Trade up for Review

[Royals]

The Following trade has been approved by the TRC and challneged by members of the league.

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

In order to overturn the trade approval, a 2/3 majority of the entire league (20 votes) is necessary to overturn it.
Below are the arguments by the two GM's making the trade and an opinion representing the opposed GM's.

Relevant information: Kelly has been in the league long enough to not be subject to Newbie standards for trade reviews.

OPPOSITION
1. The "why can't he deal away prospects and try to win now"argument:

We pretty much hear this one every time a trade involving both prospects and veterans comes under scrutiny, and it's not really an argument that the particular trade should pass so much as one that we should not have a trade review process at all. Well, we do have a trade review process (as most leagues do), and it's not to impose a particular method of team building on anybody, but to ensure that an unfair advantage isn't created for one team (in this case, Cincinnati) when another GM grossly undervalues a player (or players) in trade compared to what the rest of the league's generally accepted value of that player would be.

Contrary to some of the comments made about "rosters full of prospects" never winning a WS, rejecting a deal where a prospect is vastly undervalued is not a league mandate that you go the Tigers or DBacks route when rebuilding, hold a firesale to amass a prospect-laden roster, and endure a few down years in order to compete. It IS however a league mandate that whatever approach you choose, you get something close to fair value when you trade away ANY player (prospect or veteran). Since prospects are subject to a wider range of opinion as to value than established veterans, they more often than not end up being the subject of these debates.

If Kelly wants to move his younger assets and try to improve his team to win more games right away, he should by all means do that. Nothing is stopping anyone from employing any strategy they want to build their team. However, if a prospect like Clement (or a veteran like Soriano) is being grossly undervalued compared to what the league's idea of that player's value is, that's when it becomes an issue of creating an unfair advantage for a team, and a potential detriment to the league down the road. Just as we wouldn't want to see a star player valued equally to a 28 year old low-A relief prospect in a deal, we also don't want to see an MLB-ready elite C prospect valued like an aging #5 SP on the cusp of retirement. You can trade away top prospects for aging veterans to your heart's delight, but not for $0.50 on the dollar, b/c then it becomes a problem for the league.

If you're arguing that trades like this should stand because you don't think the league should "tell people how to value their prospects" then you're arguing against having a trade review process in place, and not for passing this trade in particular. Like it or not, prospects (particularly those ranked on lots of top 10, top 50 and top 100 lists) have substantial value in this league, so even if you aren't a "prospect guy," you can't just give them away.

2. The Trade itself

This is an objectively terrible trade, so a lot of the above doesn't even really matter. New GM, old GM, whatever. If this deal were between JB and Bren I'd still call for a veto. I thought this was an awful deal even before I was told that Thome would be the Indians 3rd DH (w/ Giambi and Thomas), so the individual approach to roster-building is irrelevant here (to me at least).

The best established GMs and excellent new GMs both grossly mis-evaluate the IBC value of individual players in trade at times, and that's when the TC needs to make a correction. IMO, that's clearly happened here.

For one, any player's value for just next year doesn't mean we can ignore their value 2, 3, 5 years from now. Even if your strategy is to not look past next season each offseason, every players' future outlook is central to his value in trade around the league, and to how he should be evaluated by the TC. So players on the downslope, and on the cusp of retirement, take a hit in value compared to players at or near their prime - no matter who's trading them. The age, injury history, and potential for performance beyond next season of Thome (37) and Mussina (39) are a big factor in their trade value.

Jim Thome (PECOTA projected 2008 VORP: 29.5, WARP: 3.6) ñ If healthy, Thome is clearly an impact power bat, but his status as a full-time DH and the likelihood that heíll miss significant time due to injury are factors severely limiting his value. He almost certainly will not be rated at any position, having played 1 game at 1B last season, and 3 games there in 2006. In 2003 Thome played in 159 games for the Phillies. In the next 4 seasons he played in 143, 59, 143 and 130 games. Will Carroll from BP gives Thome a ìred lightî on the White Sox injury report due to his history of back problems and the near certainty that he will miss time every year, even if only as a precautionary measure by the team.

