Trade

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:09 pm

Reds trade<br>
Edwar 0-Ramirez, Mike Mussina, Jim Thome, Patrick Misch, , , , <br>to Indians for<br>
Jeffrey Clement, Matthew Maloney, Alfonso Soriano, Matt Belisle, , , ,

I dont want to make it seem like im complaining because the reds are in my division but I do believe this trade should be looked at once again. I cant speak for everybody but I know I wouldn't trade Clement for any of those guys let alone clement and soriano...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:17 pm

I can't say I disagree on the front of either case here. I don't want to be looking like I'm whining, but it's trades like this which have given many such a top heavy roster, then people will complain of competitive balance again in October or November, repeat cycle. It passed, so the TRC must have thought it was good enough to go through, but I would like to use this as a prime example of how the rich stay rich. Not saying Nate is a poor GM and hasn't built his team otherwise successfully, but this gives him that added edge to stay on top without needing to sacrifice (getting a younger slugger with more all around game and a back over Thome and getting one of the top catching prospects in the game). Nate's built his team well through various outlets and I've no qualms with that, but when people see the same teams winning and the same teams losing, I would just like to point out trades like these which keep things the way they are.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:51 pm

I also think this trade should be reviewed again, and frankly I'm surprised it was passed in the first place. The Reds are getting the best 2 commodities in the deal in Soriano and Clement, and it's not like the disparity is being overcome for Cleveland by volume. Thome's 37, strictly a DH at this point, and is pretty much guaranteed to miss substantial time due to injury (as he has each of the last 4 seasons). Soriano is 32, fields his position, and put up a 40/40 season in 2006. Those two aren't close. Clement is one of the best C prospects in the game, and a top 50 prospect by most accounts (BA #42 overall, BP #33 overall). Mussina is 39 and posted a 5.15 ERA last year (so he's basically done - though he could be the Yanks 5th SP this year just because they're paying him too much to put him in the pen). Matt Maloney, who Cincinnati also receives in the deal, might end up winning one of the Reds rotation jobs and is a nice prospect who should sim better than Mussina this season. Even ignoring the fact that Soriano is much more valuable than Thome and taking those two out, it would still be a vetoable deal, imo. And I'm not one who calls for a lot of vetos.

Indians goofed here, and should be given a mulligan (even if he doesn't want it) b/c lopsided exchanges like this one are part of the reason why we have the same handful of stacked superteams each season (for the most part). I know little about Nate's trading history, so - as JP said - I don't mean to imply that he hasn't done a great job building a contender through other means - but trades like this particular trade are why there is a veto system in place. No brainer, imo.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:42 pm

I'm with these guys. I don't see how this deal passes when the best players the Indians are getting are 2 over the hill guys for Soriano and one of the top prospects in the game. We put the TRC in place to stop rape jobs like this

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:53 pm

Listen - I don't think this is a great deal for the Indians, but if you are looking at this trade for next year I'm not really sure you can argue that Thome isn't the best player in this deal. Indians are paying a price to compete next year - and if he wants to do that, then he should be able to. Will this deal hurt him in the long run? Probably, but it appears he's stepping up to the plate for the present...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:54 pm

Royals wrote:Listen - I don't think this is a great deal for the Indians, but if you are looking at this trade for next year I'm not really sure you can argue that Thome isn't the best player in this deal. Indians are paying a price to compete next year - and if he wants to do that, then he should be able to. Will this deal hurt him in the long run? Probably, but it appears he's stepping up to the plate for the present...

How is Mike Mussina stepping up to the plate?

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:54 pm

Soriano is by far the best player in this deal.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:55 pm

He's the pitcher that'll probably have the most positive IBC impact in this deal - maybe Indians felt they needed another arm - on three year splits, Moose won't be tremendous, but he should be quite good.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:59 pm

Soriano is by far the best player in this deal.

Well that's just stupid:

Thome: 1.014 ops in 2006, .973 ops 2007, .974 ops career

Soriano: .911 ops in 2006, .897 ops in 2007, .844 ops career

It's not that close here, really...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:00 pm

Royals wrote:He's the pitcher that'll probably have the most positive IBC impact in this deal - maybe Indians felt they needed another arm - on three year splits, Moose won't be tremendous, but he should be quite good.

