WAS-TB appeal. Mandatory vote.

[Cardinals]

The appropriate TRC members voted to overturn the Washington and Tampa Bay trade.

Washington receives:
#3 overall
Ben Lively (13)



Tampa Bay receives
Juan Lagares
Aaron Barrett


Says Z:

The two most subjective things in our league have to be defense and draft picks. The value assigned to each is nowhere near as straight forward as a projected offense or era/whip is...yet we know the crazy things that even happen with those sometimes. If you choose to place a premium on defense, then Lagares, in CF, becomes one of the most talented players in the league. As a league, we begin to walk a very narrow tightrope if we start to place the value of prospects over the value of very real, very valuable MLB players...which is exactly what the declining of this deal does.

Above and beyond that, it's not anyone on TRC's job to tell the league what is and isn't valuable. The job of the TRC is to support newcomers in the league, and stop trades that are so egregious that they change the balance and makeup of teams. It is NOT the TRC's job to tell each GM what is and is not valuable to them.

This all does not even touch both the tenures, and track records, of Martin and I. If Martin believes his team needs an outstanding fielding CF with offensive upside, and I feel that I need to add talent that comes associated with #3...I'm not sure why there is zero trust given to either of us.

Said Martin (in the trade thread):

Happy holidays! If the league decides on a vote for this I will say more, but wanted to quickly respond to a few of the comments made by GMs I respect quite a bit.

I do think defense matters a great deal in the sim and Legares is obviously an outstanding defender, but I am actually more intrigued by his offensive growth rather than just his defensive prowess.

Jake is right to point out that the WAR value is very much influenced by the dWAR ; however, look at the oWAR and oRAR gains between the two seasons.


2013 392 AB .242/.281/.352 OPS + 80
2014 416 AB .281/.321/.382 OPS + 102
-----------------------------------------------------
2013 WAR 3.5/ oWAR 0.2/ dWAR 3.5/ oRAR 4
2014 WAR 5.5/ oWAR 2.4/ dWAR 3.4/ oRAR 24
-----------------------------------------------------

Brett is getting a terrific pick (1.3) in a deep draft. I'm getting a young, top 10 CF who at 24 has a few more years before he reaches his prime.

[Padres]

I have been around awhile ... made some good trades, made some shitty trades. Also served on the TRC for a few years ... In my not so humble opinion if this veto is upheld we will be establishing a new threshold for the TRC to work from. I can think of scores of worse trades then this one that have been approved - and this one is clearly by two GMs/Owners who have demonstrated a long interest and active participation in the IBC. I approve of this trade if I personally would not have made it!

[Royals]

Shouldn't there be something here about why the TRC vetoed it?

[Cardinals]

You ask this every time.

viewtopic.php?p=41544#41544

[Royals]

Because it still baffles me that we get only one side of the discussion. We should hear why the TRC vetoed the trade, they may have considered something that we haven't.

[Yankees]

Wanted to jump back in here, because I do think it's worthy of a league discussion. I also wanted to hold off on saying anything until the process was complete, though I did hint at it in my post above.

I think we should, as a league, set the parameters on what, exactly, the role of the TRC is. If they are a voted electorate whose role is to pass opinions on trades...I'm fine with that. If their job is to monitor trades to keep young GM's from getting pilfered and cut out trades that blatantly swing the balance of the league and teams involved...I'm fine with that, too.

The challenge, for me, with this trade, was the TRC deciding the value of defense versus the value of a high draft pick. Ultimately, it's setting a standard to how each trade should be judged going forward. Again, if deciding value for the league is something we are trusting with the TRC with, instead of the individual teams GM's...I'm not thrilled, but will accept it. I just think having this discussion is worthwhile...unless I missed where it already happened.

[Rockies]

Honestly, I think a long discussions about rules(updates, amendments, etc) and other league issues such as the TRC should happen.

I know its not fun, but a new set of up to date rules needs to be posted under the rules link.

[Giants]

I always thought it was the former of the two options Z presented, the TRC's job is to prevent league breaking trades. The #3 pick in the draft is a pretty serious asset, and has proven to be over the years, while a defense first player has typically been gettable on the waiver wire. Just like we had during the great Pavano/Nelson debacle of 2006 or whenever it was when we had to talk about the value of prospects vis a vis proven talent, we should have the conversation now about defense, and I think that's why the TRC was right to veto the trade.