Alfonso Soriano (PECOTA projected 2008 VORP: 31.0, WARP: 4.9) ñ Soriano is 32, fields an OF position capably, and his games played over the past 4 years are 145, 156, 159, 135. So heís not an injury risk, is in the prime of his career, and has defensive value. In 2005 his HR/SB totals were 36/30 and in 2006 they rose to 46/41. He dipped below 140 games for the first time in his career last season, and his totals were 33/19. He is clearly a 40/40 threat. Itís safe to say he has comparable power to Thome (if slightly less), and is in another stratosphere from Thome regarding speed.

Even if you accept that Thome has close to the same value in the near future as Soriano, and take those two out (a premise I do not accept in any way), the rest of the deal is even worse. The most valuable player left would be Clement - by far - with Maloney arguably the next most valuable guy before even getting to another asset coming back to Cleveland.

Mussina probably won't even be playing next season considering the rumblings around NY about his role, the loss of velocity last season, and the young pitchers pushing him for a spot with the Yankees. He was awful enough last year (5.15 ERA, opposing hitters batted .311/.349/.464 off of him) that I wouldn't be surprised if there's either someone on Cleveland's own roster or on waivers who will sim better than he will in 2008. In fact, Maloney should receive a comparable projection.

Clement was ranked the #33 prospect in baseball by BP, #42 by BA in their respective top 100s. John Sickels rated him the #13 hitting prospect in his top 50. So again, even if youíre not a ìprospect guy,î Clementís value in trade in the IBC should be apparent. Given PECOTAís projection of a 12.1 VORP, and a 3.7 WARP, he should sim better than at least half of the starting catchers in the IBC this year. Itís not as if weíre talking about a 2007 draftee here. He is an MLB-ready elite catching prospect.

Now we're down to the bits and pieces, and no matter how good you think Edwar Ramirez might be, he's still a 27 year old RP with 21 big league innings in his career. Those guys are all over the waiver wire, and I wouldn't be surprised if you can still find one who will sim better this season, and/or has an equivalent future outlook. In any case, he's got nowhere near as much value as Clement (or Maloney, for that matter).

Any way you slice it, this is the type of deal that - if passed - calls into question why we have a trade review process in the first place. Since this isnít a referendum on the trade review process, itís hard to see how there could be much debate on the particulars of this deal.

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

Reds Perspective:

Thanks for taking my stance on this trade into consideration, I'll keep it brief.

- There are two obvious goals I was trying to achieve with this trade. They were to get younger, and improve my defense. By sending Thome to an AL team where he could better serve at his rated position of DH, I could move Dunn to 1B - a move that would automatically improve my defense at both 1b and in LF.
- Kelly approached me earlier in the year about Thome and Wells, but I had gone in a different direction. After quite a while of shopping Thome, I PM'd Kelly again and asked if he still had any interest in Thome. He did. Kelly seemed to have an abundance of Corner OF's, something it was well known I was seeking in my return for Thome. Its known I got the player I wanted in Soriano, however my main concern was not my offense in this deal,but my defense. I firmly believe Soriano is a good player, but he still does represent almost a 100 OPS difference(.972 career OPS by Thome vs. .844 career to Soriano.) To me, this means he's a downgrade offensively. But his defense is better. Again, tradeoff's with both, but that means the gap isn't as big as some would like to believe.
- Its been argued that speed is an asset which makes him more valuable than Thome. Yet Soriano had hammy issues and only stole 19 last year. Hardly amazing. I'd argue that On Base skills are an asset which makes Thome more valuable than Soriano. Each are different players, that have different skill sets - each valuable in their own right. But they'll provide different things for their new respective teams that each other's was missing. Awesome power from the left side for Kelly and On Base skills. Defense, again my main concern.
- Kelly received 4 major league ball players in this deal to my 2. 2 are certainly vets (Thome and Mussina), but the other 2(Edwar Ramirez and Pat Misch) both got a taste of the majors last year and both could be very productive players for years to come.
- Mussina is a bit of a wildcard, but pitching metrics such as BABIP, FIP and xFIP all indicate that he was pretty "hit unlucky". His BABIP is .353, and his his FIP stats indicate that independent of defense he was about a full run lower on the ERA peg, a solid 4. Given his stellear year the year before, his splits in the DMB projection disk will still be useful. In fact, Mussina likely represents Kelly's best pitcher going into the year unless
he lands an additional pitcher before Opening day. Here are some stats you can use to make your own decision on Mussina:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/m ... me=mussina
-If you use the THT stats, you'll also see Edwar was pretty unlucky - although not quite good. Yet. But if you viewed his minor league statistics above, check the periphrials. They are quite good. In fact, Dominant. He can take a big step forward and be an important piece to anyone's bullpen. I expect a solid projection. Edwars stats:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/st ... ?id=469735
-Misch was pretty dominant out of the pen until he got shelled in a late season opportunity to start. Had a mid 2 ERA before giving up 8 runs in a 4.1 inning start that saw his ERA rise into the mid 4's. He dominated AAA. He has a good chance to be at worst a pretty good lefty in the pen, with an outside shot at sticking in the rotation in SF. Misch stats:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/st ... ?id=435619