Completely disagree. Mussina will not be quite good in the sim this year. If by quite good you mean "below average" I agree wholeheartedly. DMB looks at trends, they don't count 2005 equally as 2007.

Regardless, this shouldn't be a deal Cleveland felt he had to take. He didn't even test the market for Soriano or Clement for crying out loud...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:01 pm

Royals wrote:
Soriano is by far the best player in this deal.
Well that's just stupid:

Thome: 1.014 ops in 2006, .973 ops 2007, .974 ops career

Soriano: .911 ops in 2006, .897 ops in 2007, .844 ops career

It's not that close here, really...

What about on the basepaths? What does Thome offer there?

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:02 pm

oh ok but not the fact that soriano hit for higher average last year, more sbs, 2 less homers, more runs....hes 6 years younger, oh and dont forget that THOME IS A DH...the indians already have giambi and frank thomas...how many DHs do they need?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:11 pm

I'll contest this as well, would like to see the league vote. Z, I think your Yankee blinders are getting you here. Jake brings up a great point about the DHs, but ultimately the league vote is going to come down to whether the league feels like the TRC should be playing GM for a team when they vote on trades.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:21 pm

Dodgers wrote:I'll contest this as well, would like to see the league vote. Z, I think your Yankee blinders are getting you here. Jake brings up a great point about the DHs, but ultimately the league vote is going to come down to whether the league feels like the TRC should be playing GM for a team when they vote on trades.

I disagree with that last sentence, but that's another subject. If the sentiment of the league is that the TRC should NOT do that, then why even have a TRC to begin with?

edit: You can count mine as an official protest so that's five. This will go to a league wide vote where 2/3rds of the league is necessary to veto the deal.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:36 pm

All I'm saying is that Mussina is the most usable pitcher in this deal - which is a pretty easy statement to make. I don't think Mussina should start for the real Yanks next year, I have no blinders on him at this point. I"ll think they'll give him a SIM in the mid 4's, which is pretty usable when you consider every good pitcher is either on the Padres, Yanks, or Cardinals in this league.

Listen - everyone take a deep breath. I would have never made this trade if I were the Indians. They get older players who will almost be totally unusable after this year. But the facts are that Thome is going to be the best hitter in this deal for next year, and Mussina is probably going to be the best pitcher. So if the Indians are going for it, who are we to play GM for them? Honestly, they are going to have a hell of a time competing with me, Brett, and Andrew who would appear to have much better teams - but it's his team and the league has no right to tell him how to GM for next year.

It's a bad deal, but it's not a "Holy shit, stop the presses" deal. Sucks that Nate gets significantly better, but it also sucks to put a stranglehold on a new GM who's just trying to compete for next year.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:44 pm

I popped by to register my objection as well, but looks like it's unnecessary. Awful deal. Mussina stinks and suggesting Thome is better than Soriano is just plain silly.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:56 pm

Royals wrote:
Soriano is by far the best player in this deal.
Well that's just stupid:

Thome: 1.014 ops in 2006, .973 ops 2007, .974 ops career

Soriano: .911 ops in 2006, .897 ops in 2007, .844 ops career

It's not that close here, really...

All things being equal, Thome's the more impactful hitter at his best than Soriano. All things are not equal though.

Thome is a 37 y/o DH ONLY w/ a substantial injury history who hasplayed in 59, 143 and 130 games the last 3 seasons. He played 1 game at 1B last year, 3 in 06 and 52 in 05. He isn't likely to be rated at 1B.

Soriano is a 32 y/o old OF without a history of significant injuries who played 156, 159 and 135 the last 3 seasons.

