IBC

As with most deals I believe I voted on this deal within 24 hours of it being submitted.

Royals wrote:As much as I participate in this league, you will notice my solid absence from any sort of position with any sort of power - that is because I don't want it, and I don't want to have to pay attention to it ...

Do all you people want to know my honest thoughts here? No? Well you're gonna get them. I traded two pretty decent starting pitching prospects for a professional middle reliever. He is not the Mets setup guy - he is a situational right-hander. If he was ever going to be a starter, it was going to be this year - and they chose to not have him make a go at the rotation. Is Heilman a good pitcher? Absolutely. Would this trade have helped me this year? Absolutely. But I'm worried about the intensity of the league's trade restrictions if we can't move middle relievers and/or bench players for minor league prospects. That's my simple stance on it. Once I receive official word from the league that my deal has been rejected, I will contemplate an appeal - but at this point am thinking that it's just not worth the bullshit.

Z- and others -

First ... volunteering to be on the TRC is not a position of power. I do it because I have the time and because I believe I can do the work in a non-personal manner. I judge trades solely based on the players involved and attempt to be consistent within the "rules" that are in place at the time the deal is made. I have been and will continue to try to make the TRC process both "transparent" and "timely" in its application as long as I am on it. I enjoy doing the research so I would be dishonest if I said I didn't get anything out of being on the TRC -- but I derive no power from this or processing waivers.

Second, I PERSONALLY agree with Z on two points:

(1) The review and response period on his trade has been unduly untimely. Don't know why but I am sorry that it has been none the less. I believe it has probably been vetoed primarily due to the "discounting sub-AA" edict - but I am not positive about that.

(2) The league's trading restrictions as it is related to the "discounting sub-AA players" edict may be too intense. The current poll results appear to be upholding this edict. While it certainly will not be by the 2/3 vote that apparently took place before I joined the IBC, it does appear that it a sufficient number of GMs believe in the "discounting sub-AA" edict to uphold the veto of the trade being appealed and thus the edict will remain a guideline that I, as a TRC member, will follow.

we need to rethink the rule as a league. this could really eventually hurt the league and i dont want to see anyone quitting over it.

Astros trade<br>
Mark Grudzielanek, , , , , , , <br>to Phillies for<br>
Aaron Fultz, , , , , , ,

Phillies wrote:we need to rethink the rule as a league. this could really eventually hurt the league and i dont want to see anyone quitting over it.

I think people should just be smart enough to know that the rule is in place, keep it in mind when making trades, and not bitch if their trades are vetoed because they violate this rule. I think the bigger problem for the league is that 2/3 of the league seems to want to follow the Brett Perryman model, which would be fine except that there simply aren't enough top prospects to go around. This is artificially inflating the value of guys who have a 50/50 shot at being something as compared to guys who already are something because everyone wants to feel like they uncovered something or built their team from scratch or whatever (I freely admit to being guilty of this as far as Perfect Game Soria is concerned, he's the fucking man). This rule is intended to neutralize that tendency in the league, and until prospects stop being more valuable than established MLBers this rule is a necessary handcuff.

DevilRays trade<br>
Shin-Soo Choo, , , , , , , <br>to Marlins for<br>
Joe Beimel, John Jaso, , , , , ,

Phillies wrote:we need to rethink the rule as a league. this could really eventually hurt the league and i dont want to see anyone quitting over it.

The Rangers GM already did quit over it. Frankly, I didn't (and still don't) care. He quit because he didn't like a rule that was in place when he joined the league and was pointed out to him over and over and over again. Very nice guy, but good riddance, it clearly wasn't sinking into his head that the rule was there and was put in place because the trade values on those players have become absolutely ridiculous. The odds of them 'becoming something' aren't 50/50, try closer to 20/80. The odds of them reaching the potential that folks are hoping they'll reach is probably 5/95.

Also, i can't blame people for wanting to follow the so-called Perrryman model, most of the elite MLB talent is concentrated in a few teams, and it's probably going to stay that way because they have the chips to keep it that way.

That's a fair point, but when you practically have to give Curt Schilling away something is wrong.

Athletics wrote:That's a fair point, but when you practically have to give Curt Schilling away something is wrong.

Choose your words carefully Rev. Bren didn't "have" to give Schilling away, he chose to.

RedSox wrote:most of the elite MLB talent is concentrated in a few teams, and it's probably going to stay that way because they have the chips to keep it that way.

Yep.

Cardinals trade<br>
Victor Zambrano, , , , , , , <br>to Cubs for<br>
Mike Koplove, , , , , , ,

Astros trade<br>
Daric Barton, Chris 6-Perez, , , , , , <br>to Tigers for<br>
Collin 0-Balester, Chris 6-Marrero, , , , , ,

Athletics wrote:That's a fair point, but when you practically have to give Curt Schilling away something is wrong.

Did you not see the write up on Hawksowrth?

Shawn pointed out after the trade that many GM's may have been waiting for projections to come out (such as he was). I didn't wait, but that also entailed a certain amount of risk (more than i expected, I admit). If that trade had been after the projections came out, I wouldn't have done it, I'd have kept Hawk (4.42 projection) and Bourn rather than have 2 years of Schilling with a 4.66 projection.

DBacks trade<br>
Craig Hansen, Tom 6-Hickman, , , , , , <br>to RedSox for<br>
Brian Bruney, Chris 6-Tillman, , , , , ,

Jim - in no way was I insinuating you got your jolllies off of being on the TRC. But it is, in fact, a position of some power within the IBC.

Does it make you Bruce Almighty and ruling tyrant of the league? Absolutely not. But it takes up some time and comes with some power.

Royals wrote:Does it make you Bruce Almighty and ruling tyrant of the league? Absolutely not.

Damn right, that's my job.

Times like this, i really don't miss being on the TRC. You know why trades that shouldn't get approved, do? It's because 90% of the league members turn into cocksucking assholes when their trades get vetoed.

Jim don't take it personally, Z is just trying to make some drama on the board.

Twins trade<br>
Wilson Betemit, Homer Bailey, , , , , , <br>to Brewers for<br>
Josh Fields, Jered Weaver, , , , , ,

Brewers trade<br>
Brian Roberts, Brian Anderson, Salomon Torres, , , , , <br>to Marlins for<br>
Johnny Cueto, Josh Willingham, Marlon Anderson, , , , ,

Yankees trade<br>
Gary Burnham, Scott Olsen, , , , , , <br>to Mariners for<br>
Fausto Carmona, Donald Veal, Elijah Dukes, , , , ,

Phillies trade<br>
Humberto Sanchez, Chad Paronto, , , , , , <br>to Astros for<br>
Tom Gordon, , , , , , ,