Something a Bit Puzzling

Twins · Post by **Twins** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:14 pm

I have tried my best to stay out of the petty bickering that goes on in this league. I just try to manage my team and enjoy baseball. But...when something gets in the way of me doing that, I have to bring it up. Maybe I'll get hashed to shreds for doing this (especially after the discussion that Nate has going about prospects), and maybe this post will get deleted before anyone has a chance to read this. Either way, at least I'm getting it off my chest.

This trade was recently rejected by the TRC:

Astros get:

Alex Rios

Orioles get:

Mike Moustakas
Desmond Jennings

Normally I would just appeal the decision and bide my time. But, I take issue with this:

I am in the same division as the team that is universally viewed as the league powerhouse. I have no hope of contending this season. I have no real expectation of contending next season. As such, I have announced to the league that I am building for 2010. This trade would seem to be consistent with that philosophy. It addresses two areas of need, especially for 2010: Mike Moustakas would easily replace Jason Bartlett (who will be 30) at SS. And for those who don't think he'll stick at SS, I'm willing to bet that I can use him at 3B and move Kouzmanoff (either to 1B, DH, or in a trade). Desmond Jennings would fill a hole in CF for me. As for this season, it allows me to move Jason Botts into LF, Andre Ethier into LF, and Gathright into CF, with Lastings Milledge at DH. It seems to me that I'm trading from depth to improve (future) needs.

I realize that Rios is an electrifying talent, but I've put him on the trade block a few times since I acquired him with very little interest besides the few teams that I normally talk to online. It may not be the absolute apex of what I could have gotten for him, but I wonder how many trade packages are the absolute apex of the traded value. I think this package is more than reasonable, and I was quite pleased that I was able to receive it.

On another note, Rios barely put up a .350 OBP last season. He will be 29 in 2010, which would put him at his prime, or starting his decline. He is not guaranteed to get any better than what he is right now (see also Wells, Vernon).

What this jumbled mess of a rambling post is trying to get at is I feel this trade rejection is essentially telling me is that I don't know how to best manage my own roster.

If this is the case, than I need to be kicked out of the league, plain and simple. If I have somehow shown a pattern of behavior that indicates I don't know what I'm doing with my own team, than what's the point of letting me proceed?

I believe that my work in this league, and in the other leagues that I'm in (for those of you who are in those leagues with me) stands for itself. And if not, if I really am a raging idiot, then by all means, put me out of my misery and kick me out.

Thanks for your time.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:19 pm

JP and myself were talking about this and I know I am new also but you are a little newer and maybe were unsure of the rulings but both the players you acquired have never played above AA ball and while the trade in VALUE might be fair. I know trades like this are usually never passed.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:20 pm

13. As trading commodities, players with little or no experience at AA or higher will be viewed with lower value when traded for players at AA or higher owing to the high attrition rate as prospects move from the low minors to the high minors. (per leaguewide vote, 12/05, in exchange for looser trade standards involving established players)

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:18 am

Indeed. The rule exists as a response to overzealous prospect hounds.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:55 am

What's the difference between this trade and some of the trades that were passed for draft picks.

DevilRays trade 
Frank Catalanotto, , , , , , , to RedSox for 
2007 Draft, Pick 54, , , , , , ,

Yankees trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 147, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Neal Cotts, , , , , , ,

Angels trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 123, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Brandon Medders, , , , , , ,

Nationals trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 78, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Nate Robertson, , , , , , ,

Tigers trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 59, 2007 Draft, Pick 70, , , , , , to RedSox for 
Curt Schilling, , , , , , ,

DevilRays trade 
Sergio 5-Romo, Peter Moylan, Reggie Willits, , , , , to Rockies for 
2007 Draft, Pick 20, 2007 Draft, Pick 140, , , , , ,

My point of posting the first few trades that include ONLY draft picks on one side is to show that the AA rule doesn't make any sense....or at least isn't consistent. ALL of the above trades included guys that have not played a single pro game, let alone anything AA or above. Where is the difference here?? If I understand this correct, I could have traded my draft picks, yet as soon as I used the pick, then that particular player can no longer be a centerpiece in a trade due to the AA rule??

I try to be tough, yet honest and straightforward in my trade negotiations. I really feel that this deal is fair, and helps both teams accomplish their goals. I've only collected all the prospects in order to spin them at some point to slowly fill needs. I'm really not sure what to do with my team at this point if Moustakas and Jennings are just dead weight. I'm attempting to be ready to compete in 2009.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:42 am

Well for one, i can tell you that Catalanotto sucks. I overpaid.