Soriano's ability to play in the field, and the fact that he's on the extreme opposite end of the speed spectrum from Thome in terms of baserunning, are probably enough to make him at least a comparable hitter this season before you consider the 5-year age difference and the fact that odds are Soriano will be available for 20 or so more games than Thome. So even if you're unreasonably optimistic about Thome playing anywhere close to a full season in 2008 (something he hasn't done the previous 5 years) it's impossible to argue that he's so much better than Soriano as to merit anything close to the rest of this deal (like a top 50 prospect who might have nearly as much value himself as Thome in trade in a prospect-crazy league like this).

The fact that this looks like a passable deal if you take out Soriano entirely, imo, means that it probably shouldn't have passed.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:12 pm

Knowing DMB, Clement & Soriano will SIM better than anyone else involed...

That being said, I've made deals like this in the past (Indians side), and won a championship, so in retrospect, it's all about the ring.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:27 pm

How did I know the most vocal detractors would be within my own division.

The fact that JP, Aaron, and even Jake Levine are the one's complaining about "parity" is a joke. Aaron, a former WS winner. JP, a close one who's been to the playoffs more than myself. And Levine, who's set himself up to be a helluva team for 2009 and beyond. Your basis for complaining about this based on parity is seriously a farse.

Thome is the best player in this deal, even if he IS a DH. Well guess the fuck what.. DH's are used in the AL.. a league in which the Indians do in fact reside. Why this is used as a knock on Thome's value is beyond me, especially when he's going to a team that he'll be used in said role.

Mussina may "suck" in your opinion, but the fact remains DMB uses 3 year splits, he had a helluva 2006, and was rather "unlucky" in 2007. Look at FIP and xFIP metrics. It indicates he should have been a full run lower than his 2007 ERA. Further, his BABIP was .352.. further evidence that he was unluckly. Let's also forget the fact that Mussina IMMEDIETLY becomes the Indians best starting pitcher. I would bank that he is more than likely to get near a 4 and a quarter projection - which doesn't equal suck. In fact, its quite useful. Especially for a team who lacks a good starter that has a good chance to get a projection south of 5.

Edwar was a guy the Indians wanted, had DOMINANT minor league stats, also extremely hit unlucky, and has a chance to be a huge cog in ANYONE's bullpen. Lets not forget I traded a potential "ace" prospect to get him.

Lets also not forget Clement is blocked in Seattle, and may move off C - a gamble I'm willing to take - which would decrease his value as a prospect exponentially. His defense isn't out of this world either, a reason he may move off the catcher spot.

The TRC took its time talking about this one I'm sure, as it took several days to get through. You may not like it, but shit - there are plenty of deals that look worse than this that have gotten through IMO.

I don't want to sound defensive, I just really feel the basis for complaint based on "the rich keep getting richer" is horseshit - especially from the one's coming from that angle. You may not like the players, but you don't have to. Kelly does, and he got what he wanted, without having to sacrafice a key component of his rotation - another basis for him doing the deal.

He gets FOUR, count them.. FOUR MLB READY ballplayers.. to my 2, one of which had an ERA north of Mussina's himself. and 2 of the pitchers coming my way play in the hitters park known as GAB. An automatic ding for pitchers and an automatic increase in value for hitters according to some(cough.. Levine.. cough) - was that taken into consideration Jake? I sincerely doubt it.

I dunno.. I'll try to limit my comments to this post only..
In any case, I knew there would be some who didn't like the deal. BUT I ALSO KNEW, IMMEDIETLY, that the one's complaining, would be from my division(And I'm not the only one who had this inpecible forsight). You don't have to personally like the players - that doesn't mean a deal is "unfair". Age wise, I did get younger - something I was trying to accomplish. But, youth isn't everything in this league guys. I know a ton of you value your prospects.. I do to. But, last I checked - a team full of prospects has yet to win a WS in this league. Just because you have a different perceived value of players, doesn't mean your perspective is right compared to Kellys or mine.

Put it to a vote, whatever, I don't care. I'll rework the deal if I have to - I've been through the same routine before - and guess what - the same people bitching then are the same one's who are most vocal now - aside from the brewers. That time it was "matt cain" ain't worth shit. Guess who's on my tip for Cain now. But I digress.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:33 am

Reds wrote:How did I know the most vocal detractors would be within my own division.

