IBC

Posted here by OOPSS

Pirates trades Forrest Wall, David Fletcher, Juan 15-Soto, to Astros for Gregory Polanco, Ian Happ, Zack 0-Littell,

Dodgers wrote:Pirates trades Forrest Wall, David Fletcher, Juan 15-Soto, to Astros for Gregory Polanco, Ian Happ, Zack 0-Littell,

I'm going to interject here and say this trade doesn't look good IMO. I'd like to bring this up for possible vote.

Didn't you just trade Gattis & Grichuk for a guy that was picked up 2 days prior? Asking for a friend.

Astros wrote:Didn't you just trade Gattis & Grichuk for a guy that was picked up 2 days prior? Asking for a friend.

Tell your friend he should have brought it up for a vote if he felt that way then.. Apologies for using the system in place. DIdn't think it was anything personal. If other's don't agree, so be it.

I'm willing to contend this one with Nate if 3 others are. I'd like to hear his argument.

Just go look at the numbers, they speak for themselves. Couldn't trade Polanco for a deflated beach ball and now everyone all bent outta shape.

I’m in, let’s vote on it.

Nate can you give me your arguments on why you are veto'ing it? Same with Aaron and Ken, thanks. I will need those before I can provide mine.

Well since we haven't started playing yet, sure, I am on board with hearing the reasoning beyond April SSS or High A rebounds.

If everybody wants to challenge the trade, that's fine. I'd also bear in mind that asking for arguments is not really what asking to veto a trade is about. We should review trades that affect the balance of the league.

Again, if everybody wants to go ahead and veto, so be it. But Polanco at 2 zWAR and Happ at 2 zWAR are hardly groundbreaking.

Pirates trades Curtis Granderson, to Giants for Aaron 16-Civale,

Veto.

Fletcher: LAA #23
Wall: COL #15
Soto: WAS #2

for
Littell: MIN #15
Polanco: +101 through first 26 games
Happ: 2 WAR projection

If you cross Littell and Fletcher out - it's a league average OF (Polanco - granted only 26) and a 2nd year Zobrist-type (23 years old) for a top prospect and a flier - both never played above A-Ball. I think the return is a little light considering the experience of Soto & Wall for two proven-ish major leaguers. I do not think it's as bad as it looks first glance.

I'm not Jake or JP and I'm just one of 30 opinions but I find this veto to be misguided. The first thing I thought when I saw this was "ah shit, now I have Soto in the division."

If I've been following along properly, I believe that JP traded Carlos Martinez for Buxton, Buxton for Margot and some interesting guys, Margot and some interesting guys for Soto, and Soto for Happ and Polanco.

For those of you who are only considering the last deal, is Martinez for Polanco and Happ not an even trade? It's pretty clear that Dan, Jake, and JP all value Soto at a very high level and I think that we can all agree that they are three of the brightest, best value-evaluating guys in the league. Are you so sure that they're all wrong and you aren't behind the curve on Soto? There is the obvious potential of any prospect to only be ok, and JP could easily win this deal, but to me he's the one taking the risk in this deal by trading the guy who shows all of the obvious traits and mechanics of an elite hitter.

This is a tough area because everyone is rightly sensitive to the best teams getting better through trades. I just know I rate these players more in line with the guys making the trades than those looking to veto. Happ and Polanco both have major questions marks at this point and to me are gambles (are they two win or four win players? I don't know, but I don't think either is more than that), whereas Soto has the inherent risk of his level but he's being traded around because smart guys are thinking that he's an emerging star.

Gregory Polanco has been in the league for 4 years and hasn’t been good yet. I love me some Ian Happ, but Soto has some pretty massive potential. All I’ve read about him is that he’s a top 10 prospect if he didn’t get hurt. Tired of watching JP get better, but “veto” didn’t even cross my mind when I saw this deal in the box.

Even if you don't think Soto is an emerging star like I do, I just don't get how this deal between veteran GMs involving a couple of meh OF going JP's way comes close to upsetting the balance of power in the league. You guys realize Polanco is almost 27 right?

First off, downplaying Polanco and Happ is a bit disingenuous. That said, I don't see anything here that feels worthy of a veto.

Perhaps not, but probably worthy of a vote. Which is all this is about. Some teams have doubts and it’s the mechanism to handle them. Maybe it would’ve been better had the TRC still existed. Now maybe that’s something we should’ve voted on.

Fair point by Ken. There is no TRC and this is our trade review mechanism. That said, I don't think it deserves a veto.

