Boston/Texas Trade Appeal

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:00 pm

The Following Trade was vetoed by the TRC.
Boston Gets Kevin Millwood
Texas Gets Lars Anderson, Jimmy Barthmeier and Joe Benson

Texas and Boston are appealing. A 2/3 majority (20 votes) is required to approve the trade.

The TRC rationale:
The TRC vetoed this trade to remain in compliance with the Commissioner's edict that when players who are at a major league level are being traded, players at a sub AA rule shall be severely discounted.

Millwood went 16 -12 last year with the Texas Rangers. He had a 157/53 K/BB ratio along with a 4.52 ERA and 1.31 WHIP. The previous year, with the Cleveland Indians, he went 9 -11 with a 146/52 K/BB ratio and an outstanding 2.86 ERA along with a 1.22 WHIP. In 2007 he will be pitching at the major league level for the 11th consecutive year.

Anderson, an 18th round selection in 2006 by the Boston Red Sox, is a 19 year old left-handed hitting 1B who is projected to be a power hitter. He has yet to play a single inning of professional baseball.

Benson, a 2nd round selection in 2006 by the Minnesota Twins, is a 19 year old right-handed hitting OF who was a tremendous high school athlete - particularly in football. He played at the Rookie and Lo-A levels last year totaling a .260/.329/.428 line in 215 AB with 5 HR and 10 SB while getting caught stealing 10 times.

Barthmaier is a 23 year old RHP who has yet to pitch above Hi A. In 2006 he was 11 -8 with a 134/67 K/BB ratio (leading his league in K and BB) resulting in a 3.62 ERA. While rating him the 4th best prospect in the Astros system, BA also noted, "He battles inconsistency with all his pitches and his command. Barthmaier overthrows his fastball and loses movement, he hangs some curveballs and he still fights the feel for his changeup. His arm action is long and there's effort to his delivery, which makes it harder to throw strikes. Showing more maturity and improving his preparation would be a big help." Kevin Goldstein, who also ranked him in the Astros top ten nonetheless reported, "He turns 23 in January and has yet to pitch in Double-A . Mechanical inconsistency leads to control issues, and his changeup is shaky."

Millwood is clearly at the major league level while none of the three players he is potentially being traded for has played at the AA level or above. There is no question that all three players have potential but the rule currently in place is to severely discount this potential. If this trade is allowed it, in effect, will serve as precedent eroding the Commissioner's edict.

The Traders Rationale:
Everyone knows my team sucks as currently constructed and doesn't even really have building blocks to compete in the future w/out a massive overhaul. I guess I understand the reason for the below AA rule but it really bites a team like mine in the ass, who really has no choice but to totally rebuild. As far as I'm concerned, I got a helluva package for Millwood and doubt there would have been many people willing to cough up much more than this for a 31 year old who, besides 99, 02, and 05, has been basically a league average pitcher.

Millwood. Sure he's a name, we all learned about him in ATL, he threw a no hitter at one point and came out of nowhere last year to win the league ERA title. 2 out of his last 3 years he's had ERA's north of 4.50. Millwood's not an ace on a good team. Millwood's a decent #3 starter. He's competitive, he'll get you innings and he'll keep you in games. And he's entering his 32 season which means he'll be on his way out by the time he's worth anything to me. I think I'm selling high and got a pretty good package for him.

Barthmeier: Sickels gave him a B+, BP ranks him as a good prospect, BA likes him well enough. He's pretty much consensus #4 prospect for HOU. Here's why I like him: Great pitcher's body, no arm troubles at all. That counts. Best curveball in Carolina League, which gives him 2 plus pitches, along w/ 2 FBs, his 4 seemer dials up to the mid-high 90s. He's got the arm strength to be a lights out reliever if he doesn't cut it as a starter. I like taking my chances on guys like this. He's got the ceiling to be a #2-3 starter. Plus he's a GB pitcher, vital for pitching in Texas. Perhaps most important, he was lights out the 2nd half of the season, going 7-1, 1.82 ERA. I think this is the year he makes the jump and I'm getting in at the right time. Like the body, like the stuff. This guy's underrated.
<Bren insert>Additionally, while Barthmeier hasn't hit AA yet, he was already in the Sim in 2006, and will be in 2007 as well. He is ready to contribute<end Bren insert>

Anderson: Everyone loves him, no one's seen him hit. Draft status dropped because of signability concerns, but BA says he was a supplimental 1st round talent. BA and Sickels think very very highly of him. He was ranked #6 in a good organization by BA (even though he hasn't taken any ML swings). Led CA high schoolers in HRs. I like the fact that BA says he's got easy power and short swing. Makes a huge difference over long swingers who have trouble at higher levels. Guy's a monster and could be my franchise 1b. I'm taking a chance but buying low on him too. The Sox have drafted very well under the new regime and I like to take my chances on organizations I know know what they are doing.

Benson: He's a project. phenomenal athlete who could end up in center. 5 tools and 1st round talent. BA says he has a higher ceiling than Parmalee. Also, drafted by a quality organization and in MIN's top 10 despite shaky debut numbers. The stats oriented Sickels and BP don't like him as well but, like I said, he's a project and not the type of person that's going to immediately appear on their lists. All in all, not a bad 3rd player in this deal.