The fact that JP, Aaron, and even Jake Levine are the one's complaining about "parity" is a joke. Aaron, a former WS winner. JP, a close one who's been to the playoffs more than myself. And Levine, who's set himself up to be a helluva team for 2009 and beyond. Your basis for complaining about this based on parity is seriously a farse.

Thome is the best player in this deal, even if he IS a DH. Well guess the fuck what.. DH's are used in the AL.. a league in which the Indians do in fact reside. Why this is used as a knock on Thome's value is beyond me, especially when he's going to a team that he'll be used in said role.

Mussina may "suck" in your opinion, but the fact remains DMB uses 3 year splits, he had a helluva 2006, and was rather "unlucky" in 2007. Look at FIP and xFIP metrics. It indicates he should have been a full run lower than his 2007 ERA. Further, his BABIP was .352.. further evidence that he was unluckly. Let's also forget the fact that Mussina IMMEDIETLY becomes the Indians best starting pitcher. I would bank that he is more than likely to get near a 4 and a quarter projection - which doesn't equal suck. In fact, its quite useful. Especially for a team who lacks a good starter that has a good chance to get a projection south of 5.

Edwar was a guy the Indians wanted, had DOMINANT minor league stats, also extremely hit unlucky, and has a chance to be a huge cog in ANYONE's bullpen. Lets not forget I traded a potential "ace" prospect to get him.

Lets also not forget Clement is blocked in Seattle, and may move off C - a gamble I'm willing to take - which would decrease his value as a prospect exponentially. His defense isn't out of this world either, a reason he may move off the catcher spot.

The TRC took its time talking about this one I'm sure, as it took several days to get through. You may not like it, but shit - there are plenty of deals that look worse than this that have gotten through IMO.

I don't want to sound defensive, I just really feel the basis for complaint based on "the rich keep getting richer" is horseshit - especially from the one's coming from that angle. You may not like the players, but you don't have to. Kelly does, and he got what he wanted, without having to sacrafice a key component of his rotation - another basis for him doing the deal.

He gets FOUR, count them.. FOUR MLB READY ballplayers.. to my 2, one of which had an ERA north of Mussina's himself. and 2 of the pitchers coming my way play in the hitters park known as GAB. An automatic ding for pitchers and an automatic increase in value for hitters according to some(cough.. Levine.. cough) - was that taken into consideration Jake? I sincerely doubt it.

I dunno.. I'll try to limit my comments to this post only..
In any case, I knew there would be some who didn't like the deal. BUT I ALSO KNEW, IMMEDIETLY, that the one's complaining, would be from my division(And I'm not the only one who had this inpecible forsight). You don't have to personally like the players - that doesn't mean a deal is "unfair". Age wise, I did get younger - something I was trying to accomplish. But, youth isn't everything in this league guys. I know a ton of you value your prospects.. I do to. But, last I checked - a team full of prospects has yet to win a WS in this league. Just because you have a different perceived value of players, doesn't mean your perspective is right compared to Kellys or mine.

Put it to a vote, whatever, I don't care. I'll rework the deal if I have to - I've been through the same routine before - and guess what - the same people bitching then are the same one's who are most vocal now - aside from the brewers. That time it was "matt cain" ain't worth shit. Guess who's on my tip for Cain now. But I digress.

Being concerned for the league being top heavy is a joke? Are you kidding me? How many games did I win last year? When was the last time I went to the playoffs in this league? Granted I've exited and had my team busted up in 04 but I came back in 05 and didn't make the playoffs in 06 or 07. I was one of the worst teams in the league last year. I've been to the playoffs twice. Am I bitching? No, I'm not, I'm just saying, I'm not perenially a top team as many seem to think. I would like it to be so, but I am not yet. My point was, for those wondering why the league is so top heavy and people itching to fix competitive balance every November, this is a reason why.

From an outside perspective looking in, this is what I see with this trade, and I step into the role of playing GM:

Cleveland is a near basement team in the AL Central. Minnesota are the defending AL Champs and have a solid squad, KC has one of the best teams in the league for 2008, Detroit has a lineup that is an all-star lineup. Cleveland really has no chance of competing this year and I'll be shocked if he cracks 75 wins. He deals a player about in his prime, 40/40 candidate, certainly a capable slugger in a great MLB situation, as well as a top 50 prospect and the 2nd best catching prospect in the game according to BA for his third DH and a SP with an ERA over 5 and a BAA that showed anybody in this league could have hit him last year. Furthermore, those two players he acquires are closer to 40 rather than 35. To what extent does this improve Cleveland? None. If anything, it forces a capable hitter in Giambi or Thomas to the bench in favor of Thome, and who is taking Soriano's place? Edmonds? Reimold?

Cleveland already has SP's better than Mussina, especially ones that will project extremely comparably to him this year and are much better bets in the future. Carlos Silva, Danny Cabrera, Vincente Padilla, JP Howell. Livan Hernandez is more in Mussina's category and he already has him. So to say that Mussina will be Cleveland's best pitcher next year is a stretch, because he's just in the mix- if not at the back end, of those 4 SP's. Value wise, I would rather have any of those pitchers on my IBC team, but that is just personal preference. The fact is they will likely give the same output as Mussina.

Thome is NOT the best player in the deal. He had a higher OPS and OBP last year, sure, but there is an element to baseball called speed. Thome will not swipe 40 bags anytime. Does he even have 40 career SB's? I don't think so. Additionally, best is tough to define. There is no way anybody here would pick Thome over Soriano longterm, or even beyond 2008. So Thome I do not consider to be the best player in the deal if he can't even play defense and has 2 years left max in the tank.

Edwar Ramirez is a reliever who is a dime a dozen. Signed mid year last year by me I believe and then bounced across the league. He is not a hot commodity and is hardly proven. If you wanted to go ahead and send K-Rod or Shields and say they are dominant, sure, that is viable and I'll buy that. This is not the case. He is a solid pitcher, but in a deal where Soriano and Clement is given up he is not a vital cog by any means. Broxton et al with proven continued success or like pitchers I mentioned, they would be.

Back to my outside perspective. I see Cleveland making a deal that will just further hamper his teams growth by not only parting with arguably his best overall player and easily his best prospect. Cincinnati is the beneficiary here, an already powerful team, grabbing a top 50 prospect, adding valuable speed to it's lineup and ensuring that one of his top sluggers doesn't retire in the next two years.

That is where the competitive balance of it comes into play. I am not complaining of it, that is the nature of the league. I am merely saying, trades like this exhibit why we have a top heavy league for just those reasons.

Analytically speaking, I already broke it down a little, but DMB carries the most recent year I believe at a 40% clip compared to 30 and 30 which will neuter any terrific season Moose had by his horrible season this past year. Seriously, a BAA over .300? Come on now.

Clement cannot be assumed to be taken off of C. Just because Johjima is in his way doesn't mean they can't use two catchers, or trade Clement etc. It is possible he is moved but that assumption cannot be made. He is a C and will be playing C this year from everything I have read. He is a top 50 prospect according to BA and Cleveland receives nothing close to this potential back in the deal.

Vacek put it best. If you take Soriano out of the deal, then it becomes a fair deal. Clement and Thome could be argued to have equal value to me, and the logical argument could be made for needing the projection this year in that case etc. However, with Soriano you gain what, 40 -60 points in OBP for one season and lose out on the steals? For whatever gain is being made there there is a hell of a lot of concession in value and other pieces being made.

I hope this post isn't a joke because I have 3 good pitchers and 4 good hitters on my team, though.

Edit: I can guarantee if Cleveland put said mentions on the trading block, his return would have been 10X. He has not posted on the trading block since January the third and that was about a draft choice. That is another factor. Cleveland is technically still a newbie as we have not had our six month vote on him yet, which comes up shortly I believe. So by rule, his trades are viewed in a stricter light, and already had the Maine deal shot down originally.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:15 am

JP, just wanted to say I appreciate THAT view of the trade, rather than an angle of "parity". I didn't mean to offend anyone, and it was most certainly a compliment to what many believe your GM skills to be that you're considered a GM who can be a contender at any given time. You've had some great teams - and even when you conceeded last year - it was obvious it wouldn't be long before you were turning it around.

