Trade Objection

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:49 pm

Braves trade<br>
2007 Draft, Pick 10, Jose 0-Tabata, , , , , , <br>to Yankees for<br>
2007 Draft, Pick 9, Seth Smith, , , , , ,

I'm objecting to this deal. Seth Smith is a 4th OFer at best, there's no way ONE spot in the draft is worth Jose Tabata for a 4th OFer.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:53 pm

two experienced GMs. gotta let it pass. sometimes you overpay to get the guy you want in a draft.

i learned that from Madden.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:55 pm

u do overpay, but not by that much.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:02 am

BTW, if you are also objecting to the deal, please make that 100% clear so there's no gray area. 5 objections sends it to a vote.

Oh, and Gabe, having two experienced GM's doesn't give the trade a free pass.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:08 am

I'm not wild about the deal either, but given the way we are suppose to "undervalue" prospects that haven't played about High A level and given they were two experienced GM's and given some of the other deals that I've seen go through in the past month or two, I just dont' see how we can justify overturning this.

Tabata is a nice prospect, but he still hasn't done anything above High A ball and he was still just the #9 prospect in the FSL. So while he could be a good MLBer some day he's still along ways off and has the big jump to AA still to prove.

Fukudome represents immediate help in the OF for Brandon.
Smith is nothing more than a 4th OFer, however at least he's performed at the AAA level already.

I hate to be someone to have to defend a JB trade, but I just can't justify in my mind that this deal was so lopsided that it should be rejected. Hell, I think the other trade where JB got the #9 pick was worse than this.

Just my 2 cents.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:14 am

Mariners wrote:I'm not wild about the deal either, but given the way we are suppose to "undervalue" prospects that haven't played about High A level and given they were two experienced GM's and given some of the other deals that I've seen go through in the past month or two, I just dont' see how we can justify overturning this.

Tabata is a nice prospect, but he still hasn't done anything above High A ball and he was still just the #9 prospect in the FSL. So while he could be a good MLBer some day he's still along ways off and has the big jump to AA still to prove.

Fukudome represents immediate help in the OF for Brandon.
Smith is nothing more than a 4th OFer, however at least he's performed at the AAA level already.

I hate to be someone to have to defend a JB trade, but I just can't justify in my mind that this deal was so lopsided that it should be rejected. Hell, I think the other trade where JB got the #9 pick was worse than this.

Just my 2 cents.

Well, in fairness, this just illustrates how idiotic that "rule" is. I understand that some members didn't trust various TRC members to vote deals involving prospects the way they wanted, but the logic is just all screwy and dumb.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:25 am

Honestly Brennan, I agree, there have been some very questionable deals allowed lately with very little of anyone piping up and the general reason for that is, IMO, that if they don't object, then no one will object to the deals when THEY rip someone else off.

being experienced GM's is not a Free pass, it just means you're not subject to the additional restrictions that Newbies are.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:26 am

Well, in fairness, this just illustrates how idiotic that "rule" is.

Stupid rule, yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't arbitrarily choose when to and when not to enforce it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:45 am

Mariners wrote:
Well, in fairness, this just illustrates how idiotic that "rule" is.

Stupid rule, yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't arbitrarily choose when to and when not to enforce it.

agree and agree

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:49 am

i don't think being experienced means its a free pass.

it does mean, that if you wanna give up a guy who's in A ball so you can get the guy you want in the draft, you're allowed. this trade is being blown way out of proportion. when its all said and done, he gave up a prospect to pick up a MLB ready OF. good for him. since his team won a 100+ games last year i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

all the rape jobs JB pulls and this is the one we want to get on him for? count me out. if someone wants to object to one of his really bloody backdoor invasions, i'll picket right along with ya.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:08 am

If you're using the AA rule as defense on this one, you also have to go back and use it (or at least attempt to) on the trade JB made to get #9 in the first place. Faustino hasn't seen AA yet and therefore should have been discounted (Picks 9 and 94 for Faustino and 57). Additionally, Shawn is still somewhat new (though I hate to see the guy have another trade overturned) and the ExCo's initial ruling had been that newbies (not sure he's falling in this boat or not, I think anyone going through their first IBC draft would) would have their pick trades scrutinized much closer (http://ibc.poweralleycircuit.com/viewtopic.php?t=370).