I suppose I view this trade that Thome and Soriano are more or less a wash - each have their pro's and con's. You might value 1 a bit more than the other, but the gap is not that wide. If you see that part the way I do, then I ponied up 3 additional players with MLB experience, for 2 prospects and a MLB pitcher with an ERA worse than Mussina's. I understand the value of prospects in this league, but Misch and Edwar have had good minor league careers in their own right, and have taken the next step foward to MLB. Clement and Maloney are still just prospects. They don't provide the experience Edwar and Misch provide for Kelly. Another step back in the trade for me. But all 4 players here(Clement/Maloney/Misch/Edwar) give BOTH GM's here a good chance for upside and improvement.


INDIANS LOGIC IN MAKING THIS TRADE:

Since the Indians have already responded to many of the league GMs concerns about this trade, I will simply focus on why I believe this trade is beneficial to the Indians and therefore agreed to the deal.

Keep in mind that the Indians are and always will be a team which plays for today. Also keep in mind that this trade does not mean the Indians roster is set. I actually have a few things I need to do before opening day and plan on making another trade or three. Looking at my roster as it is right now is not representative of what my opening day 2008 roster may look like.

The two big names in the deal are Thome and Soriano. In 2008 I believe Thome will help me as much as Soriano would based on my values and strategy in building a team. I agree that Soriano is the better player. But that is when SBs and DEF are taken in consideration. I simply don't value SBs and DEF as much as other GMs. That is my right. And Soriano stole just 19 last year. The 40-SB potential doesn't mean much to me, this isn't roto and SBs aren't nearly as important in SIM. As far as DEF goes, for the time being Gary Matthews will be my regular LF, and the Angels new LFer should project as VG if not EX. Big hit taken on offense, but let this be the end of the Thome vs Soriano DEF argument. Thome's OBP and SLG are superior to Soriano. The three-headed monster of Thome/Thomas/Giambi has been questioned, but the injury concerns brought up also are the reason I am comfortable with all three because we know they all won't be healthy all year.

Mussina will be a member of my rotation, probably replacing Cabrera. Cabrera has an electric arm but there's no way in hell he projects better than Mussina in 2008. And Moose will definately project better than my Loaiza/Padilla/Nolasco alternatives. So another upgrade there.

Because of my dinosaur SPs, I need and strive for a deep bullpen. Misch gives me the valuable 3rd lefty in the pen I need (all my SPs are RHP) and will project well, an upgrade over Oliver who now becomes my #3 bullpen lefty. And Edwar, despite the doubts of some, will project well enough to make my opening day roster in 2008, and will be a dominant setup man in 2009 and a potential future closer. Think Rafael Soriano, a late bloomer with electric stuff that quietly rocketed up the minors in a year and is now ready to unleash his stuff on MLB hitters. Edwar making my 2008 opening day roster means he is replacing a lesser reliever.

So yes - four-for-four in roster improvements for 2008.

Even with the loss of Soriano (admittedly big) and Clement (I still have a capable starter in Valentin and a good backup in House), the Indians have done a good job of improving for 2008. Which is what I attempt to accomplish.

Thank you for consideration.
Kelly CLE

[Royals]

No posts commenting on the trade are permissible until the voting is complete.

[BlueJays]

Can this be made into an announcement?

[Guardians]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

[Orioles]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

That was part of a post not written specifically for this purpose, but as a response to other posts in a different thread. Seeing how the vote has gone, I don't think the first paragraph of "the deal itself" had much of an effect (if anyone even read it), so I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm sure Bren could delete the first paragraph and hold a re-vote if you'd like though.

