Twins/Tigers Trade 2-6-17 2:37 pm ET

[BHows]

Fantraxed 2-9-17

 

[Flash]

trades
CI Garcia, Adonis, $5m (2018)      
CI Plouffe, Trevor, $11m (2019)   
MI Urena, Richard, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Dewees, Donnie, $0.5m (P-n/a)   
OF Wilson, DJ, $0.5m (P-n/a)

trades
CI Moreland, Mitch, $4m (2017)            
RP Robertson, David, $2.5m (2017)

I do this trade to gain a few prospects I'm high on. In the middle of my rebuild, I feel like this trade allows me to utilize my cap space to get the necessary prospects to fit my rebuild. I've been trying to get rid of Moreland and Robertson, and instead of letting them walk next season, I turn them into good specs. I obviously take on some cap, but I have plenty of future cap space and it's within my plan  fit guys like Garcia and Plouffe on my squad, which I believe will improve my current team as well.

Fantraxed 2-9-17

[Flash]

Trade passes 3-1.

[Anthony]

I certainly don't want this to disintegrate into a "post war", but please understand this:

If I didn't have some sense of "trust" that you knew what you were doing, I would have vetoed the trade.

I understand. I'm not mad at you or anyone. We just have different views on the best way to rebuild, that's all.

[Flash]

I certainly don't want this to disintegrate into a "post war", but please understand this:

If I didn't have some sense of "trust" that you knew what you were doing, I would have vetoed the trade.

[Anthony]

I hope no one here sees this or my comments as a personal attack. I have a lot of respect for the commissioners, but I would like to address a couple of things

You do have a lot of cap space in those years, but now I'm even more confused why you are choosing not to participate in free agency. You roster needs SPs, yet you didn't sign anyone during free agency. I'm choosing not to be very involved in FA due to the lack of young talent. I've mentioned before I don't need 30+ year olds, but the majority of players in FA are over 30. The ones who aren't are getting too much money. Gerrit Cole (13m), Shelby Miller (6m), Michael Pineda (6m), Kevin Gaussman (13m), even Zack Wheeler who hasn't played in 2 years is getting 8m. The lowest ERA out of those guys being 3.61 in a league where pitching makes up 36% of the scoring. I obviously don't need any more CI, so I chose to sit out of that one.

We all want Top 100 Prospects, but at what price?  You say you don't want to throw your money at aging players, 31 year olds I believe, yet you're taking on a 30 year old Plouffe who is coming off an injury filled season and a 31 year old Garcia who just made it to MLB. We have buyout rules that I can utilize in a year where I won't be contending for a title to relieve myself of any cap hit that I need. Garcia showed he can play and at a 6m hit, easily becomes someone I can trade at the deadline.

You need OFs, yet your are conspicuously absent from bidding on anyone who might help the competitive level of your team. The only 3 young OF's in the top 15 of FA are Ozuna, Dickerson and Santana. I'm winning my bid on Santana, Dickerson is already at 22m, and Ozuna, who I did put a bid on, is at 32m. Is it really in my best interest to end up paying 10m to those guys? I understand that taking Plouffe hurts my ability to spend in FA this year, but I'd rather be active next year when I have a better understanding of what my team will look like.

You do get two other prospects, but like Thaiss, they are years away from the bigs, and they play for a club () rich in prospects ahead of them. Thaiss has an ETA of 2018, which is only a year away. He could potentially see time this year too, and is much closer than Mountcastle, who I traded away. I admit that Wilson and Dewees are further away, but they are constantly moving up the Cubs system rankings, and even though I might be a little bias, I feel that they are adequate compensation for taking on Garcia, who again has trade bait potential for me.

You have a lot of holes to fill on your team, and it is my belief that you could use your cap dollars more effectively that what you're doing with this trade.  Like I've said in the past, it's tough to watch you sit on the sidelines during free agency, particularly when you are trading for two players who contradict the very reasons you cite for not participating. In inherited a team was lucky to make the playoffs the previous year. They were stuck in the middle of the pack with no cap space. I'm making the necessary moves in my mind to compete sooner than I would have before. I know you don't exactly see it, you'll have to trust that I'm taking the utmost care of my team.

[Flash]

There's nothing in this trade that is illegal. It's a fair trade that helps both teams equally. And really it makes my team better this year, considering both players I am adding will start on their respective teams.

