Page 1 of 1

KC-WAS Trade Appeal. Mandatory vote

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:49 pm
by Cardinals
The following deal was vetoed:

Nationals get:
Tyler Thornburg
James 10-Paxton
Matt 11-Skole
Alen 0-Hanson
Nick 11-Tropeano
David 12-Dahl

Royals get:
Carlos Beltran
Matt Cain
Alberto Callaspo
Chris Davis

Says Z:
First of all Gudim and I have been in the league for over 6 years each. The fact that any of our deals with each other is vetoed is absurd. I'm not trying to be a dick by saying that - it just sucks to have given a LOT of time (10 years) to a league and people say back they don't trust you.

Second, I signed on to take the biggest turd of a team in '03. I also had no idea what a prospect was until 2006-07ish - so you can imagine how bad my team was. Since then I did a complete rebuild of my team by bringing in prospects. I have a precedent here that I might know what I'm doing.

On to the trade itself. Cain is clearly the star of the show. My goal in moving Cain was to get 3 top 100 prospects, 3 good young MLB players or a combination of those 2 things. In this trade I got 4 top 100 players (Paxton, Skole, Dahl, Hanson), and 2 players with limited upside admittedly - but seem to be pretty surefire mid-rotation starters. That's nothing to sneeze at.

So, out of this deal, I get a potential #2 starter, my #4 hitter, my #3 hitter, and my leadoff hitter - plus two guys who will fill out my rotation along with Gilmartin, Blackburn, Wisler, Wood, Black, Light, McDonald - plus whoever I get from the rest of my players on the block.

The framework of the deal that we kept beating around was various players/forms of Cain/Davis/Callaspo for the players above minus Thornburg and Dahl. For me, I needed Dahl in this deal. Giving up a player with an injury history, advanced in age, and coming off his worst ops since 2005 (given still a 4 win player) was worth it to me.

Callaspo is decent but is not the droid I'm looking for. Davis is a big slugger who will always have holes in his game.

Also, this makes my other deals look dumb. There aren't a ton of teams looking to acquire veteran players who have a glut of young talent like Jason does. Either teams are hording young talent, or they are contending. Jason was in a position to give me the talent I was looking for, and to help him in the moment.
Says Gudim:
Anyway, much of what I have to say will echo Z's argument.

First of all, we both have a baseline history of competence in this league. There's a lot more people in this league that think I'm an idiot than think Z is an idiot, but we've both managed to rebuild and maintain a competitive team most of the time.

Also, this is an opportunistic trade for both of us. I have failed to trade any of my vets for over a year now (with an exception here and there). I have been patiently collecting prospects for a few years in an effort to do exactly what happened here.

These prospects I traded weren't helping me at all. I can sit on them until they develop for another three years and suffer through more mediocrity. In this trade, I address four huge holes. Cain pushes everyone in my rotation back a slot and makes it a true strength rather than a position of depth. Chris Davis at 1B is better than...everything I have on my roster. I'm gambling that Beltran still rates at CF and gives me a defensively atrocious OF with solid bats, and Callaspo > Punto, as long as he rates at SS.

For Z's side of the trade, I think this makes a ton of sense. The entire point of prospects is that you take a risk and hope they develop. He gets someone to anchor his rotation in Paxton. Skole looks like Davis with less power but better plate discipline. Tropeano makes a solid mid-to-back of the rotation SP. Thornburg profiles as a better version of Tropeano with better stuff. Hanson and Dahl are the two huge wild cards in this equation, but they are both highly regarded by the prospectors on the interweb. Both have superstar upside.

Cain is a huge talent for Z to trade. No one argues this. But aside from Davis, the others don't have any long term value for him. Beltran has one to two years left, unless he somehow ends up in the AL DHing. He happened to get a good projection this year. Callaspo is probably in the same boat, but he's not a game changer, unless Nick Punto is your starting SS.

That's my appeal. In my opinion, this has devolved into a group of people telling to vets how to run their teams. I don't think it's necessary, because neither one of us neither to be protected from ourselves, and we're not doing the league a disservice.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:35 pm
by Rockies
Other than the fact I am envious that I wasn't able to get Cain back, I don't see the necessary downside to veto this trade. Z is getting some quality chips. If he wants to blow it up, so be it.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:16 pm
by Brewers
I am against vetoing trades of long time members unless collusion is suspected. I trust these men.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:33 pm
by Marlins
I agree. Vetoing this trade is basically telling Brett he isnt in charge of what direction to take his own team. The fact that this trade got vetoed, and that 8 people so far have agreed with that, really bothers me.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:41 pm
by Athletics
For what it is worth, I don't mind teams blowing up their rosters...I just think Brett is selling himself short on either Beltran or Callaspo...both 3 WAR players.