How's Chris Nelson doing these days?

Now that I'm home, I'm going to offer a few of my thoughts.

I think John's take is fair and reasonable.

On the surface, it does look like a lot, but if you're not lazy and actually dig into it, Jake is taking a chance on what he believes to be the best player in the deal. I believe Soto is the best player in the deal, too.

I also believe that Happ and Polanco can help me win in 2018, which is why I took the deal. They aren't demonstrably better than Peralta or McCutchen, so the success of this for me largely depends on what I can get out of my outfield glut. I also believe that there are signs that both Happ and Polanco will get better, otherwise, I wouldn't have done the deal myself.

That said, I believe many of you are wildly inconsistent or are disingenuous. I'm hoping that it's the former rather than the latter.

Apr. 2016 a very similar trade was passed by a TRC which, correct me if I'm wrong, had Stephen, Ken and Nick. Two of the GMs who are asking this trade to go to vote.

Andrew Benintendi, Isaiah White for Adam Jones.

This trade was also made by the same GM taking a chance -- Jake.

Where Benintendi and Soto are at in their careers at the time of the trade is nearly identical. Benintendi was #15 on BA's top 100 that year and had all of 124 short season AB and 74 regular A ball at bats in 2015. He and Soto are at very similar places. Soto would've ranked higher on lists this past year had he not got injured, but is still the Nats' best prospect and a top 50 guy.

Adam Jones was coming off 4.9, 4.7 and 3.4 win seasons as a CF. Worth noting that he was 30 at the time of the trade, unlike Polanco and Happ who are 27 and 23. Still, at the time, Jones had a 3.5 war projection in CF -- better than either player I received today.

He was the best present asset at the time of each trade.

It's an extremely similar trade that worked out great for Jake. That deal passed through the TRC, and not only that, not one person made a peep to challenge it to a league-wide veto.

A few people have messaged me separately saying "well, you got better and didn't get worse for this year." That is such a load of crap, I don't even know where to begin. If that's the logic, then trades like this shouldn't pass:

Tigers trades Dawel Lugo, Dylan Cozens, Josh Staumont, to Rays for Andrew Miller

Lugo is presently the 12th best prospect in the Tigers system, Cozens the 17th best in Philly system and Staumont the 11th best in the KC system. Andrew Miller might be the best relief pitcher in baseball, and one who is proven to be durable.

To further that logic, there is no scenario in which a pick-for-player trade should pass.

That deal not only passed the TRC (Ken, Stephen, Nick), but fewer GMs motioned to have that go to vote than this (three for that deal, four so far here).

I also didn't see anybody clamoring or asking for a vote when I traded Carlos Martinez, Rogelio Armenteros and Justin Upton to take a gamble on Byron Buxton, Matt Harvey and Andrew Heaney.

Again, this boils down to two things: being disingenuous or being inconsistent.

I withdraw my objection to the trade. Let’s get the season underway.

Tigers trades Bobby 16-Dalbec, to Cardinals for Aledmys Diaz,

I'll try to remain brief in my explanation -

Lots of talk about any objections being disingenuous - and arguments saying Soto is the best player in the deal. That's disingenuous to me. He might be
eventually, but currently the best player in the deal is Happ. You could also argue the 2nd best player is Polanco.

Soto has less than 400 professional at bats, and nearly 350 of those coming at Low A or below(I'm not looking up specific numbers as I write this). He is a highly regarded prospect, no doubt. But so was Gregory Polanco - ranked #10 overall by BA at one point. And arguments for this trade are being presented that he's not worth very much now(even though I think that in itself is also disingenuous - he's playing his age 26 season btw, so this idea he can't get better is a poor take - otherwise JP wouldn't trade for him).

In any case, that kind of exemplifies exactly why I think this deal should be scrutinized further. Soto carries with him a large risk - no one here has a crystal ball and can see what path Soto is going to take with any certainty. As Hamlin stated, how's Chris Nelson doing these days?

The other parts are fairly inconsequential to me. Fiorrest Wall has never been a super highly rated prospect and is on his 3rd go around of Hi A. Fletcher hasn't done much outside of April this year. Littell is interesting. But I think you can make an argument that Soto could just as conceivably end up with the same struggles as Polanco in the majors. And then where does that leave this trade? Wall and Fletcher for Happ?

Anyway, thats the last I'm going to say on it. If it goes to vote or doesn't over my objections, so be it - wish you gents the best of luck on the year.
Let's play ball.