|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Mar 26, 2008 17:10:30 GMT -5
Alfonso Soriano $42 3yrs,
3rd round pick in Minor League Draft
for
Adam Dunn $35 4yrs,
Ryan Church $1.5 1yr+,
Mike Pelfrey $2.5 4yrs,
Bill Bray $1 4yrs+,
Luke Scott $2.5 2yrs,
4th round Amateur draft pick
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM on Mar 26, 2008 17:13:56 GMT -5
i accept
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals on Mar 26, 2008 23:34:29 GMT -5
how is that fair and some of the other trades have been rejected?
Now, if this wasn't a keeper it would be better...but the potential of dunn and soriano are almost the same...someone else gets 3 tight prospects...one who hit 18 bombs in half a season...
|
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Mar 27, 2008 13:07:12 GMT -5
here is the basic premise: unless something significant happens to change a players contract value, then it is pretty tough to say that any market price contract that was fairly bid on, is anything other than a neutral value contract.
only ONE team in this league thought Soriano was worth 42M, or than Dunn was worth 35M, or that Church was worth 1.5M, or Pelfrey 2.5M, etc., etc., so they can hardly be considered very valuable commodities. if you think that any of those low salary players are worth more than their contracts, why didn't you bid on them? why didn't ANYBODY bid more than that for them?
the only trades i will really consider vetoable are ones involving true prospects...that is a trade for a player that is going to cost next to nothing to keep ($0 in rookie year, $0 in 1st year after rookie year, $0.75 in 2nd year after rookie year). if those prospects provide even a little bit of value, then they will be worth acquiring, unlike a lot of players at the salaries they were bid on. if we are talking about a relatively top prospect close to being major league ready, he could be worth TONS more than a bid on player in value per dollar. take a look at some of the contracts that young barely qualified rookies got during the auction. it was quite a bit, suggesting quite a bit of value to assign other top guys.
take for example the recent braves trade involving andy laroche. the trade is basically nothing (a few million and 3rd rounder crapshoot in the amateur draft) for a guy who could easily be a very solid producer or even soon a top half 3B in this league (who is locked up CHEAP). if laroche were signed to a 4 year @ 8M contract, then clearly that would change the trade entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Mar 27, 2008 17:10:17 GMT -5
i totally agree w/ the senators.. man ur as smart as me dude.. haha
u just put it in words better than myself..
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM on Mar 27, 2008 17:58:48 GMT -5
Senators you are 100% correct. But it sucks that my Andy LaRoche trade will get vetoed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM on Mar 27, 2008 18:43:04 GMT -5
who is the person on the trade committee that hasn't voted of late. I know the Reds and Senators have, but who is the other person?
|
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Mar 27, 2008 20:35:47 GMT -5
i think the other left the league already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM on Mar 27, 2008 20:50:40 GMT -5
commish can i please fill in for the trade committee for just the Andy LaRoche trade?
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM on Mar 27, 2008 20:50:55 GMT -5
j/k
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Mar 28, 2008 0:19:29 GMT -5
i didn't know there WAS another person on the trade committee..
commish still has to vote, but even with a 0, it is still approved..
& sorry commish .. lol, u have to do another "big" change on my excel roster..
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish (SEA) on Mar 29, 2008 1:58:39 GMT -5
Trade Approved.
|
|
