Trade Protest

Here you will find a history of approved trades.
Post Reply
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4669
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

Trade Protest

Post by Guardians »

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.
User avatar
Athletics
Posts: 1874
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:00 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Name: Stephen d'Esterhazy

Post by Athletics »

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 - 22 214W - 110L 21-22 ALW
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3963
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

It's not as though Schilling is in his 40s or has missed any time over the last 4 seasons... Oh wait, he is and he has.
This is a classic, Old Vet for Competitive team in exchange for Near MLB ready prospects for a struggling team. It makes great sense for both of us.
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4669
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

Post by Guardians »

RedSox wrote:Near MLB ready prospects for a struggling team.
Near ready to top out as fringy bench players.
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

Jesus guys, there needs to be one legitimate prospect in a trade for Schilling - and there just isn't in this one...

There are some moderate, low ceiling guys - but nothing that warrants Schilling.
User avatar
WhiteSox
Posts: 1325
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Aaron Dorman

Post by WhiteSox »

Totally agree with Z and Nats here.
User avatar
Cubs
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Chicago
Name: Pat Bishop

Post by Cubs »

This is a joke, needs to be a veto here. Whatever happenned to the Pirate/Yankee trade vote?
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Post by Dodgers »

I think this makes 5.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3963
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

BlueJays wrote:This is a joke, needs to be a veto here. Whatever happenned to the Pirate/Yankee trade vote?
That one passed, I think there was an email about it but I'm too lazy to look it up.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3963
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

the challenge is up, who is going to compose it?
User avatar
Guardians
Posts: 4669
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Name: Pat Gillespie

Post by Guardians »

RedSox wrote:the challenge is up, who is going to compose it?
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.

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.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3963
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

With challenges/protests of approved trades, someone challenging the trade provides an explanation of why it is being challenged and the GM's who did the deal provide an explanation of why it should stand (in conjunction with the TRC if they choose).
Just email it to me when you get the chance.
User avatar
Rockies
Posts: 2572
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Name: Nate Hunter
Contact:

Post by Rockies »

D'Rays get: Thomas Diamond/ Kory Casto/ Pat Neshek
D'Backs get: Troy Patton

am I missing something here?
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3963
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Rangers wrote:D'Rays get: Thomas Diamond/ Kory Casto/ Pat Neshek
D'Backs get: Troy Patton

am I missing something here?
I'm wondering the same thing...
Dave: Hey Jagger, you dropped your soap.
Jagger: Oh, yeah, i did. *Bends over to pick it up... horror ensues*
User avatar
Rockies
Posts: 2572
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Name: Nate Hunter
Contact:

Post by Rockies »

Not that he's the be all end all but Sickels gave the following grades:

Patton: B+

Neshek: B (who destroys righties and will probably have a dominant sim this year)
Diamond: B
Casto: B (will also have a pretty decent sim)
User avatar
Rangers
Site Admin
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Prosper, TX
Name: Brett Perryman

Post by Rangers »

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.
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Post by Dodgers »

Also, Neshek may have dominated last year, but he still struggles with lefties and many an expert think that eventually hitters will solve his funky motion.
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

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.
User avatar
Rockies
Posts: 2572
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Name: Nate Hunter
Contact:

Post by Rockies »

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.
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.
User avatar
BlueJays
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Johnston, RI
Name: David Taylor

Post by BlueJays »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Trade Approvals”