Kevin Millwood--on the way out the door

[Rockies]

Well, looks like my Millwood trade isn't going to pass so I'm putting him back on the market. Bren and I have another version worked out, which (I hope) will pass but I told him I'd be curious to see what else I could get since my other trade wasn't acceptable.

Personally I think I got a good package, but I won't belly ache. My rationale was in the poll post and not everyone agrees on everything.

Tonight, for this night, Millwood's back on the block. I'm interested to see if I can actually get a better package than the one I negotiated, especially for those of you who voted no. I'm looking for either 3 players who are better than Barthmeier, Anderson, and Benson or two significantly better prospects.

I'll be at the Suns/Celts game tonight watching my boys in green get their brains beat but I'll be on later tonight. Either email me an offer that you are willing to do or be on late night to negotiate.

[Guardians]

Not sure if this will make you feel any better, but I think the Schilling trade was far worse. The spects in the Schilling deal are nearly interchangeable with what is available for free in free agency. Even if he is an old man there should have to be one semi-premium guy that would rank on the backend of some top 100 list.

[Rockies]

Also, feel free to comment on the trade in this thread, since we're not able to talk about it in the poll post. I'm slightly blown away by this but I will not be a dick about it. Some dialog isn't bad though. I really would like to see why people voted the way they did.

One thing I'll add, I don't think the last sentence of the TC's argument was fair at all. I think that the talent trading hands was understandable, even despite the AA rule. By adding this at the end: If this trade is allowed it, in effect, will serve as precedent eroding the Commissioner's edict. You might as well have said that a vote for yes and the Terrorists win!

[Mets]

Since when is Millwood any more than a #3 starter? He's a #4 on most teams.

[Cardinals]

probably your ace then right?

[Mets]

probably your ace then right?

I'll take Jennings, Hensley & Cliff Lee over Millwood anyday.

I'm sure there are other GM's that would feel the same.

[Rangers]

Also, feel free to comment on the trade in this thread, since we're not able to talk about it in the poll post. I'm slightly blown away by this but I will not be a dick about it. Some dialog isn't bad though. I really would like to see why people voted the way they did.

One thing I'll add, I don't think the last sentence of the TC's argument was fair at all. I think that the talent trading hands was understandable, even despite the AA rule. By adding this at the end: If this trade is allowed it, in effect, will serve as precedent eroding the Commissioner's edict. You might as well have said that a vote for yes and the Terrorists win!

I've been there, both in this league and in the BCML. When you're rebuilding a bad team and are looking to trade 30+ year olds for young players or prospects, unless they're stars, other people tend to say 'you should get x for him' but are not willing to pay it themselves. It puts you in a difficult position. The only thing about this is Bren's own guideline. I don't agree with it, I think that people on the TRC and for the most part in this league in general are smart enough to evaluate a trade on its merits rather than having to be told how to look at players, but if used as we've been directed to, it's the thing that makes this difficult to evaluate. As I've said before, I also think that Bren's standard of needing 20 votes to overturn a TRC decision - considering that you already have two votes against you - is absurd. It is almost impossible to overturn a decision, which makes the appeals process basically a joke, which I guess was the intent previously.

I do think that the current TRC is doing a really good job, better than some of the other versions we've had.

And I will say, this package is WAY better than the one for Schilling, imo. I agree with Paul on that one.

[Rockies]

I've been there, both in this league and in the BCML. When you're rebuilding a bad team and are looking to trade 30+ year olds for young players or prospects, unless they're stars, other people tend to say 'you should get x for him' but are not willing to pay it themselves. It puts you in a difficult position. The only thing about this is Bren's own guideline. I don't agree with it, I think that people on the TRC and for the most part in this league in general are smart enough to evaluate a trade on its merits rather than having to be told how to look at players, but if used as we've been directed to, it's the thing that makes this difficult to evaluate. As I've said before, I also think that Bren's standard of needing 20 votes to overturn a TRC decision - considering that you already have two votes against you - is absurd. It is almost impossible to overturn a decision, which makes the appeals process basically a joke, which I guess was the intent previously.

I do think that the current TRC is doing a really good job, better than some of the other versions we've had.

And I will say, this package is WAY better than the one for Schilling, imo. I agree with Paul on that one.

Yes now that I see the Schilling package I'm just stunned. I think each of my prospects are better than any of the three traded for Schilling.

Here's the problem w/ the discounting below-AA players. It makes it impossible for me to rebuild. I either have to accept 50 cents on the dollar for AAA players OR the simple fact that the package of prospects that it would take to get approved would be such that there's basically no way the other GM would do it.

Not to pick on the Balt GM here but he came asking for Sexson but was unwilling to give up anything more than Koshansky-level prospects, and wasn't even willing to give up Koshansky alone for Howry or Wuertz. I wouldn't do either because I felt that my players were worth more. He certainly entitled to his opinion on who's worth what and so am I. We didn't get anything done, no biggie. So basically there's absolutely no way we can do a deal w/ the TCs current mandate. He seemed pretty intent on driving an impossible bargain but what good would it have done him? Anything he'd have accepted would have been rejected immediately.

I'm being polite here so I hope this doesn't turn into an insult contest, I'm trying to get a dialog going. I don't like this AA mandate at all, it puts me in a near impossible position.

