ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Armchair: Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Transactions => Armchair => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Armchair: Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: Maydab23 on December 04, 2013, 04:21:46 PM
-
Angels and White Sox agree to the following trade, White Sox to confirm
: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
-
Angels confirm.
While this trade adds nearly $25M in salary and costs a premium draft pick and good prospect, the Angels feel they are ready to compete this year.
Getting the multiple lower draft picks and Wittgren help ease the loss of the 3rd rd pick and Roach. While the Angels could have instead just invested in FA and kept the pick and prospect, this trade was also done with the idea of financial flexibility. Comparable players on the FA market probably would have required 3-4+ years commitment, Dunn and Ramirez are signed to only 1 and 2 year deals respectively. The Angels like this as it keeps options open down the road as players like Trout will be due big pay raises in the final 3 arb years.
-
White Sox confirm. I don't plan on contention this year so Dunn is not too useful to me and I can use his salary and Alexei's salary elsewhere. I give up a relief prospect for a possible 3/4/5 starter who is nearing MLB ready and get an improvement on my deaft next year as I don't value post 3rd round picks very highly, quite the crapshoot, more than usual.
Main motivation is the salary, Roach is about as valuable to me than Wittgren (although I may regret that) and the gap between a 3rd and 5th rounders are so wide that I'll take the net 3 pick drop.
Hurts to lose Ramirez, but he's doesnt fit into my future plans.
Nice dealing with you Angels.
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
Interesting deal on both sides. Love all the reasoning provided!
-
Please include salary in all deals if applicable.
-
Very lopsided trade in my view. White Sox give up 900+ fantasy points and 4 draft picks for a 3rd pick. The prospects involved are both fringe at best. Ramirez is a top level shortstop on a very reasonable contract. He in particular is worth much more than a salary dump.
Phillies veto
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I agree it's lopsided talent wise but Ramirez and Dunn are both on the downside of their careers and $34.5 million in payroll is a ton. I can see the reasoning though Wittgren is a sneaky pick up because he could be Miami's closer soon.
-
Have to say I am on the fence on this one. With that being said I can see a directive for both parties and the reasoning is great. As a judge I was convinced by good arguments on both sides. Based on the arguments on both sides I will approve.
:iatp:
-
Makes sense for both sides, :iatp:
-
I agree it's lopsided talent wise but Ramirez and Dunn are both on the downside of their careers and $34.5 million in payroll is a ton. I can see the reasoning though Wittgren is a sneaky pick up because he could be Miami's closer soon.
Yes Dunn is clearly on the downside and his playing time will be cut into as he will likely platoon at DH Konerko. I have no problem at all dumping Dunn. Ramirez on the other had is entering his age 32 season and has been very consistent over his career. He is a low strikeout guy who is a very good base runner. He's also an above average defender. These are all traits that age well and will keep him on the field and lend to consistency.
I'm completely ok with paying to dump Dunn as the value doesn't match the contract.
Ramirez's contract is a good value for the production and he is being given away.
The reasoning is excellent and I would've called the trade a push if I had not checked the production numbers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Yes Dunn is clearly on the downside and his playing time will be cut into as he will likely platoon at DH Konerko. I have no problem at all dumping Dunn. Ramirez on the other had is entering his age 32 season and has been very consistent over his career. He is a low strikeout guy who is a very good base runner. He's also an above average defender. These are all traits that age well and will keep him on the field and lend to consistency.
I'm completely ok with paying to dump Dunn as the value doesn't match the contract.
Ramirez's contract is a good value for the production and he is being given away.
The reasoning is excellent and I would've called the trade a push if I had not checked the production numbers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Perhaps I shouldn't poke the bear in this instance since it looks like the trade will go through, but here I go. The voting on trades is not, or at least should not be, to ensure that all trades are equal. It is to ensure that trades are not so outrageously unfair that it will irreparably damage one team or overpower the other. If it is anywhere near a push, or both teams have sound reasoning, without harming the league, it should be approved.
Sorry, my two cents on what the trading process should be like.
-
Perhaps I shouldn't poke the bear in this instance since it looks like the trade will go through, but here I go. The voting on trades is not, or at least should not be, to ensure that all trades are equal. It is to ensure that trades are not so outrageously unfair that it will irreparably damage one team or overpower the other. If it is anywhere near a push, or both teams have sound reasoning, without harming the league, it should be approved.
Sorry, my two cents on what the trading process should be like.
Well said, totally agree.
-
I agree in principal. The issue with lopsided trades is that it sets the trade market for similar players. In the real world the roles of this trade would be reversed with the team trying to contend overpaying the rebuilding team for pieces. This deal the rebuilding team is giving up the pieces, draft picks, and the better prospect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
You neglect the money part of this. I want to shape this team my way and part of that requires that I have the money to do what I have planned in FA and future trades.Does it suck to lose Ramirez, yes. But I just doubled my remaining salary this year and that is important.
Either way, the trade is not lopsided, but rather there is a winner and a loser, and yes I can understand that I am the loser here, but it gives me the flexibility to do what I want to do to improve my team long term. The market is always changing, if this becomes a significant and influential deal then oh well, time to adapt to a changing market, just like real life.
-
Perhaps I shouldn't poke the bear in this instance since it looks like the trade will go through, but here I go. The voting on trades is not, or at least should not be, to ensure that all trades are equal. It is to ensure that trades are not so outrageously unfair that it will irreparably damage one team or overpower the other. If it is anywhere near a push, or both teams have sound reasoning, without harming the league, it should be approved.
Sorry, my two cents on what the trading process should be like.
I don't think the standard should be irreparable damage. Any damage can be repaired in time. I think the standard is where it's so lopsided that it legitimately hurts one team and gives an unfair advantage to another, something like that.
I don't think this trade does that but I see the point the Phillies are making, I just disagree. I think the ability to offload that much salary is extremely valuable to a rebuilding team.
I do think if your team is in a situation where you want to move payroll and take a loss like this trade that you should be required to post in the trade block. I don't doubt there would be better offers than this and you're only hurting your own club by not exploring trades with the entire league.
-
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 (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
:iatp:
-
Perhaps I shouldn't poke the bear in this instance since it looks like the trade will go through, but here I go. The voting on trades is not, or at least should not be, to ensure that all trades are equal. It is to ensure that trades are not so outrageously unfair that it will irreparably damage one team or overpower the other. If it is anywhere near a push, or both teams have sound reasoning, without harming the league, it should be approved.
Sorry, my two cents on what the trading process should be like.
Exactly!
Robinson Cano is on the trading block once he gets picked up in FA. I'm scared shitless that no number of elite prospects will be enough to allow a trade to go through. (Shameless advertising for Cano, send blockbuster trade offers)
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
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 (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
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:
-
: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
-
:iatp:
Because the owners approve of it and there seems to be no obvious issues.
-
: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:
-
Rosters updated.
:thumbsup:
Fantrax needs to be done.
-
Fantrax complete
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
: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: