Philly/Anaheim Trade Appeal

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:36 pm

The following trade:
Philadelphia gets Matt Morris
Anaheim gets Preston Mattingly
was vetoed by the TRC and is being appealed.
20 votes are required to overturn the TRC's decision. The poll will run for 7 days.

No discussion/debate of the trade is permitted.

TRC Rationale:
As his stats over the last three years indicate, Matt Morris is nothing "special" anymore but he is a major league SP who will probably pitch a credible 200 innings:

Year Team W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO INN H R ER HR HBP BB SO
2004 STL 15 10 4.72 32 32 3 2 0 0 202.0 205 116 106 35 6 56 131
2005 STL 14 10 4.11 31 31 2 0 0 0 192.2 209 101 88 22 8 37 117
2006 SF 10 15 4.98 33 33 2 0 0 0 207.2 218 123 115 22 14 63

117

Specific to the IBC, he projects this year with a 4.65 ERA and a 124/55 K/BB and a 54 GB% in 204.2 IP. Has has a .264 BAA vs. LHB and a .273 BAA vs. RHB with a VG starter durability rating along with AV for range and only a FR for hold. Also of note, he is EX as a sacrifice bunter. Likely he is a solid 3/4 SP for the next couple of years with no significant injuries in his history.

Preston -6- Mattingly, SS, was somewhat surprisingly selected as the 31st overall pick in the 2006 draft. BA's Jim Callis explained the rationale behind the pick:

Los Angeles, which took Mattingly at No. 31, didn't choose again until No. 113 in the fourth round. So much like the Cubs (who didn't have choices between the first and fifth rounds) with Colvin, the Dodgers had to take Mattingly where they did to ensure they'd get him. That's just the nature of the baseball draft, which doesn't allow trades. There's a good chance the Yankees would have popped Mattingly at No. 41 had he been available.

Mattingly played only at the Rookie League level last year where he showed good contact skills but terrible plate discipline, resulting in a k:bb ratio of 4.5:1

Team League Level Pos AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS OBP SLG OPS SH SF IBB GIDP HBP
GCL Dodgers GCL R SS .290 47 186 22 54 12 3 1 29 9 39 12 3 .322 .403 .725 0 3 0 3 1

Mattingly has been assigned to the Great Lakes Loons in the Midwest League (Class A).
According to BA: "Mattingly is very raw. He needs to improve his pitch recognition, use the whole field and avoid chasing breaking balls. He lacks the actions and footwork to remain in the middle of the diamond, and he ultimately could wind up in left field. His throwing mechanics are poor and he has below-average arm strength."

Kevin Goldstein, formerly of BA and currently of baseball Prospectus, wrote: "Gap Between What He Is Now, And What He Can Be: High. Almost sheltered by his father, Mattingly gave scouts few opportunities to see him against upper-level competition, but he was one of the talks of the Dodgers recent instructional league. He'll require patience, but the Dodgers think he'll be worth it."

Were Preston's last name something other than Mattingly, he would not likely have been drafted where he was.

This deal is most comparable to the Millwood trade. Both SP are 32, had poor 2006 seasons and project with similar era's (4.50 for millwood, 4.66 for Morris), give up more than one hit/9, a fair amount of walks and not many K's. Though far more talent was offered up in the Millwood trade that was appealed (Anderson, benson and Barthmaier) with one of the GM's openly acknowledging the deal would and should be vetoed according to league rules.

------------------------------------------

GM Trade Defense
*Nick asked that I just assemble the emails from his discussion into the trade defense, here it is*
thats ridiculous i cant get a number4 starter with a 4.98 ERA last year for a 1st round draft pick.
we arent talking about millwood who is an opening day starter we are talking an innings eater.
i will make this short and sweet. i need a 4-5 starter to eat innings and dave needs to rebuild. Morris had a 4.98 ERA last year and hasnt been a top SP in years and wont be again. i dont think dave could get/ask for much more than a 1st round draft pick.
Honestly, I have no use for Morris in the direction my team is going.
If i can pick up a potential middle of the order bat for an aging
pitcher, thats a good deal for me.
I think that looking at my last couple of deals, you should be able to
figure out what im trying to do. Im trying to aquire talent with great
upside. Mattingly fits that bill. This deal, if the rule wasnt in
place. would have passed easily.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:14 am

come on fellas, only 22 voted?

