Trade Protest
- Guardians
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Name: Pat Gillespie
Trade Protest
I protest the Schilling trade. I don't see anyone going to the DRays in that trade that remotely has the promise of being even a slightly above average big leaguer. In fact, I have colossal doubts these guys ever even stick in the majors.
Last edited by Guardians on Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Athletics
- Posts: 1930
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:00 am
- Location: San Diego, CA
- Name: Stephen d'Esterhazy
I dont see how you can justify that. Gonzalez plays a slick SS and could become and ideal number 2 hitter. Bourn has comparisons to Juan Pierre. And if Hawksworth regains his 2004 Form(like he should he could last year) I think I have a steal for a 40 yr old pitcher. But ill let you tell me why I shouldnt do this trade considering im fighting last place in the AL Beast with myself.
"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs. My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is fucking luck."
LAA 11 - 15 331W - 479L
LAA 16 - 20 477W - 333L 17-20 ALW
OAK 21 - 24 297W - 189L 21-22 ALW
LAA 11 - 15 331W - 479L
LAA 16 - 20 477W - 333L 17-20 ALW
OAK 21 - 24 297W - 189L 21-22 ALW
- Guardians
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Name: Pat Gillespie
I'm not really sure what you're asking for? Using the Millwood trade vote post as an example it would seem the TRC provided a rationale and the traders provided a rationale. I didn't see any piece where anyone else included feedback.RedSox wrote:the challenge is up, who is going to compose it?
viewtopic.php?t=25
If you're looking for someone to explain what the TRC was thinking I can't do that. I don't have any psychotropic mushrooms. If you're asking one of the protesters to put together an constructive arguement citing stats and credible sources in the prospect world than I could compile that if needed.
- Yankees
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Agree with Shawn and my AL central brother here - I think this is an example of how we also need to be wary of swinging too far to the "what will he SIM" side AS WELL AS the "he's a prospect" side. Patton is clearly a top-notch LH prospect - Diamond is iffy, Casto will never be a top tier hitter, and Neshek, at best, is a good reliever.
Both GM's have a pretty decent track record - Jagger has shown a good eye for talent - I think this is just fine.
Both GM's have a pretty decent track record - Jagger has shown a good eye for talent - I think this is just fine.
- Rockies
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Denver, CO
- Name: Nate Hunter
- Contact:
I agree with you, and most "profiles" also agree. I just think that those 3 is a steep price to pay. Just my personal opinion, I didn't have a problem w/ the schilling or millwood trades but I would have vetoed this one. Just one man's opinion though.Tigers wrote:Just FWIW, Diamond is very iffy right now, regardless of what you read in profiles. Patton has a lot better chance of becoming a quality starter at the moment. There is a big difference in the real value of those two, maybe not the "IBC" value, but the real value.
Not that I have to provide any insight, but I voted to veto the trade.. we talked about this one at length, ulitmately it passed. As for the "schilling" trade, I didn't have an opportunity to vote before it was passed.
Regardless, I think the process is obviously working. We may not always agree with each other on what trades should pass or get shot down, but thats why we have the appeals process in place. And it seemingly, is working, keeping things balanced and checked.
Regardless, I think the process is obviously working. We may not always agree with each other on what trades should pass or get shot down, but thats why we have the appeals process in place. And it seemingly, is working, keeping things balanced and checked.