ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Mets Donations Accepted on December 29, 2017, 05:26:17 PM
-
Tigers get:
Jorge Alfaro $0.5 (p/na)
Nationals get:
Brandon Phillips $9m (2018)
$3m cash
Tigers get a young catcher who can hopefully grab the job and run with it. Phillips wasn’t going to factor long term so it’s a win win for both teams.
-
Nats confirm. We're in need of CI, and Phillips covers that need, I can also use him to back up MI if needed. I like that he adds to all categories. Alfaro will hopefully fill the need for Detroit as well. Should work out nicely for both clubs.
-
I’m really not sure what we are witnessing here. FGM is a dynasty league which requires us think about the long haul.
Yes, CI-MI Phillips, Brandon, $9m (2018) has multi-position eligibility, but he’s 36 years old on the downside of his career. Even with a $3.0m Cash Exchange, he’s a $6.0m rental who is not signed to an MLB contract and is not projected as a starter on any MLB roster.
C Alfaro, Jorge, $0.5m (P-n/a) is a 24 year old player with a bright future. He is projected to be the starting C in Philadelphia. He’s more cost effective, plays a premium position, and is only going to get better.
Does this trade really help both teams? We know what this trade does for Detroit, but what does it do for Washington? The Nationals trade away a talented starting C for an aging bench player. It wastes precious salary cap dollars that could be spent on available free agents to strengthen their roster. The trade gives the Nationals roster depth, but leaves a gaping hole in the lineup because there is no viable C replacement. Hector Sanchez is not a reliable option for the Nationals, and unfortunately, their key MiLB C prospect passed away from cancer.
I don’t really like questioning the judgment of any GM—nor do I like casting two consecutive vetoes involving a new GM—but the Nationals were placed in Receivership for a reason. The previous three GMs squandered opportunities to improve the team, and through neglect and poor personnel decisions, the team was decimated. Therefore, I do not support this trade because it is essentially throwing away a key asset.
:veto:
-
First I need to explain myself for approving the previous trade attempt for Brett Cecil. I saw Cecil for Plummer (which may be acceptable in some leagues, marginal at best in FGM)and was willing to give Nats the benefit of the doubt. However, for whatever unknown reason I skipped over Hunter Greene as part of the trade. I would never have considered approving that had it registered in my mind.
That said, I have to veto this for two reasons:
1.) Nats have way too far to go to rebuild and a solid C is too valuable to part with for a rental.
2.) I agree with Flash that the $6m paid for Phillips would be much better spent on FA
:veto:
-
So here's how I'm seeing things...
1. GMs in this league from my conversation in trade talks far value an established veteran over specs. It's been nearly impossible to fill the gaps on my team in talk if I don't offer someone young with potential, or in most cases, multiple specs for one veteran.
2. I'm trying to go for sure points to be somewhat competitive.
3. I'm not sure how crazy FA is in this league, but in my past experiences, it's best to fill needs before FA, and then add pieces in FA.
4. I just want to try and compete even though a rebuild is needed.
So far I've had 2 trades under scrutiny this week, just trying to fill my RP and CI holes. These were the deals I could the other GMs to take. Neither I thought were blockbuster deals. But obviously, I need to rethink how to put my team together. Thanks for the honesty guys on your opinions, and I'll make.different types of deals here.
-
It's ok to veto this deal.