|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Mar 5, 2019 7:05:53 GMT -5
Athletics send: Cameron Maybin 1/$5.00M Martin Perez 1/$5.00M Ryan Vilade $0.400 Josh Lowe $0.400
Braves send: Nothing
WE need not get in the habit of approving trades were one team gets nothing in return
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 5, 2019 7:55:59 GMT -5
Braves get 4 players they may or may not want to keep all of them. (Perez is complete garbage) If they don't keep them all they will be responsible for a cap hit. A's get $5.4M in additional cap relief than if they dropped them. How is this any different than our other leagues where we are allowed to trade cap.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 5, 2019 7:57:33 GMT -5
Maybe we should consider allowing cap trading along with outlawing teams giving up nothing for 2020?
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Mar 5, 2019 9:23:16 GMT -5
As Ron stated I get the idea of the trade so I’m fine with it. We can make a rule where both teams have to receive something to at least have the wor trade correctly defined. However, this trade is no different than fullcountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/10236/phillies-yankeesSo I believe it should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 5, 2019 11:25:07 GMT -5
Interesting. Phils are the one complaining to me about it. I sent it back to him asking how it is any different?
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Mar 5, 2019 11:26:30 GMT -5
My opinion is the trading of money starts getting very complicated to track and value. I've seen it really complicate another league I was in. I don't love the idea of trading for nothing, but I understand the point of the deal. If it was for a 5th rd pick would that really change the idea much? I'm good with it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Mar 5, 2019 12:43:22 GMT -5
The money trading is not a good option. I saw it get ugly as well.
We’ll be okay with this system.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 5, 2019 12:49:51 GMT -5
His response was that he gave up a 4th, something of value so the Yanks, who gave up nothing, received something of value. I explained that the Braves received two prospects. One was drafted in the 1st rd and is COL #9 Prospects as ranked by BA and another that was drafted in the 2nd rd a few years ago plus a cheap OF. He seemed ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Mar 5, 2019 15:52:13 GMT -5
🤣🤣🤣 I basically told him the same thing yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Mar 6, 2019 8:07:25 GMT -5
Nice communication guys, So trade is OK. Also please no trading of money.
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Mar 6, 2019 9:46:32 GMT -5
Sorry for the late response but this trade is a joke. Both sides need to move so move something. This sets up a bad precedent. Are we going to let teams trade a player to be named later? I thought we already went down this road before and said no. I actually thought it was a joke when I first read the trade
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Mar 6, 2019 23:49:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 7, 2019 7:50:31 GMT -5
Sorry for the late response but this trade is a joke. Both sides need to move so move something. This sets up a bad precedent. Are we going to let teams trade a player to be named later? I thought we already went down this road before and said no. I actually thought it was a joke when I first read the trade Isn't trading for draft picks a form of trading for a PTBNL? Should this not be allowed? Are we now dictating what players a team should trade or what direction they go? Rebuild? Compete? Trading a bad contract and adding a nice piece to persuade another team who has the cap room to take the contract off your hands thus saving the 50% cap hit that you can now use to make your team better is somehow bad? My Kemp trade did not originally include me receiving a player in return. However, I clearly felt and still do that I received something of value in the form of cap relief. However, when they requested Darwinzon Hernandez who I drafted early in the 4th round I requested a 3rd next year (PTBNL?) So this second half of the trade which was pretty even made the first half better? We need to let others manage their teams in the manner they want and recognize that salary dumps happen. Sometimes you are responsible for bad contracts sometimes they are inherited. Most rebuilding teams have cap left and use that to secure prospects or more picks. Most contending teams are looking for a way to make their team better and may have limited cap. Not many owners are like Larry and can do both compete and have a ton of cap left. In this case would you have preferred Oakland drop 10-15 players to get under cap? Or drop players that are part of their plan to try and compete? We need to make sure both teams receive value and that comes in many forms. Now can someone help me get down from this soap box?
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Mar 7, 2019 9:18:16 GMT -5
Like I said before, I'm OK with it but it would look better if the team got something in return. We struggle to keep teams in this league as is without losing teams because of this being allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Mar 7, 2019 10:29:17 GMT -5
Thanks Jason. I miss you sometimes. We’re all good. Let’s approve and move on.
|
|