There is no difference, in all those cases, the fact that the players had no experience was considered. These weren't superstars being dealt, with the possible exception of Schilling who was/is over the hill and facing injury issues.
it's not impossible to deal lower prospects for big leaguers, you just have to pay more.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:46 am

Astros wrote:What's the difference between this trade and some of the trades that were passed for draft picks.

DevilRays trade 
Frank Catalanotto, , , , , , , to RedSox for 
2007 Draft, Pick 54, , , , , , ,

Yankees trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 147, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Neal Cotts, , , , , , ,

Angels trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 123, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Brandon Medders, , , , , , ,

Nationals trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 78, , , , , , , to Rockies for 
Nate Robertson, , , , , , ,

Tigers trade 
2007 Draft, Pick 59, 2007 Draft, Pick 70, , , , , , to RedSox for 
Curt Schilling, , , , , , ,

DevilRays trade 
Sergio 5-Romo, Peter Moylan, Reggie Willits, , , , , to Rockies for 
2007 Draft, Pick 20, 2007 Draft, Pick 140, , , , , ,

My point of posting the first few trades that include ONLY draft picks on one side is to show that the AA rule doesn't make any sense....or at least isn't consistent. ALL of the above trades included guys that have not played a single pro game, let alone anything AA or above. Where is the difference here?? If I understand this correct, I could have traded my draft picks, yet as soon as I used the pick, then that particular player can no longer be a centerpiece in a trade due to the AA rule??

I try to be tough, yet honest and straightforward in my trade negotiations. I really feel that this deal is fair, and helps both teams accomplish their goals. I've only collected all the prospects in order to spin them at some point to slowly fill needs. I'm really not sure what to do with my team at this point if Moustakas and Jennings are just dead weight. I'm attempting to be ready to compete in 2009.

I do have to agree with Houston here. This is a double standard. If this trade were Jennings + the #3 pick in the draft I think it passes.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:47 am

We are not talking about value here for Catalanotto. Most GM's that I talked to agree that the overall value in the Rios deal was pretty even. I agree that, in my opinion, the #54 pick is more valueable than Catalanotto. But our trade was rejected due to the AA rule....and I'm just not sure I see where the difference lies.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:02 pm

JP, the #3 pick in the draft is potentially a Hiroki Kuroda or Kosuke Fukudomi, that's a horrible example.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:03 pm

RedSox wrote:JP, the #3 pick in the draft is potentially a Hiroki Kuroda or Kosuke Fukudomi, that's a horrible example.

that's even worse. you don't even know what you're getting. And if you take Kuroda over anybody else there available at #3 you're smoking rocks.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:10 pm

Pirates wrote:that's even worse. you don't even know what you're getting.

Precisely my objection to allowing pick trading in the first place. I'm all for restricting that again.
The point is, it's an MLB productive talent rather than a sub-AA player with a 50% chance of reaching the bigs at best.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:12 pm

RedSox wrote:
Pirates wrote:that's even worse. you don't even know what you're getting.
Precisely my objection to allowing pick trading in the first place. I'm all for restricting that again.

But if you are going to argue that's a reason for a deal in my example to pass, that's ridiculous. By trading the pick itself that gives the owner COMPLETE discretion over who to take - young or old- Moustakas or Fukudome, Porcello or Kuroda. That's letting the owner dictate the TRC and letting the owner control the deal completely, which I am OK with as the TRC has been too as evidenced by some of the deals.

However, it is a double standard for that to be allowed and this to be rejected. As I said, if it's Jennings and the #3 for Rios, it passes, which is what makes this laughable.

Something has to give in this situation on a whole. Either picks can't be dealt or need to be held in a higher regard, or the AA rule needs to be done away with, or both. We can't have it both ways.

RedSox · Post by **RedSox** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:38 pm

RedSox wrote:Well for one, i can tell you that Catalanotto sucks. I overpaid.

Yes you did, but I'd like to thank you for nutting up and honoring your bid. If I remeber correctly the O's had the second high bid: 70th pick maybe?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:40 pm

As much as it pains me I have to agree with Bren on this one.

JP, I totally get what you are saying, and don't necessarily disagree - but there is a definite potential value in a high draft pick that is just does not exist in a below AA product. This year with the #3 pick in our draft you could have picked about a dozen guys who are going to open the season in the SIM or on a team's roster.

