ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Canada8999 on May 14, 2010, 12:22:05 AM
-
P Gallardo, Yovani, $0.5m (P-2010)
CI-MI Kennedy, Adam, $0.5m (2011)
- FOR -
P Hanson, Tommy, $0.5m (P-n/a)
1-25 ATL (from LAA)
3-9 ATL (from OAK from CIN)
4-9 ATL (from CIN)
Confirmations to follow...
-
Agreed. Gallardo is the better P here despite the contract situation. The picks aren't a huge concern since I have multiple in each rd. Adam Kennedy is nice b/c he is a huge improvement over Infante at the moment and despite my trades, I think my team is still capable of competing in the East.
~MTK
-
Shouldn't Tommy Hanson be a P-2012 since he pitched more than 40 innings last year? I believe the same holds true for David Hernandez who is also on the Braves roster.
-
This may be true, these contracts were in place before I came in. I also traded for David Hernandez.
~MTK
-
I don't get this deal at all. Gallardo will be become significantly expensive after the end of the year whereas Hanson can be kept a minimum salary (and then re-signed using the new prospect option).
This doesn't even take into account Hanson's significant higher ceiling, the fact that Gallardo experience big inning increase last year or that high draft picks are involved as well.
I could see this deal happening if the Braves were trying to win it out this year, but for a rebuilding team?
I hate commenting out on trades since every team should have the right to make their own decisions. But this trade is really over the tolerance threshold for me...
-
I agree with what Howe said. Hanson should be (P-2012)... it wasn't updated at all from last year.
-
I also agree with Howe's statements. It would look better without the draft picks.
-
Agreed with the comments of Howe and others.
The other question is, did the Braves believe that the Special Prospect extension would be able to used for Gallardo when he made this trade?
-
I'm assuming this is pretty much a unanimous veto of the trade. Pretty embarrassing I must admit, not to make excuses but maybe a reason: I may have gotten caught up in Yovanni being my favorite P, but that should not have clouded my judgment.
Howe: I'm glad you expressed concern. I would like clear up one thing tho. When I say rebuilding I do not me a complete fire-sale and start from scratch. I, like Colby, feel like that I can compete next yr. Heck, I think I can compete this yr as long as the Phils don't go too crazy.
~MTK
-
Agreed with the comments of Howe and others.
The other question is, did the Braves believe that the Special Prospect extension would be able to used for Gallardo when he made this trade?
I was thinking that the rule would come into effect this offseason, thus allowing me to resign him. I initially turned the deal down b/c of cost, but then I saw the prospect extension rule and thought it might be a possibility. Thats also why I posted about the subject this morning.
~MTK
-
I was thinking that the rule would come into effect this offseason, thus allowing me to resign him. I initially turned the deal down b/c of cost, but then I saw the prospect extension rule and thought it might be a possibility. Thats also why I posted about the subject this morning.
~MTK
It looks like the special prospect extension won't be valid on P-2010 contracts... the owners of Kendry Morales, Billy Butler, Yovani Gallardo and others must make note of this.
Another good reason why we wait until the next season for such rule changes is because a lot of moves have already been made because teams didn't want to pay the big extension price.
-
:rofl: I sound like I am on the RC or something (I would love to be). :crazy:
-
It looks like the two of you will have to rework this deal... moved to Invalid.
-
We can re-work this deal, but IMO the TC is veto'ing a lot of trades lately... maybe this is better suited for discussion on the RC board, but my impression was the TC should veto only when they sensed collusion or the trade put the interests of the league in jeopardy - not because they disagreed with the value...
-
We can re-work this deal, but IMO the TC is veto'ing a lot of trades lately... maybe this is better suited for discussion on the RC board, but my impression was the TC should veto only when they sensed collusion or the trade put the interests of the league in jeopardy - not because they disagreed with the value...
OR when they feel someone may not do the trade if they knew the rules a bit better.
-
OR when they feel someone may not do the trade if they knew the rules a bit better.
I absolutely agree with that part
-
OR when they feel someone may not do the trade if they knew the rules a bit better.
I feel like I have a decent grasp on the scoring and most rules. I was just thinking that the prospect extension would be effective this offseason.
~MTK