BTW, I haven't gotten one offer for Millwood since this post. Not one.

We had the same problem in the BCMBL earlier this year., where I'm on the TC. The TC was doing it's job but had a near impossible edict of only overturning trades that were "a threat to league integrity", whatever that means. Usually the TC is trying to follow the rules but the rules don't cut it. In ended in 2 of our best GMs, including IBC's COL, quitting the league (plus the commish is basically an anus). One thing we do different which I think is better is:

1. If we're planning on overturning we ask for each GM's input and that often decides whether we accept it or not.

2. Take a closer look at deals involving new GMs since they're usually the ones that get railroaded. Mostly, if it's between 2 experienced GMs, we pretty much leave them be and trust that they know what they're doing. Although we will still veto from time to time.

3. When a league vote is called for, it's the first to 16 votes. You're right in saying that 20 votes is damn near impossible.

Just some stuff the chew on.

[Padres]

One thing I'll add, I don't think the last sentence of the TC's argument was fair at all. I think that the talent trading hands was understandable, even despite the AA rule. By adding this at the end: If this trade is allowed it, in effect, will serve as precedent eroding the Commissioner's edict. You might as well have said that a vote for yes and the Terrorists win!

Now that the veto has been upheld officially I would like to offer a few comments. First of I empathize with Jared's position however I strongly disagree with his assertion that the inclusion of the above referenced sentence was wrong. It is a fact ... overturning this veto would, in effect, overturn the Commissioner's edict. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some GMs voted to approve this trade because they don't like the rule and viewed this trade as a referendum to get rid of it!

Next, as an individual GM, I don't like the so-called sub AA edict. I think this vote is indicative of the fact that the majority of the GMs in the league don't necessarily agree with the edict as well. As a member of the TRC I followed the edict because it is the rule in place at this time. As an individual GM, I voted to uphold the veto because while I think the rule should be modified or eliminated, I don't believe the person who uni-laterally promulgated the rule should initially and uni-laterally benefit from its repeal. If the rule is modified or eliminated, it ought to occur via a league-wide announcement so everyone has an equal opportunity to trade via the new or revised trading environment.

The most ironic part of this whole situation is that prior to the ban of the trading of draft picks - this trade may have well been Millwood for Barthmeier, a 1st and 3rd round draft pick. Based on approved trades (before I joined the IBC) which I viewed in the past, that trade would have likely passed. I believe this rule banning the trading of draft picks should also be revisited. While the trade may have gone have somewhat faster this year, we are still seeing a ripple effect from this rule now. I would like to see a rule allowing the trading of draft picks limited to the upcoming draft (one never knows how long a GM will stay in the IBC) and limited to only trading picks in the first 5 rounds.

[Giants]

Why is it the majority of the league seems to disagree with all of Bren's unilateral edicts. Is that a sign maybe?

[Rangers]

I think the general rule is if Bren wants to do something and feels like the league is in favor of it it gets voted on. If he wants to do something and feels like they aren't it becomes a unilateral edict.

[Mets]

In other leagues, 16 out of 30 is the majority.

I propose that the first 16 votes in either direction decide issues like these.

[Royals]

To overturn the TRC's decisions either way requires a 2/3 majority. this is because people do not always vote honestly or fairly on other GM's trades. Some people WILL vote down a trade if it benefits a competitor or if they were trying to get a player or if they feel they amde a better offer on the player. Sometimes this is a conscious decision, sometimes it's subconscious. By requiring a 2/3 majority it becomes much more difficult for such jealousies and personal opinions to become in issue in league wide votes.

As for other leagues? I don't give a rat's behind what other leagues do. If you prefer their system, then by all means go ahead and join the other league. There are a lot of Sim leagues out there to choose from. Some do no reviews at all of trades, some do league wide votes on all trades. Frankly, I don't give a damn what they do, this is the way it's done in the IBC.

[Cardinals]

In other leagues, 16 out of 30 is the majority.

I propose that the first 16 votes in either direction decide issues like these.

I would hope not just in other leagues, but in the actual world that over 50% is the majority. That was an earth shattering breakthrough you brought us. Thank you for that.

[Braves]

In other leagues, 16 out of 30 is the majority.

I propose that the first 16 votes in either direction decide issues like these.

I would hope not just in other leagues, but in the actual world that over 50% is the majority. That was an earth shattering breakthrough you brought us. Thank you for that.

haha

[Mets]

As for other leagues? I don't give a rat's behind what other leagues do. If you prefer their system, then by all means go ahead and join the other league. There are a lot of Sim leagues out there to choose from. Some do no reviews at all of trades, some do league wide votes on all trades. Frankly, I don't give a damn what they do, this is the way it's done in the IBC.

Sorry that my suggestion made you defensive. I completely agree with the ideaology.

[Royals]

As for other leagues? I don't give a rat's behind what other leagues do. If you prefer their system, then by all means go ahead and join the other league. There are a lot of Sim leagues out there to choose from. Some do no reviews at all of trades, some do league wide votes on all trades. Frankly, I don't give a damn what they do, this is the way it's done in the IBC.

Sorry that my suggestion made you defensive. I completely agree with the ideaology.

I was just kind of grumpy, I was looking at a late night up ahead and the liklihood of sleeping under my desk.