Angels/White Sox Trade

[Maydab23]

The money is a huge part of this deal and I agree that you have to pay in picks or prospects to dump a bad contract. This is the case with Dunn. The problem I have with the deal is paying to dump Ramirez, he is a valuable asset that other teams would pay for.  For the record I don't care if or to whom you trade Ramirez. I myself have no interest in him, I just ask that all teams get fair value for their assets.  All I'm going to say, congrats on the trade it looks like it will pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't need to respond as it looks like the trade will pass easily and sommersd can correct me if i am wrong but I think you are viewing this trade differently than sommersd and I and many others do. Sommersd said during our negotiations that Ramirez has a fair contract and I agree. It costs something to dump Dunn and his salary. It costs something to turn all the lower picks into a 3rd rd pick (which sommersd stated is a net positive for him). It also costs something to turn Wittgren into Roach (granted, sommersd did say this is possibly a wash but Roach is by most all rankings I have seen a higher rated prospect). The price to accomplish those gains was Ramirez. If Ramirez was 22yo, cheap with 5 years of control left then yes there might be an issue. But he is 32yo, on a fair 2 yr deal and doesn't figure into the White Sox long term plans.

That said I respect your opinion. Just wanted to offer some insight into how I (and I think sommersd) view the trade  :toast:

[limeygreen]

 :iatp:


Comments tie in with previous thoughts I have had around trade discussions. Surely a trade should only be vetoed if:

(A) There is obvious/provable collusion between owners
(B) There is obvious distortion on the overall competitiveness of the league
(C) One (experienced) owner is clearly taking advantage of a (newer) owner

I suppose you could add
(D) the trade is extremely (and factually provably) lopsided (and in some ways this ties in with all of the above)

I have an issue where people veto trades because they feel that it is unbalanced in some way, without fully appreciating the reasons why the owners are deciding to trade this way. I understand this is generally done in the supposed best interests of the league but unless it qualifies for any the above conditions, then surely owners should be able to make the trades they wish to and deal with the consequences from there?


Rant over
Chris

[DarylH]

 :iatp:

Because the owners approve of it and there seems to be no obvious issues.

[yahoolando]

:LAA: 
         2014 3rd rd pick
         Donn Roach

for

:CHW:
          Adam Dunn         (2014: $15M)
          Alexei Ramirez    (2014: $9.5M, 2015: $10M)
          Nick Wittgren
          2013 9th rd pick
          2014 5th, 6th, 7th rd picks
         

Trade Passes

9 Approvals
1 Veto

 :judge:

[yahoolando]

Rosters updated.

 :thumbsup:

Fantrax needs to be done.

[Jss0062]

Fantrax complete


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fitzy1962]

:iatp:


Comments tie in with previous thoughts I have had around trade discussions. Surely a trade should only be vetoed if:

(A) There is obvious/provable collusion between owners
(B) There is obvious distortion on the overall competitiveness of the league
(C) One (experienced) owner is clearly taking advantage of a (newer) owner

I suppose you could add
(D) the trade is extremely (and factually provably) lopsided (and in some ways this ties in with all of the above)

I have an issue where people veto trades because they feel that it is unbalanced in some way, without fully appreciating the reasons why the owners are deciding to trade this way. I understand this is generally done in the supposed best interests of the league but unless it qualifies for any the above conditions, then surely owners should be able to make the trades they wish to and deal with the consequences from there?


Rant over
Chris

Well said and I agree completely.  :iatp: