Disdain.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:04 am

Something has got to give here.

Obviously, I'm pissed off about the draft picks and I think you're all wrong (ok well just Ropers and Bren really.) but that's not why I'm here to grace this enchanted board tonight.

the Trade review system (note system and not committee) sucks. balls.

A week and a half to two weeks ago I made a trade with JB, trading him Tom Gordon for Kevin Whelan and Blake DeWitt.

The TRC, thanks to the dumbass AA ball rule, vetoed this trade.

How does it look now that Gordon is self destructing? Looks like I got two pretty solid prospects for an aging closer who's about to lose his job to Brett Myers.....oh wait, I didn't get those prospects.

So JB & I filed an appeal, last Tuesday I believe it was. Nothing has happened since. No vote, no reasoning from the TRC as to why the trade was vetoed, so I couldn't counter any points on their logic behind it.

Now I'm NOT attacking the TRC members, but i will say this;

1: the AA rule sucks.
2: if you don't have the time to be on the TRC and process the appeals in a timely fashion, please step down and let somebody else do it. it's ok. everybody is busy and if you don't have the time, it's no big deal really. im not angry at any particular person or peoples, but just by the way the whole thing is handled nowadays.

JB now after watching Gordon struggle, no longer wishes to go through with the appeal, and I don't blame him. That's right, the deal that was vetoed because I was getting bent over, JB doesn't even want to veto because he doesn't want to do the trade anymore...yet I was bent over backwards, so the deal was vetoed. Do I blame JB for not going through with the appeal? Nope, I don't even want to either, because it'll be yet another week after the fact that i even know if I'll have Gordon, so I can't shop him elsewhere for that week. Will we even get all 30 GMs to vote? Dubious, and that's kind of crucial when you need 20 to overturn, and sorry Bren, abstaining does NOT equal supporting the TRC. That's why there is a "no" vote on the poll. It just means you're either lazy, or inactive, or both.

I hope one of the four on the TRC and/or Bren can give me a better offer for Tom Gordon than Kevin Whelan or Blake DeWitt, otherwise I am going to be one pissed off mofo for awhile- again.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:08 am

i think this is week 3 for my deal being on the polls. this is ridiculous, ive never been pissed about this league EVER, but damn. JP told me he traded Gordon after i asked about him and he told me what he got... first thing i said was i couldnt give that much anyway. Gordon is 40 ladies and gentlemen. I watch him every night he pitches and it pisses me off hes not the set up man, he doesnt have closer stuff anymore MAINLY cause he cant stay healthy. Morris doesnt K 190 anymore. He K's 120, which is something i could accomplish (bet your ass). He made a mistake on that rule, alot of people disagree... i dont get why we cant rethink it, we have changed almost every rule atleast once. itd be funny if JP quit again though.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:00 am

I am pretty damn sure that I never saw this trade in my role as a member of the TRC...unless I'm an adjunct who votes in certain circumstances...I'm not sure.

But anyhow, if I had seen this, I would have passed it. Why? Free marketing. The TRC exists, in my own opinion, to prevent rapages. Not to veto questionable deals. 29 out of 30 deals I see will pass. This would have, had I seen it.

Or maybe I did see it and don't remember...but the principle is the same.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:22 am

well said as usual.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:54 am

In any other league I am in the trade would have been approved. I had truly hoped that this would be the trade that would be appealed and that the GMs would vote to over-ride the veto, in effect, eroding the "sub AA discount" edict. The appeals process is handled by Bren ...

At the time the trade was vetoed I indicated to all involved I would not be writing the TRC "side" of the appeals discussion. Turns out, I likely would not have been able to get it in anyway as our phone and Internet coverage has continued to be iffy (on sometimes, off more often) since the storm with no name visited us last week. Terrible for my leagues that allow daily line-up changes as I missed out on some good pitching performances and I missed the Pale Hose no hitter ... but I digress ...

I have stated on numerous occasions that it is the absoluteness of this edict that make it suck so much. The absoluteness of this rule would prohibit the trading of Tim Lincecum for Wade Miller. I admit that is a ridiculous example --- but it is a ridiculous rule in its current application.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:37 am

Mets wrote:I have stated on numerous occasions that it is the absoluteness of this edict that make it suck so much. The absoluteness of this rule would prohibit the trading of Tim Lincecum for Wade Miller. I admit that is a ridiculous example --- but it is a ridiculous rule in its current application.

I thought that the rule was just meant as a guideline/suggestion to take into account...with a prospect like Lincecum or Snider it could almost be ignored...am I wrong?

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:36 pm

why not add 2 more TRC members and keeping it a majority (3 votes to pass/veto). that way one member typically won't hold up the voting, especially on trades that should pass easily. maybe have a veto require 4 votes.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:58 pm

Dodgers wrote:
Mets wrote:I have stated on numerous occasions that it is the absoluteness of this edict that make it suck so much. The absoluteness of this rule would prohibit the trading of Tim Lincecum for Wade Miller. I admit that is a ridiculous example --- but it is a ridiculous rule in its current application.
I thought that the rule was just meant as a guideline/suggestion to take into account...with a prospect like Lincecum or Snider it could almost be ignored...am I wrong?

Well, I think they are to have value, but I think for a major league player their value is HIGHLY discounted.

Lincecum is in AAA guys and dominating, get with it!

But Snider would still be an impact player in a deal, but not as much as you'd think as a result of the rule.

When two GMs that have been here since 02 cant pass a trade, something has to be done. This rule has GOT to go.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:00 pm

The rule makes sense in certain circumstances, as when a MLB Superstar is involved. The Carlos Zambrano vetoed trade were Conor Jackson was the only legit MLB player, with then Fernando Martinez as the headlining prospect, and then two lesser A ball prospects.

That's a case where the rule can work properly, but, common sense, not the rule, would dictate that the deal be vetoed.

You shouldnt have to have guidelines for the TRC to use their judgement; their judgement should be just that- free of any guidelines.