What can I say, they're all prospects but this has the ability to look very bad for Bren in a couple years. My team is horrible on the ML level and still pretty weak in the minors too. I need to make trades like this. My team's a work in progress. If nothing else, give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm not bailing on this league and i was voted AL GM of the year in the BCMBL.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:08 pm

I'm having trouble seeing how this trade was rejected.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:21 pm

Please, no commentary. Just vote.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:52 pm

can we just go with "approve the trade" and "veto the trade" next time - I had to read the buttons 3 times before I realized what I needed to vote on...

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:33 pm

What would happen if we had to vote on this trade now?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:51 pm

I wouldn't do that deal now... I got bent over...

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:15 pm

Just goes to show that trades are reviewed in a vacuum.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:19 pm

And Boston wouldn't have given matt Clement the contract they did a year after he signed it. Hindsight is 20/20, you make the judgements you can based on current available fact. We have a review process and will ALWAYS have a review process. If you don't like that, there are other leagues that don't have reviews, I'm sure you could find one with a vacancy. Don't take that as a 'get out of here comment', rather it's an "I'm sick of people complaining about the rules and always trying to change them" comment. We have a set of rules within which we play the game. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:31 pm

Or we could debate the merits of the sub AA rule which would be an effective thing to do. I think that was the damning thing of this trade.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:43 am

Agreed - I believe it was the reason we initially Nixed it was because of the AA mandate.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:02 am

I wasn't in the league back then, and I don't have every player on every team in the IBC memorized, and didn't look at the dates of the early posts. As I was reading the arguments I thought I was reading an in-progress discussion, and thought the guy trading Millwood had done very well. Then when I got to the Rox post of today I realized what was up and would like to echo his point.

I guess living in Seattle and watching Bavasi has me wondering how anyone can question any trade made by any SIM GM. While Bavasi drives me nuts and I'd have fired him two years ago, the fact remains that the 30 ML GMs can make deals like Soriano for Ramirez we all knew would end up terrible, but they can also make deals that we feel the same way about at the time, such as Sneeling/Fruto for Vidro, a terrible trade that actually worked in the M's favor last year (even though nobody expects Vidro to contribute as well going forward).

My point is this: If a team feels they have made a trade which improves their future success (whether it is long-term or short-term), let that team make that decision and then you can say "I told you so" afterwards if you want. If a trade is vetoed, you have taken away the ability for that team to say "I told YOU so", which should be what it's all about. My short experience in the IBC has shown me we all are intelligent and passionate GMs, and unless there is "collusion" or "petty" trades made to stick it to another owner suspected, I see no reason veto a trade unless there is a pattern of lopsided trades which would lead someone to believe that owner does not have the knowledge to compete at the IBC level.

Kelly CLE

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:15 am

BTW - I'm not suggesting any changes to any rules or abolishing the TRC at all, they both serve a good purpose. I'm just submitting my personal opinion of how I approach league votes on trades.

Kelly CLE

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:34 am

Rockies wrote:What would happen if we had to vote on this trade now?

I'm confused, if we had to vote on this trade now why would the result be different? Is the idea that now the tables have turned? Because it's still a shit trade, just the other way around. Jared's rationale was that he wanted to rebuild his team from the ground up, and 2 out of the 3 "prospects" he was getting to do that flamed out completely. Today Lars Anderson is certainly worth more than Kevin Millwood, but at the time he hadn't taken a professional at bat, and I'm sure no one here had seen him live, so all we had were BA and Sickels, which basically means a roll of the dice. Meanwhile Barthmeier flamed out trying to make the jump to AA and Joe Benson is a toolsy athlete whom BA loves but who doesn't make either Sickels Twins top 20 or Kevin Goldstein's Top 11 and is at best three years away considering he's putting up unimpressive numbers in Low A, which means he still has the real challenge to go. Jared probably won this particular trade because Millwood has fallen off the table (his 2007 had to be on the PECOTA low end, no?) and Lars worked out, which was by no means a guarantee at that point. However, the reason the AA rules exists is because you don't build teams with a 1 in 3 success ratio, which is what happened in this trade, and even that is assuming that Lars succeeds at higher levels which is also by no means a guarantee. It's the fact that there are far more Jimmy Barthmeiers than Lars Andersons in Low A that make the AA rule necessary.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:58 am

RedSox wrote:And Boston wouldn't have given matt Clement the contract they did a year after he signed it. Hindsight is 20/20, you make the judgements you can based on current available fact. We have a review process and will ALWAYS have a review process. If you don't like that, there are other leagues that don't have reviews, I'm sure you could find one with a vacancy. Don't take that as a 'get out of here comment', rather it's an "I'm sick of people complaining about the rules and always trying to change them" comment. We have a set of rules within which we play the game. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

A little over reaction.

I run two leagues, both have TRC's.

I reread my comment, and didn't think it was critical...

"Trades are reviewed in a vacuum" is more of a comment that sparks conversation of different trades that were made throughout history where popular opinion thinks one team stole the deal, only for 2 seasons later, the opposite to happen. It was supposed to be a good will comment.