Apologies if I sounded condesending or if anyone thinks I took a shot at them. I'm really not all riled up about this. As I said, if I have to rework the deal, thats fine by me. I've been down this road before, addmittedly, threw my tantrum before, and well.. its just not a road I want to go down again. I try to keep the perspective that this is just a SIM league. I'd like to debate the merits of your post, but at the same time I fear coming across as defensive - when thats really not the case - I just disagree with quite a few of your points. So I'll keep it more brief than my post above, and again - try to keep my response on target.

Thome is NOT the best player in the deal. He had a higher OPS and OBP last year, sure, but there is an element to baseball called speed.

There's an element of speed to baseball, I'm aware. But by that same token, there's also an element to baseball called getting on base and SLG too. Each player has his trade offs, no doubts.

Clement cannot be assumed to be taken off of C. Just because Johjima is in his way doesn't mean they can't use two catchers, or trade Clement etc. It is possible he is moved but that assumption cannot be made. He is a C and will be playing C this year from everything I have read. He is a top 50 prospect according to BA and Cleveland receives nothing close to this potential back in the deal

Clement cannot be assumed to STICK at C either. Its a very real possibility according to your gold standard of BA that he MIGHT not stick, worthy enough to mention in his breakdown. And I still reserve the point that he's just a prospect. A prospect is not established, and has proven nothing at the ML level.

Edwar Ramirez is a reliever who is a dime a dozen

That may be the case at the moment, and I never said he WAS dominant - I said he has a chance to be. And his minor league numbers indicate so. Thats a gamble Kelly wanted to make, and its not out of the realm of possibility that he takes a big step forward and can be a key cog to an Indian bullpen for a long time.

Vacek put it best. If you take Soriano out of the deal, then it becomes a fair deal.

Now you have to be kidding right? Thome/Mussina/Edwar/Misch(thats 4 MLB level talents, not prospects) is fair for a top 50 prospect who has question marks about his overall value(if he doesn't stick at C, his bat isn't so special anymore), a MLB pitcher with a mid 5 ERA, and a lefty prospect in no one's top 100 who reportedly has pedestrian stuff? I don't think I'm out of line for questioning this line of logic.

As for Mussina, you point to BAA, but I pointed to FIP, xFIP, and BABIP as indications that his ERA and BAA were out of whack last year. I see no counter to this argument as of yet. The fact remains he was pretty "hit unlucky" last year. I'll leave it at that for now.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:20 am

Edit: I can guarantee if Cleveland put said mentions on the trading block, his return would have been 10X. He has not posted on the trading block since January the third and that was about a draft choice. That is another factor. Cleveland is technically still a newbie as we have not had our six month vote on him yet, which comes up shortly I believe. So by rule, his trades are viewed in a stricter light, and already had the Maine deal shot down originally.

Apples and Oranges. Kelly didn't put Soriano on the block, because he responded to me putting Thome on the block. And I'm not trading damaged goods here ala Osoria. I understand he is viewed in a more strict 'vacuum' - but i'm 100% confident the TRC did view this trade in that vacuum and through much internal debate and thought came to the conclusion that this was not a historically bad trade.

Is the TRC allowed to give insight into their process of how they came to their conclusion? Because, I'd love to have it.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:36 am

OK god damnit, here goes:

Go ahead and put this trade up for for vote. Go ahead and overturn it. I don't give a rat's ass. That being said, I respect the GMs of this league, and I respect the league rules and will abide by them.

I've always played to win immediately in all fantasy and SIM leagues I've been in my life. You may not like a trade I make, but to suggest the balance of power could be affected by a GM who is a fighter that always "goes for it" for the now...not sure I can agree. But OK.

An ideal team would of course have a 25-year old potential all-star at every position. But realistic? Hell no.