However, I do worry that JB's becoming a target. I look at it as I wish I was the guy who underpaid for the pick, then got someone to overpay, but JB made it happen to so hat's off to him. I don't see how this trade will ever get overturned on appeal since the AA rule makes it even closer.

I do think that we, the ExCo need to seriously look at that rule, as well as looking at draft pick trading again and discussing trading while drafting is happening. We initially did not specify what "start of draft" meant, whether it meant untimed or timed, but I think discussion is merited now.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:56 am

The deal presented the TRC was the #9 pick and Smith for the #10 pick and Tabata, not Fukodome and 10 for Smith and 9. Obviously the deal as presented is an easy one to approve. If the second deal was presented clearly the result would've been different. If we go back and look at several of the draft pick deals after the choices are made we clearly will not think the results are deals we would have approved. The ExCo needs to figure out what direction they want to go with this issue quickly.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:59 am

I think it's too late to do anything about this deal. Not sure I agree it's bad enough in the first place to vote against, but that's not my point.

We can't allow circumstances to happen then after someone uses it to their advantage, try to change them retroactively. By starting the draft early and not stopping the draft pick trading, you gave someone the opportunity to hold on to a pick that is up, wait to see if someone still available has some kind of news, and widely increase value of that pick. I say good job to JB for taking advantage of the situation we created.

We can all bitch and moan all we want about the deal, but I would have to consider this incredibly pathetic if anything changes over this.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:01 am

bottom line: Fukudome & Smith will both have nice projections next year.

Tabata & (possible #10 pick) most likely will not.

Brandon won a million games last season, and he might be primed for a win-now strategy. I don't see how you can justify telling Brandon what he should do because everyone has a boner for teenage baseball players. Tabata hasn't done shit except show he has a lot of potential, and knock around A ball pitchers. He's still got another good 1.5-2 years of development (especially in the NYY system...where guys like Jackson, etc. rank ahead.)

And it's aggressive moves like this that win championships. Braves have 2 years to worry about 2009...it doesn't have to be in 2007.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:02 am

Just to clarify, I didn't mean discuss for this year. I strongly disagree with retroactively applying a rule or having a rule apply to part but not all of the draft.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:02 am

Good points Nils. To change it now would deprive the rest of us of the ability to maximize the value of our picks as others have already done by waiting to trade them until they are about to be used.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:04 am

Also to clarify: draft pick trading WILL end once the clock has started.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:13 am

Exactly. And, if we had all thought it through, we should have tried to make a rule that until the draft officially starts, you can't trade a pick that's within 3 or 5 picks of the current pick. But, hindsight is 20/20.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:34 am

RedSox wrote:BTW, if you are also objecting to the deal, please make that 100% clear so there's no gray area. 5 objections sends it to a vote.

At this point in time I believe 1 GM has officially objected. Since the draft has been temporarily suspended I would ask any other GMs that intend to object to do so and barring the necessary 5 objections, let's move forward.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:20 am

Mets wrote: At this point in time I believe 1 GM has officially objected. Since the draft has been temporarily suspended I would ask any other GMs that intend to object to do so and barring the necessary 5 objections, let's move forward.

Agreed.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:52 am

I'd glad I'm around to make the IBC more interesting. After "taking too long to draft" and people getting impatient, now we have a new thread to create interest in the league. After all, anything I can do to help.

Not that I feel the need to defend or explain my deals, but when people start to chime in i'll provide them with some insight. First off all I first asked Brett P. about pick 10 before he had dealt it to Brandon. We had discussed DeLos Santos in a deal, but nothing ever became concrete. He then got an offer for Utley he couldnt refuse and that was the end of that. Almost immediately after that I saw on the board that pick 9 was available. I asked about that pick, he wanted pitching. My best SP prospect was De Los Santos who he had interest in and shortly after that a deal was done. I'm sure the reasoning of both GMs in getting DLS would be that if they were looking to take a prospect in the draft, esp. a pitching one DLS might be the best one available at that point with Parker recently off the board. Goldstein in his ChiSox review had very high praise for him (5-stars and future projection as an impact SP or CL, which is all you can really ask for in a pitching prospect) and I'm sure BA will have very nice things to say about him in their top 10 of CWS and in the top 100.