While the idea of Cain for Dahl, Hanson, and Paxton might be acceptable (in your case you even consider Skole in that mix)...you are left with either a 3 for 3 or 3 for 2 deal and Thornburg and Tropeano don't seem to bring enough value to the table if you were trading them straight up for Beltran or Callaspo.

I think if you removed one of those guys, the deal might have slipped through without question.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:46 pm
by Royals
Longtime member or no, the rules set forth for the TRC aren't to allow any deal unless collusion is involved. It's to veto any deals that are remarkably bad. Is this bad and stupid? In my opinion, yeah. Remarkably so?

Isn't there supposed to be one statement of why to allow it and one statement on why it was vetoed rather than two in favor? I'm holding my vote until I see a statement from the TRC on the other side.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:09 pm
by RedSox
Padres wrote:Isn't there supposed to be one statement of why to allow it and one statement on why it was vetoed rather than two in favor? I'm holding my vote until I see a statement from the TRC on the other side.
Per the rules:
E. If a trade is rejected by the TRC then the GM's may write a brief
(fitting on 1 page of a MS Word document at 12pt. font) appeal and
request a league wide vote. A 2/3 majority is required to overturn a
TRC veto.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:20 pm
by Yankees
Appreciate the support of those who gave it...

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:20 pm
by Royals
RedSox wrote:
Padres wrote:Isn't there supposed to be one statement of why to allow it and one statement on why it was vetoed rather than two in favor? I'm holding my vote until I see a statement from the TRC on the other side.
Per the rules:
E. If a trade is rejected by the TRC then the GM's may write a brief
(fitting on 1 page of a MS Word document at 12pt. font) appeal and
request a league wide vote. A 2/3 majority is required to overturn a
TRC veto.
Wow.
That is fucking retarded.
To give neither side a say in the vote would be reasonable. To give both sides a say would be reasonable. To give only one side a say is fucking stupid.

And before someone says it's my rules, no, I'm pretty sure it's not. The set of rules I originally posted didn't even have a reference to the ExCo. Someone updated these and fucked that part way the hell up.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:37 pm
by Cardinals
Wrong. I just looked back in the ExCo forum where the non-modified rules were posted, and here's this:
1. The trade deadline is August 31st Midnight EST, trades can again be made the day after the World Series.
2. Trades will be reviewed by the Trade Review Committee (TRC).
A. The TRC is made up of 3 GM's (the Commish or Co-Commish, and two other GMs) with members being reviewed every three months.
B. 2 votes rejecting the deal out of 3 causes a trade to be vetoed.
C. If a TRC member makes a trade then he cannot vote on that deal, in sucha situation a prearranged substitute will cast a vote in his place.
D. Trades should be evaluated on their merit at the time the trade is agreed to, which may be slightly different from when the trade goes to the committee or is approved.
E. If a trade is rejected by the TRC then the GM's may write a brief (fitting on 1 page of a MS Word document at 12pt. font) appeal and request a leaguewide vote. A 2/3 majority is required to overturn a TRC veto
1. Approved trades may also be appealed if at least 5 members call for a leaguewide vote on the approved trade. A 2/3 majority (20 out of 30) is required to overturn the TRC's approval of a deal and force a veto.



So, yeah.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:50 pm
by Astros
My thoughts Z, are that you could've gotten a lot more for those players than what you did. I got a better package for Wainwright alone, and he was coming off TJ, thank you got for your package. Shop around more before you blow it up next time. If I was on the TRC I'd have voted to veto it because you could've gotten far more value if you'd dealt the guys individually

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:59 pm
by DBacks
Voted to approve. Z and Gudim know what they're doing, they know their teams, and they're not newbies being taken for a ride by JB. I say let these guys run their teams the way they want to.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:12 pm
by WhiteSox
Voted to approve. Z and Gudim know what they're doing, they know their teams, and they're not newbies being taken for a ride by JB. I say let these guys run their teams the way they want to.
Why am I always the bad guy!

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:41 pm
by Phillies
Yankees wrote:
Voted to approve. Z and Gudim know what they're doing, they know their teams, and they're not newbies being taken for a ride by JB. I say let these guys run their teams the way they want to.
Why am I always the bad guy!
Forever the scapegoat.