A few points specific to this trade:

To suggest having three DH/1B's is too many, and then referring to any of them as injury prone? Do you see the contradiction? And I'd love to be able to rotate them all if healthy to maximize matchups. Hopefully that will happen, but I'm prepared if it doesn't.

As a general rule, I think the GM getting the best player in any deal wins, but at times, with a weak roster and a victory-hungry GM, quantity beats out quality. I'll concede that Soriano is the best player in the deal. But for 2008, I get the next best three players. And all four players I received are upgrades to the players they will replace in 2008.

And as far as GMs who are complaining that I've received past their prime players in Thome and Mussina, and then a sentence or two later state that a young player such as Ramirez (or Misch for that matter) aren't worth it because they aren't established? You can't have it both ways, pick an argument and stick with it. While Thome and Mussina aren't going to improve, at least I know what I'm getting, and I'll also benefit from two arms on the rise. Fortunately for me, I CAN have it both ways.

Look - here's the bottom line - I have and always will try to put the best team I possibly can on the field every year. Period. And making trades like this have been and will continue to be part of my strategy. It has ALWAYS worked for me in the past, and win continue to in the future. Check out this site:

http://www.geocities.com/fatcats33370/S ... iants.html

Look familiar? Look a lot like my IBC roster? It is my IYFBL roster that I took over last off-season, my first SIM experience. The team finished 2006 62-100, the worst record in the league. I took over and finished 95-67, eliminated from the playoffs on the final day of the season. Same roster type - Dinosaur but predictable SPs that won't kill me. Power and OBP lineup that mashes without DEF or speed. Lights-out bullpen.

Ask about my success with current IBC owners in the IYFBL - Brett Z, Jim B, Jake L, Jagger, John A, Nate, Jason, Shawn L, and JP. Even if any these GMs would vote against this trade (as some have already said they'd do), my body of work speakes for itself, and ya'll will see the results with the 2008 Indians.

Again, I respect everyone's opinion. But pul-leeeze, if you have a bitch about this trade, please respond the every portion of this post. Don't be chicken-shit and quote one sentence to counter-argue and think you are holier than thou.

Thanks all for listening, and good luck to everyone.

Kelly CLE

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:49 am

Speaking from experience, if he wants to sell off his future to play for now, then I think he should be allowed to. It's not a deal I would have ever made, and I certainly would have been one of many GMs willing to ship him more in return for Soriano than he got, but in the end its his team and he'll run it his way.

Yes, technically, he's still a "newbie" but I think you'd struggle to find a GM in the IBC who would vote against keeping him when the time comes. I think that's because whether or not you agree with his team philosophy, you recognize that he has an understanding of the game and of the SIM world in general.

I hate that Nate is getting stronger as much as anybody else, but this "top heavy" thing really doesn't bother me. I mean since pretty much day one JB has had the best team in the league. Every year, we all talk about how good his team his, at the MLB level and in the farm system. Same thing for Nate, and also Bren to a degree. But what has it gotten them? Either no rings, or one ring, the same amount as me and Nick and only one ring than every other guy in the IBC.

If these top heavy teams were dominating and taking home the championships year in and year out, I would say we have a problem, but its been six years with six different champs and you can't get better parity than that.

So, anyway, I think the deal sucks, but the two of them know what they're doing and I'm inclined to let it go. I mean does anyone really wanna try to say with any certainty how the ALC is going to go? It seems like the guy who's supposed to win it never does. It's been that way since year one. There's something fucked up in that division, so I wouldn't neccessarily count out Kelly.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:43 am

Indians wrote:OK god damnit, here goes:

Go ahead and put this trade up for for vote. Go ahead and overturn it. I don't give a rat's ass. That being said, I respect the GMs of this league, and I respect the league rules and will abide by them.

I've always played to win immediately in all fantasy and SIM leagues I've been in my life. You may not like a trade I make, but to suggest the balance of power could be affected by a GM who is a fighter that always "goes for it" for the now...not sure I can agree. But OK.

An ideal team would of course have a 25-year old potential all-star at every position. But realistic? Hell no.