Once I got the pick, I was set on drafting Fukudome (the reason I traded up in the first place), but the reason I waited was to see if he was 100% sure coming to the majors (Well that and to piss Nick off). Once that was established I was interested to see where he was going to sign SD or Chicago. Brandon and just about everyone else I talked to knew that I was taking Fukudome with that pick and if someone wanted to get him they had to make a deal with me. So to not value pick 9 as Fukudome makes little sense and thats even what I told Brandon. I would argue that Fuku will project with solid D in RF and with a projection somewhere in the 280-380-480 range which is pretty solid and something you can immediately insert into the top of just about any lineup.

I would argue Brandon might have gotten the better of this deal overall anyhow. He gets Fuku who immediately becomes one of his better SIM players and a backup OF that should sim nicely. I get two prospects LaPorta and Tabata who are still not MLB ready and although the potential is obviously it is no guarantee they succeed. I had enough OF depth to fade the loss of not starting Fukudome in my OF and what can I say I'm a sucker for Yankee prospects.

I'll refrain on making the pick until this is settled, I enjoy holding up the draft anyhow

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:18 am

I don't even know why you felt compelled to write all that JB...

Bottom Line:
Deal was clearly Fukodome/Smith for Tabata/LaPorta - that's a pretty solid deal going both ways. In fact, technically, the only reason this would be overturned is that your prospects are actually of the A variety, and thus not worth two MLB players.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:23 am

Can we just move on now?

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:55 am

Z, I was bored at work and needed a break, gotta pass the time somehow.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:20 pm

Yankees wrote:I'd glad I'm around to make the IBC more interesting. After "taking too long to draft" and people getting impatient, now we have a new thread to create interest in the league. After all, anything I can do to help.

Not that I feel the need to defend or explain my deals, but when people start to chime in i'll provide them with some insight. First off all I first asked Brett P. about pick 10 before he had dealt it to Brandon. We had discussed DeLos Santos in a deal, but nothing ever became concrete. He then got an offer for Utley he couldnt refuse and that was the end of that. Almost immediately after that I saw on the board that pick 9 was available. I asked about that pick, he wanted pitching. My best SP prospect was De Los Santos who he had interest in and shortly after that a deal was done. I'm sure the reasoning of both GMs in getting DLS would be that if they were looking to take a prospect in the draft, esp. a pitching one DLS might be the best one available at that point with Parker recently off the board. Goldstein in his ChiSox review had very high praise for him (5-stars and future projection as an impact SP or CL, which is all you can really ask for in a pitching prospect) and I'm sure BA will have very nice things to say about him in their top 10 of CWS and in the top 100.

Once I got the pick, I was set on drafting Fukudome (the reason I traded up in the first place), but the reason I waited was to see if he was 100% sure coming to the majors (Well that and to piss Nick off). Once that was established I was interested to see where he was going to sign SD or Chicago. Brandon and just about everyone else I talked to knew that I was taking Fukudome with that pick and if someone wanted to get him they had to make a deal with me. So to not value pick 9 as Fukudome makes little sense and thats even what I told Brandon. I would argue that Fuku will project with solid D in RF and with a projection somewhere in the 280-380-480 range which is pretty solid and something you can immediately insert into the top of just about any lineup.

I would argue Brandon might have gotten the better of this deal overall anyhow. He gets Fuku who immediately becomes one of his better SIM players and a backup OF that should sim nicely. I get two prospects LaPorta and Tabata who are still not MLB ready and although the potential is obviously it is no guarantee they succeed. I had enough OF depth to fade the loss of not starting Fukudome in my OF and what can I say I'm a sucker for Yankee prospects.

I'll refrain on making the pick until this is settled, I enjoy holding up the draft anyhow

As a GM who has tried mightily to get both both DLS and Seth Smith separately as well as in a package deal, (Smith I tried to get from JT before JB) I had a good idea of the potential value of both players when I voted on the respective deals as a member of the TRC. I stand by my votes to approve these deals.

As a GM on the ExCo I did indicate that we should suspend the draft until the dust settled and we could ascertain whether or not there is a sufficient number of GMs who object to this deal to take it to a league-wide vote. With all GMs checking in regularly because of the draft I think if there are not 5 GMs objecting by tomorrow morning we ought to start the draft back up ...