ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Transactions => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: Daniel on January 18, 2012, 05:17:25 PM
-
Mets give
Daniel Murphy
in exchange of
Stephen Vogt
Derek Dietrich
Tyler Bortnick
We do this trade to take a gamble on several minor league prospects that will hopefully help the team in the future. Murphy has been a questionable major leaguer, and we are hoping one of these prospects eventually becomes a better player.
-
The Rays agree to this deal:
We believe that if Murphy can get past some of his health concerns, he can be a productive player in our CI or MI position. His eligibility at multiple spots also gives us flexibility in our dealings during free agency.
Of course, the players that we are sending away could always wind up surprising us and becoming solid players in their own right. However, we felt that the risk is worth obtaining a cost-effective major league player that can help our team win in the immediate future. While it lacks the cachet of the Cabrera deal, it still helps our team achieve our goal of stockpiling affordable talent without decimating our farm system.
-
:iatp:
-
I am so on the fence with this one. Murphy is a good bat but a fringy defensive second baseman whose coming off his second major knee injury, I know defense isn't a Roto issue (and his is below average) but when it could become an issue for the players playing time it is an issue, I know right now the Mets have named him their starting 2B but I have a feeling that if he struggles in the field and isn't lighting it up at the plate, he becomes a utility guy and Justin Turner gets another long look at second. Most importantly for this season at least he's a multi position guy 1B,2B,3B with a very reasonable contract.
The center piece going to the Mets must be Bortnick, a second base prospect whose cut from the pre roids, pre yips Knobloch mold, a solid glove, plus speed, & good contact rate/ & walk rate. Dietrich is a MI prospect whose moving from SS to 3B, he's got good raw power, and his contact rate is ok, his strikeout rate isn't so great 25%, but he's very raw. Vogt is coming into his age 27 season & looks to be a very fungible prospect, at best he finds a niche as a fourth OF, but looks like he's destine for a life as a career minor leaguer.
All that said since Murphy is a starting second baseman with a good bat I just don't see this package as enough. With his ceiling Dietrich would be a better prospect as a SS then a third baseman, Bortnick has a lower ceiling but is a safer prospect to hang your hat on & Vogt looks like a name to add to the list and nothing more. It's not that I feel one team wins or loses this thing by a huge margin, I just think that for a starting second baseman there needs to be a bit more going to way of the team giving him up either in the form of another prospect on the lines of Dietrich & Bortnick or a prospect of greater value & one of likes of a Dietrich or Bortnick.
:veto:
-
I feel like this is the same issue that wound up causing all of the drama with the previous Trade Committee. If you don't feel that a deal is an example of collusion or is extremely lopsided, it should not be vetoable. The idea behind these committees is not to say whether or not you would have done the deal, the purpose is to prevent deals that are either collusional or extremely lopsided. This was a deal that was put in place because Daniel wants to collect prospects for a role player. Role players with limited upside can draw a package of middle tier talent. If any of these three live up to their potential, it will be a good deal for his team, and if none of them do, he's only out a low-ceiling role player. That's not an example of an unfair trade in my estimation.
-
I feel like this is the same issue that wound up causing all of the drama with the previous Trade Committee. If you don't feel that a deal is an example of collusion or is extremely lopsided, it should not be vetoable. The idea behind these committees is not to say whether or not you would have done the deal, the purpose is to prevent deals that are either collusional or extremely lopsided. This was a deal that was put in place because Daniel wants to collect prospects for a role player. Role players with limited upside can draw a package of middle tier talent. If any of these three live up to their potential, it will be a good deal for his team, and if none of them do, he's only out a low-ceiling role player. That's not an example of an unfair trade in my estimation.
Thank you. :iatp:
It is extremely difficult to value prospects against major leaguers, but the point is clear. The Mets are rebuilding and Murphy is not exactly a stud, but rather a player of questionable value. I Have not received any offers better than this one and these prospects are all players I particularly like.
-
I feel like this is the same issue that wound up causing all of the drama with the previous Trade Committee. If you don't feel that a deal is an example of collusion or is extremely lopsided, it should not be vetoable. The idea behind these committees is not to say whether or not you would have done the deal, the purpose is to prevent deals that are either collusional or extremely lopsided. This was a deal that was put in place because Daniel wants to collect prospects for a role player. Role players with limited upside can draw a package of middle tier talent. If any of these three live up to their potential, it will be a good deal for his team, and if none of them do, he's only out a low-ceiling role player. That's not an example of an unfair trade in my estimation.
:iatp: Agreed.
I don't think that this trade is vetoable. It isn't lopsided or an act of collusion, imo.
-
As I said to the people who asked me privetly why I veto this deal, I will likely have to alter the way I look at trades in this league. As I said at the very beginning of my post, I am so on the fence with this deal, I have no illusions that there was any impropriety concerning this trade, my concern is solely for the longevity of the league. I've been in dynasty leagues for quite a while and have seen how one deal like this leads to two which leads to half a dozen or more and by then its to late a team is sunk and it takes several owners before it is fixed to the point where a legal roster can be fielded. An active player holds a certain degree of value simple cause he's active (meaning on a mlb 25 man roster) and fills a slot on your 25 man roster, an active who actually has a starting job is automatically worth double that of the guy whose just a 25th man on some mlb roster, a guy whose active, has a job and is somewhat productive with the bat well he's that much more valuable. For all intents and purposes this is still a new league in its infancy and its the formidable years that are most important. That said I will try to be a bit more libral with my voting in the future. Should the commish feel it appropriate to change my vote I will not argue against it, although I doubt it will be necessary as I figure most voters will side with the its fair enough a deal that it passes.
-
:iatp:
-
The Trade Committee's ruling:
2 Approves
1 Veto
It has been over 72 hours since this trade has been under the review process.
This trade has been officially approved by the committee.
-
I understand Doug's point of view. However, my personal philosophy is that trades should be allowed unless it's "obvious" something's not right. I hate to take away people's abilities to work out a trade in their favor unless there's something underhanded going on.
Processed as Transaction 447-448.