A few points specific to this trade:

To suggest having three DH/1B's is too many, and then referring to any of them as injury prone? Do you see the contradiction? And I'd love to be able to rotate them all if healthy to maximize matchups. Hopefully that will happen, but I'm prepared if it doesn't.

As a general rule, I think the GM getting the best player in any deal wins, but at times, with a weak roster and a victory-hungry GM, quantity beats out quality. I'll concede that Soriano is the best player in the deal. But for 2008, I get the next best three players. And all four players I received are upgrades to the players they will replace in 2008.

And as far as GMs who are complaining that I've received past their prime players in Thome and Mussina, and then a sentence or two later state that a young player such as Ramirez (or Misch for that matter) aren't worth it because they aren't established? You can't have it both ways, pick an argument and stick with it. While Thome and Mussina aren't going to improve, at least I know what I'm getting, and I'll also benefit from two arms on the rise. Fortunately for me, I CAN have it both ways.

Look - here's the bottom line - I have and always will try to put the best team I possibly can on the field every year. Period. And making trades like this have been and will continue to be part of my strategy. It has ALWAYS worked for me in the past, and win continue to in the future. Check out this site:

http://www.geocities.com/fatcats33370/S ... iants.html

Look familiar? Look a lot like my IBC roster? It is my IYFBL roster that I took over last off-season, my first SIM experience. The team finished 2006 62-100, the worst record in the league. I took over and finished 95-67, eliminated from the playoffs on the final day of the season. Same roster type - Dinosaur but predictable SPs that won't kill me. Power and OBP lineup that mashes without DEF or speed. Lights-out bullpen.

Ask about my success with current IBC owners in the IYFBL - Brett Z, Jim B, Jake L, Jagger, John A, Nate, Jason, Shawn L, and JP. Even if any these GMs would vote against this trade (as some have already said they'd do), my body of work speakes for itself, and ya'll will see the results with the 2008 Indians.

Again, I respect everyone's opinion. But pul-leeeze, if you have a bitch about this trade, please respond the every portion of this post. Don't be chicken-shit and quote one sentence to counter-argue and think you are holier than thou.

Thanks all for listening, and good luck to everyone.

Kelly CLE

That roster also looks a lot like my 2006 roster which featured Griffey in CF, Thomas, Wily Mo Pena, Luis Gonzalez, Troy Glaus and a whole host of other old guys who mashed but didn't play defense (Jeromy Burnitz's ridiculous projection that year for example), and the pitching staff looks pretty similar (though I'd wager Brad Radke's projection was better than what your SP will get), and I finished right around .500, which was certainly an improvement on the year before (I lost 95 games in 2005 IIRC), but didn't make me competitive. My biggest fear about this trade isn't its impact on next year, its that as you say you're an impatient type GM and once these guys are used up, which could be next year or could be the following year, we'll be left with a non-competitive team without any prospects (assuming you continue your practice of trading draft picks aggressively). So that's my history with that style of building, I know exactly where you are coming from philosophically.

This is the only SIM league that I have extensive experience in, so I can't speak from too much experience, but by and large this seems like a group of GMs who take the long view in building their teams and who want the league to be around for a long time. Having a team whose key components are all set for retirement or major decline in the next 1-3 years, who doesn't have a significant prospect pool (I'll grant you Gallagher, Ramirez and Mangini but after that the cupboard is pretty bare), and has very few building blocks in terms of up and coming major leaguers is fine for now, but my concern is about what happens when the 1997 All-Stars retire. Left with a team that will take years of rebuilding, and you've already acknowledged that you don't have the patience for that, are you just going to abandon the team to us and force us to find a new GM to fill a team with all the holes mentioned above? Who's the biggest trade chip on that team in 2010? Maybe Mags, but he'll be 36. Maybe Glaus, but he'll be 34 and he's not a bat you can build an offense around. My point is that if you're willing to commit to tackling that rebuilding job (as much as you can commit to anything in a fantasy SIM baseball league) then I'm less worried, but if your plan is to hit it and quit it then this trade is definitely not in the best interests of the league.