANT a player 100% and he fills a need ill offer a lot. I offered whitt, hoyt, all draft picks (i believe 2 2nd rounders) a couple marginal prospects like andre david, and another stud young pitching i forget. This was about 5 years. Zeke was never going to trade rice. I also offered any 10 minor leagues and all draft picks for eckersley a couple years back... I have no clue why zeke made that trade for rice when i know i offered more, and i know other owners did too. (im 99%
the one problem with posting a better offer on the board is we all different rankings on prospects. The veto process i think is a good one. When i was new to this league i traded rennie stennett and dan graham for jerry grote a 88/88 30 something catcher making a decent amount of cash. I wish that trade was veteod...
|
|