[Royals]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

Who said anything about no opinions? Not me. You did. Both sides of the argument get a say on their perspective. Giving just one side a forum (which is what you're suggesting) would be sheer ridiculousness.

This was one of the single stupidest and least insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

[Mets]

I think sentiment outside of the two trading GM's defense should be avoided.

In no way should members of the exec. committee or league leadership otherwise be able to sway a league-wide vote.

That's common sense.

[Orioles]

I think sentiment outside of the two trading GM's defense should be avoided.

In no way should members of the exec. committee or league leadership otherwise be able to sway a league-wide vote.

That's common sense.

I think we should give GMs a little more credit than that. It's not "swaying a leaguewide vote" so much as providing both sides to the argument. I doubt the opinion of an ex-co member holds any greater weight to GMs than that of a party to the trade.

Then again, I think we should avoid the leaguewide vote altogether because its inevitably more about the trade review process itself than the actual deal at issue, so having one, both, or neither side of the argument posted isn't a huge factor anyway.

[BlueJays]

I think we should give GMs a little more credit than that. It's not "swaying a leaguewide vote" so much as providing both sides to the argument. I doubt the opinion of an ex-co member holds any greater weight to GMs than that of a party to the trade.

Then again, I think we should avoid the leaguewide vote altogether because its inevitably more about the trade review process itself than the actual deal at issue, so having one, both, or neither side of the argument posted isn't a huge factor anyway.

Disagree. All to often its not arguing the merits of a trade. Its a pissing contest of who can be heard the most and loudest.

Don't make an issue of the system as grounds to veto or object to a trade. Why should my trade be made an example of? Its pretty silly, and its the same reason why I was upset with the partiy angle as well. Its one thing to be concerned about the league, parity, the process, etc. Its enitrely another to make example of someone's trade(wouldn't even have to be mine) because you don't like how something works.

[Yankees]

I'd just like to point out, if no one else has, that this deal appears to have passed.

[Mets]

But not without some un-necessary drama.

[Royals]

I think sentiment outside of the two trading GM's defense should be avoided.

In no way should members of the exec. committee or league leadership otherwise be able to sway a league-wide vote.

That's common sense.

Maybe I'm missing something, since when is it common sense to give only one side of an argument a chance to be heard?

[Mets]

Whose making the other argument?

A member of the TRC that already voted to pass the trade, or a randomly picked GM that's against it...that's where it's confusing.

[Royals]

Whose making the other argument?

A member of the TRC that already voted to pass the trade, or a randomly picked GM that's against it...that's where it's confusing.

A volunteer who is opposed to the trade, often a TRC or more experienced member since they're more likely to have put together such an argument before. If it's a vetoed trade, often a TRC member explaining why it was vetoed.
I don't see anything terribly confusing there, this isn't Ancient Greek or rocket science by any means.

[Mets]

Belittling someone usually doesn't reflect a roll of leadership, from my experience. Just because you don't see how it's confusing doesn't make someone else's questions less valuable.

It's confusing because I don't see how a TRC member can argue against a trade that they have passed....even if they were against it, the committee acts as a unified voice, imo.

Also, as competitive as this league is, I think there should be a gentlemen's rule that division rivals shouldn't be allowed to make the arguement against the deal. Also, just a suggestion of mine.

[Royals]

Belittling someone usually doesn't reflect a roll of leadership, from my experience. Just because you don't see how it's confusing doesn't make someone else's questions less valuable.

It's confusing because I don't see how a TRC member can argue against a trade that they have passed....even if they were against it, the committee acts as a unified voice, imo.

Also, as competitive as this league is, I think there should be a gentlemen's rule that division rivals shouldn't be allowed to make the arguement against the deal. Also, just a suggestion of mine.

We've never asked anyone to argue an opinion on a trade that they didn't hold themself. That would be extrememly confusing but I can't understand where you are getting the idea that we would do that. That's why 'volunteer' is an important aspect of the selection process.

If someoen can make a solid, logical argument against a trade, I don't think it matters what division they're in. being in the same division doesn't automatically make someone's logic faulty.

[Athletics]

But not without some un-necessary drama.

Dead on haha

[Mets]

If I'm asking, it's because I obviously don't know, and I'm curious to figure out how it works...

[Guardians]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

Who said anything about no opinions? Not me. You did. Both sides of the argument get a say on their perspective. Giving just one side a forum (which is what you're suggesting) would be sheer ridiculousness.