Also, if I'm not mistaken Frank Catalanotto, Neal Cotts, Brandon Medders, Nate Robertson, Curt Schilling, Sergio 5-Romo, and Peter Moylan are all almost totally inconsequential players. Reggie Willits is the only guy of some value - and it's not like he could hold Rios' jockstrap. We're really digging if we're trying to say the above is the reason the AA rule doesn't work - and if I'm not mistaken those draft picks ALL would have had potential MLB guys available.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:44 pm

Royals wrote:As much as it pains me I have to agree with Bren on this one.

JP, I totally get what you are saying, and don't necessarily disagree - but there is a definite potential value in a high draft pick that is just does not exist in a below AA product. This year with the #3 pick in our draft you could have picked about a dozen guys who are going to open the season in the SIM or on a team's roster.

Also, if I'm not mistaken Frank Catalanotto, Neal Cotts, Brandon Medders, Nate Robertson, Curt Schilling, Sergio 5-Romo, and Peter Moylan are all almost totally inconsequential players. Reggie Willits is the only guy of some value - and it's not like he could hold Rios' jockstrap. We're really digging if we're trying to say the above is the reason the AA rule doesn't work - and if I'm not mistaken those draft picks ALL would have had potential MLB guys available.

Who cares if they are in the sim though? Anybody drafted from 2007 not out of Japan that is in the sim is completely inconsequential and won't be used. The team trading for said pick would be in rebuilding mode anyway and wouldn't care.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:24 pm

Right - that's not your decision. That's the decision of the guy who is moving a crappy player for perhaps another crappy player. Just like if I traded Mike Lamb for Frank Catalanotto - who gives a shit?

Listen, I think the above deal was a good deal. If people want to abolish the AA rule I'm all for abolishing - but if the rule is in place you can not say that a player who is below AA and not in the SIM is going to be in the SIM. It's actually impossible. The above deals provides the possible - so they are different.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:35 pm

I've raised this issues on more than one occassion, of how there's a double standard with draft pick trading vs. prospects....but it never seemed to be a big issue in the past...and actually works to my advantage since I like to trade picks.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:21 pm

Just for what it's worth, the biggest prospect hounds in this league seem to be doing alright for themselves and their rosters. It's too bad that they are so offensive to some of your sensibilities.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:37 pm

It's not about being offensive to anyone's sensibilities, it's about how solid proven major league veterans were fast becoming completely worthless, note Nate's attempts to trade Jim Thome before the Indians deal, or even go back to Carl Pavano who had an ace projection but couldn't net more than a Low A prospect (sorry, I just love bringing that deal up). We all know the value of young players, if my division were stronger I'd be a prospect hound too.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:50 pm

Athletics wrote:It's not about being offensive to anyone's sensibilities, it's about how solid proven major league veterans were fast becoming completely worthless, note Nate's attempts to trade Jim Thome before the Indians deal, or even go back to Carl Pavano who had an ace projection but couldn't net more than a Low A prospect (sorry, I just love bringing that deal up). We all know the value of young players, if my division were stronger I'd be a prospect hound too.

It is about those people you're referencing being frustrated at seeing their players' values drop and wanting to artificially manipulate the market by forcing their values on everyone else, you're right.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:53 pm

I see it as the opposite, its more like a bubble was forming that was way inflating the value of prospects (a la real estate, dot com, tulips, etc.) and the rule was put in to bring the market back to reality.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:57 pm

That's not the opposite, it's an explanation for attempting to control the market. And the problem with the real estate comparison is that the consequences in this "bubble" aren't a net negative for the league. They're just a shiting around of talent in a manner that some might not like.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:47 pm

Seems to be a double standard to me too. Get rid of the AA rule. Its silly. And from above, it appears theres a loop hole with draft pick trading.

Also, the above examples just go to show you that trading of draft picks is foolish. In most all of those cases, and as it appears on the surface, teams could have gotten much more value out of using their picks instead of trading them off.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:01 pm

I disagree, here is what I see happening to the league. When I first got here most of the races were over before the season started. A third of the league wasn't even trying to compete, they were just filling their rosters with prospects hoping to fill a team with superstars like JB (so yes I think this is all JB's fault, like most things wrong with the league

). Now there is a race in every division, and while some of that stems from the natural growth of prospects and the generally higher caliber of GM that we have now as compared to 2005, I think that much of it also has to do with the rule. All GMs are at least aware of prospects now, so the top prospects are all signed. You can't just dump MLBers for youngsters now, and since everyone has a few prospects it forces more major league deals, and greatly enhances league parity.