What else am I supposed to do? Throw 75m at a 31 year old Longoria? or sit with all my cap space as my team rots at the bottom of the league? I have a plan, and this fits into my plan, and as a small market team, I need to use all of my money effectively. It would be no different than if I was bidding on Urena in FA and giving him a signing bonus, but unfortunately there are no top 100 prospects in FA.

This trade can't be vetoed because people think it should be illegal. Either it is, or it isn't and it's clearly not detrimental to the league. If we make a rule after this, so be it, but as of now there isn't such rule.

No one is questioning the legality of this trade, and we all have "plans", but there is some reason for concern when this type of trade is made.  I can understand my colleague's  , and I could easily agree with him, but we don't always see things the same way.

We all make "salary dump" trades.  In the last trade you negotiated with the , I questioned the return for such a large salary dump.  The difference here is that in the previous trade you acquired an expiring contract, but in this instance you are taking on an additional $16.0m in 2018 and $11.0m in 2019.  You do have a lot of cap space in those years, but now I'm even more confused why you are choosing not to participate in free agency.

We all want Top 100 Prospects, but at what price?  You say you don't want to throw your money at aging players, 31 year olds I believe, yet you're taking on a 30 year old Plouffe who is coming off an injury filled season and a 31 year old Garcia who just made it to MLB.

You roster needs SPs, yet you didn't sign anyone during free agency.  You need OFs, yet your are conspicuously absent from bidding on anyone who might help the competitive level of your team.  Instead, you're trying to trade for two, by your standards, aging CIs, who are not on expiring deals, for essentially one Top 100 prospect.  You do get two other prospects, but like Thaiss, they are years away from the bigs, and they play for a club () rich in prospects ahead of them.  I'm really trying to understand the rationale here, but it really escapes me. 

As a Trade Committee member and a Co-Commissioner, the last thing I want is to see you do is "...rot away at the bottom of the league".  But don't try and hide behind some mysterious plan when we can see this is really nothing more than a salary dump for .  MI Richard Urena is a nice get, and like all of us we hope our prospects develop into productive MLBers, and maybe he, and the other two prospects will develop in time.  You say Plouffe and Garcia are starters, but so are Moreland and Reyes.  You also have Napoli, who could be as good as either of the two you are getting for a 70% one year deal of $6.0m.  Maybe Plouffe will stay healthy, but his production is limited, which is probably why (along with that contract) no one wanted to trade for him before now.  As I recall, was even willing to pay some on his contract--which I would surmise is why he's now including Urena and two other prospects in the deal.

You have a lot of holes to fill on your team, and it is my belief that you could use your cap dollars more effectively that what you're doing with this trade.  Like I've said in the past, it's tough to watch you sit on the sidelines during free agency, particularly when you are trading for two players who contradict the very reasons you cite for not participating. 

No, it's not illegal, and I'm not sure why you even brought that up, it's just a little disconcerting.  Maybe in the future we will have a trade moratorium during free agency, but I would be a hypocrite to advocate it now considering I just completed a trade with where I took on a salary dump to let him add two players he won in free agency.  I believe trading during free agency has its merits, although I don't think I would point to this one as a reason for doing it.

 While this is not a trade I would make, I will get off my    and  because both sides, as confusing as it may be for me, are getting what they want.



 

[Anthony]

There's nothing in this trade that is illegal. It's a fair trade that helps both teams equally. And really it makes my team better this year, considering both players I am adding will start on their respective teams.

What else am I supposed to do? Throw 75m at a 31 year old Longoria? or sit with all my cap space as my team rots at the bottom of the league? I have a plan, and this fits into my plan, and as a small market team, I need to use all of my money effectively. It would be no different than if I was bidding on Urena in FA and giving him a signing bonus, but unfortunately there are no top 100 prospects in FA.

This trade can't be vetoed because people think it should be illegal. Either it is, or it isn't and it's clearly not detrimental to the league. If we make a rule after this, so be it, but as of now there isn't such rule.

[BHows]

I abstained from the recent Cards/Twins trade for personal reasons. Had I voted it would have been a veto as I viewed it as a salary "dump".
It is for that same reason that I am vetoing this trade.
I think it may be time to implement a trading moratorium during free agency in FGM. This isn't the way it's supposed to work
 

[kidd5jersey]