Cubs · Post by **Cubs** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:31 am

I think more people would vote if the polls showed up in the recent post list. I had no idea this was on the message board until somebody sent an e-mail about it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:15 am

so what happens?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:37 pm

Nothing, there weren't 20 votes to overturn the trade and less than 2/3 (just barely but still) who did vote voted to overturn the appeal so there's no reason for the trade to pass. I agree with Pat that we need to stick these polls in the recent posts section so people know they are there.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:04 pm

Jake, not sure what you mean by Recent Posts? Do you mean the front page posts?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:21 pm

this is kinda silly. people who don't vote should have their seat in the league re-evaluated. there was a full week to vote yes or no on a simple 1 for 1 trade : mediocre SP for prospect.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:36 pm

Dodgers wrote:Jake, not sure what you mean by Recent Posts? Do you mean the front page posts?

I believe they mean on the "view posts since last visit" feature that pops up on the top right of th front page when you log in. Then you can just click on that and it takes you to a listing of the threads that have new posts in them since you last logged on.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:07 pm

It would be good if the appeal polls would appear right below the welcome on the opening page of the site.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:23 pm

Ropers knows what I meant. Ken's idea works too.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:12 pm

Mariners wrote:
Dodgers wrote:Jake, not sure what you mean by Recent Posts? Do you mean the front page posts?

I believe they mean on the "view posts since last visit" feature that pops up on the top right of th front page when you log in. Then you can just click on that and it takes you to a listing of the threads that have new posts in them since you last logged on.

I can execute Ken's post. These polls should have showed up in the "view posts since last visit" in fact I would almost be willing to bet at some point they did, I'm pretty sure that's how I found it.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:42 pm

Maybe I missed, it, but I sure didn't see it until Jim sent out the email.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:34 pm

it came up in recent posts for me,

plus when you look at the main forum page it's flagged in a gold flag so you know theres a new post in that forum as well.

there's no excuse for not voting.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:46 pm

It came up in recent posts, they all do.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:42 pm

It only comes up in recent posts if someone made a post, if no one posted but someone made a vote it doesn't come up. That's what I was trying to say. I think I missed it when it first went up (must have just been taking a quick glance at the forums) so I didn't even know it was there until I got the email saying go vote in the poll and looked for it. Point is, we should treat these like roll call votes and advertise the hell out of the fact that they are there.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:52 pm

So do we only have 22 active GM's now?

I would send a roll call mandatory vote for the 8 that haven't voted. If they don't vote be Wednesday, boot them, or put them on probation.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:23 pm

No one is required to vote on these. A non-vote is essentially an endorsement of the TRC's decision. The only votes that really matter, are the ones voting to approve the trade in this case.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:48 am

Hate agreeing with Colorado but he's right.

Nice to see the Commish encouraging apathetic behavior.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:23 am

I'd be more apathetic if I wasn't so lethargic.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:15 am

Athletics wrote:It only comes up in recent posts if someone made a post, if no one posted but someone made a vote it doesn't come up. That's what I was trying to say. I think I missed it when it first went up (must have just been taking a quick glance at the forums) so I didn't even know it was there until I got the email saying go vote in the poll and looked for it. Point is, we should treat these like roll call votes and advertise the hell out of the fact that they are there.

The creation of the poll alone is a post that will show up. The ruling was made not to allow replies to these appeals discussing them, so it is highly likely they will only show up once.

Philly/Anaheim Trade Appeal

Matt Morris for Preston 6-Mattingly

Philly/Anaheim Trade Appeal