I think this league has you on edge man. A little defensive because all of the negative criticism that comes along with an offseason.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:25 pm

What exactly was the point of your comment then?

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:47 pm

Do I seriously have to quote myself, or did you just not read my last post?

Rockies wrote:
"Trades are reviewed in a vacuum" is more of a comment that sparks conversation of different trades that were made throughout history where popular opinion thinks one team stole the deal, only for 2 seasons later, the opposite to happen. It was supposed to be a good will comment.

I can't believe i just had to do that.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:18 pm

It was a statement of the obvious, so I still don't see the point in bringing it up. Everyone knows trades will look vastly different down the line even, in some cases, a day or two after the deal was made. We had this happen when someone dealt a player (I believe it was Darryl Kile) a couple days before before he died. The trade was completed when he as alive and healthy and approved afterwards. It was reviewed under the condition in which it was agreed to.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:59 pm

One more time.

Rockies wrote:
"Trades are reviewed in a vacuum" is more of a comment that sparks conversation of different trades that were made throughout history where popular opinion thinks one team stole the deal, only for 2 seasons later, the opposite to happen. It was supposed to be a good will comment.

If you don't want to partcipate in talking about trades throughout history SIM or MLB, then you don't have to. I was hoping to get some conversation going since I found it to be an interesting topic.

I'm sorry if my wording mislead you of the intent in the comment. Being a statement of the obvious has nothing to do the subject.

Again, I'm sorry that you think every statement is an attack on you personally or your league.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned baseball talk?

I'll move this into my own thread so you don't have to be bothered reading "statments of the obvious".

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:08 pm

Hahaha, God this is funny.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:38 pm

Athletics wrote:
Rockies wrote:What would happen if we had to vote on this trade now?
I'm confused, if we had to vote on this trade now why would the result be different? Is the idea that now the tables have turned? Because it's still a shit trade, just the other way around. Jared's rationale was that he wanted to rebuild his team from the ground up, and 2 out of the 3 "prospects" he was getting to do that flamed out completely. Today Lars Anderson is certainly worth more than Kevin Millwood, but at the time he hadn't taken a professional at bat, and I'm sure no one here had seen him live, so all we had were BA and Sickels, which basically means a roll of the dice. Meanwhile Barthmeier flamed out trying to make the jump to AA and Joe Benson is a toolsy athlete whom BA loves but who doesn't make either Sickels Twins top 20 or Kevin Goldstein's Top 11 and is at best three years away considering he's putting up unimpressive numbers in Low A, which means he still has the real challenge to go. Jared probably won this particular trade because Millwood has fallen off the table (his 2007 had to be on the PECOTA low end, no?) and Lars worked out, which was by no means a guarantee at that point. However, the reason the AA rules exists is because you don't build teams with a 1 in 3 success ratio, which is what happened in this trade, and even that is assuming that Lars succeeds at higher levels which is also by no means a guarantee. It's the fact that there are far more Jimmy Barthmeiers than Lars Andersons in Low A that make the AA rule necessary.

You do know that Benson hasn't turned 20 yet right? He turns 20 tomorrow in fact. Gotta defend the honor of my prospect...
"The Twins' second-round pick in 2006, Benson held his own at beloit last year; that increased strikeout rate is a byproduct of his attempts to better work the count. Benson has plus tools across the board, but his raw power and speed haven't translated into on-field results thus far. Both his hitting and fielding mechanics need work but he has as much upside as any hitter in the system." -Baseball Prospectus
Raw and toolsy? Sure, but what do you expect from 19 yr old?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:02 pm

Rockies wrote:One more time.

Rockies wrote:
"Trades are reviewed in a vacuum" is more of a comment that sparks conversation of different trades that were made throughout history where popular opinion thinks one team stole the deal, only for 2 seasons later, the opposite to happen. It was supposed to be a good will comment.

If you don't want to partcipate in talking about trades throughout history SIM or MLB, then you don't have to. I was hoping to get some conversation going since I found it to be an interesting topic.

I'm sorry if my wording mislead you of the intent in the comment. Being a statement of the obvious has nothing to do the subject.

Again, I'm sorry that you think every statement is an attack on you personally or your league.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned baseball talk?

I'll move this into my own thread so you don't have to be bothered reading "statments of the obvious".

1. Do I get a little touchy when it sounds like someone might be suggesting yet another change to the rules? Yeah, just a bit. It wears on you after 6 years which is part of why the ExCo was formed but there are still aspects that are a work in progress. Not long ago there were calls to expand the roster sizes for a third time (they were initially 40 players). Then you get guys complaining about changing a trade system that has served us very well and Dan giving me shit personally for having the audacity to consider the requests of a half dozen of our most influential members is more than slightly annoying.
2. It was my trade. It was vetoed, twice. That's always a touchy thing for just about everyone. Even me. That it turns out in retrospect to have been a huge mistake doesn't help either.

Boston/Texas Trade Appeal

Approve the trade or not? Kevin Millwood for Lars Anderson, Jimmy Barthmeier, Joe Benson

Boston/Texas Trade Appeal