This was one of the single stupidest and least insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be two sides to the argument. I'm saying there should ONLY be two....the Reds and Indians. Not the Reds, Indians, and the Red Sox.

[Orioles]

Don't make an issue of the system as grounds to veto or object to a trade. Why should my trade be made an example of? Its pretty silly, and its the same reason why I was upset with the partiy angle as well. Its one thing to be concerned about the league, parity, the process, etc. Its enitrely another to make example of someone's trade(wouldn't even have to be mine) because you don't like how something works.

That's, um, exactly what I'm saying. While I've proposed changes to the trade review system, I'm obviously a person who thinks we SHOULD have a trade review process. I'm saying that this trade will pass in part because a number of GMs think we SHOULDN'T have a review process so they wouldn't vote to veto this deal or any other. While I know you're concerned about your trade (which has passed, so you needn't worry any more), not every comment made is an attempt to sabotage you. In fact my point was that people ignoring the merits of the trade and voting on the system helps you in this case.

The reason I object to the whole league voting on a deal is because of what you're railing against, which is voters ignoring the actual merits to vote on the process not on the trade itself. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but the fact that who is for/against a trade review process seems to coincide with who has/has not had a trade overturned, or even reviewed, is not a surprise. That leads me to believe that those same opinions will color voting on the actual deals, so maybe having the entire league vote every time is a mistake because it leads to "deals being made an example of," as you say.

[Cardinals]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

Who said anything about no opinions? Not me. You did. Both sides of the argument get a say on their perspective. Giving just one side a forum (which is what you're suggesting) would be sheer ridiculousness.

This was one of the single stupidest and least insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be two sides to the argument. I'm saying there should ONLY be two....the Reds and Indians. Not the Reds, Indians, and the Red Sox.

I disagree here. There should be a reasoning given as to why the trade is being objected, not some sort of brain dead reasoning as to why it has been objected. I think two are necessary, from the trading parties and then from somebody who has objected to the trade.

[Royals]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

Who said anything about no opinions? Not me. You did. Both sides of the argument get a say on their perspective. Giving just one side a forum (which is what you're suggesting) would be sheer ridiculousness.

This was one of the single stupidest and least insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be two sides to the argument. I'm saying there should ONLY be two....the Reds and Indians. Not the Reds, Indians, and the Red Sox.

Congratulations, you topped your last comment. The Reds and Indians hold the same opinion... Pass the trade! That's not two sides, that's two opinions on the same side.
My opinion wasn't presented in this review, the viewpoint opposed to the trade was prepared by Dan Vacek.

[Royals]

If I'm asking, it's because I obviously don't know, and I'm curious to figure out how it works...

That's fine, then ask how it works. Don't just assume that it happens in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mets]

I assume based off the information presented.

There's 13 paragraphs against the trade, without knowing the credibility of the source. I don't think my thoughts were unique, but my communication style sometime suffers while I'm trying to hide message board posts at work, while people are asking me questions...not always "locked in" when trying to get my point across.

[Guardians]

Who said anything about no opinions? Not me. You did. Both sides of the argument get a say on their perspective. Giving just one side a forum (which is what you're suggesting) would be sheer ridiculousness.

This was one of the single stupidest and least insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be two sides to the argument. I'm saying there should ONLY be two....the Reds and Indians. Not the Reds, Indians, and the Red Sox.

Congratulations, you topped your last comment. The Reds and Indians hold the same opinion... Pass the trade! That's not two sides, that's two opinions on the same side.
My opinion wasn't presented in this review, the viewpoint opposed to the trade was prepared by Dan Vacek.

Listen up brainiac. Here's what I'm referring to:

2. The Trade itself

This is an objectively terrible trade, so a lot of the above doesn't even really matter. New GM, old GM, whatever. If this deal were between JB and Bren I'd still call for a veto. I thought this was an awful deal even before I was told that Thome would be the Indians 3rd DH (w/ Giambi and Thomas), so the individual approach to roster-building is irrelevant here (to me at least).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is the OPINION of a trade committee member posting the poll?? The opinions should come from the teams involved in the trade. If a trade committee member wanted to post some facts about the trade review process, then that's fine. What you posted was not facts, but opinion. Are you really having trouble comprehending what I'm saying??