IBC

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.

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.

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.

RedSox wrote:Near MLB ready prospects for a struggling team.

Near ready to top out as fringy bench players.

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.

Totally agree with Z and Nats here.

This is a joke, needs to be a veto here. Whatever happenned to the Pirate/Yankee trade vote?

I think this makes 5.

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.

the challenge is up, who is going to compose it?

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.

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.

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

am I missing something here?

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*

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.