Trade:CIN/LAA

[Jmarkey]

Cincinnati makes this trade to straight up gain funds for the International Signing period. Was happy to flip Suarez and help the Angels compete this year for a Championship. My window isn't for a few years anyways so it worked out very well.

CIN Sends over:
Eugenio Suarez 3B
2024 17M (17M covered by CIN)
2025 17M (10M covered by KC and remaining 7M by CIN)


LAA Sends over:
4.75M Intl funds

[Sully31]

approve.

Angels needed a 3B to slot in the lineup and there?s not shaping up to be much in FA it seems. Also having the salary covered in entirety for both years is big for a contending team that?s pushing the cap. All that said, giving up an entire year of Intl FA budget will be a hit to the farm but with the way a few teams are building up massive intl budgets this year it seems a decent year to sit out rather than fight a mostly losing battle in any bidding war for a higher ranking guy.

[EastCoastGonzo]

 

[Sully31]

It?s a moot point now with this being vetoed right before intl signings open which isn?t the greatest timing but?. I understand the pause on trades and all that considering all the reasons on the other trades and some new owners maybe unknowingly doing illegal things in this trading frenzy. But what is the reason on this one other than just don?t like it so looping it in with the rest in veto pile?

[Jmarkey]

Same question. It is truthfully really hurting me with the International FA going on right now and I really don't like it. Especially since there hasn't been an explanation given, which is listed as a requirement for a veto per the rulebook.

[EastCoastGonzo]

Respectfully, Suarez is worth 750+ points. His salary is fully covered for two years. I can't see an argument for how that's a fair trade for 4M in int funds which is worth maybe 1 prospect

[Jmarkey]

Respectfully,

I'm only paying 17 this year and 7 next year and have no shot at competing in any arena besides the International FA Market and that is being negatively affected.  It's not just 1 prospect, it's the flexibility as well to bid on players which is extremely valuable.

LAA was an intentional trade partner because he had needs and assets that I wanted and I know that he's in the AL so it won't affect my team as much.

Isn't there a veto team or anything for situations like this? I feel like just one person having ultimate control is not a fair system in general.

[EastCoastGonzo]

Yes we have a trade committee to review a contested veto. He's on the committee

[EastCoastGonzo]

And really I'm not concerned whether you think it's a fair return. I'm concerned about the integrity of the league. None of my vetos are about whether it's a good trade. It's about how it effects the balance of our league. And the balance has already been thrown way off

[Sully31]

Last year I got Ethan Salas by having the most intl money. He?s now a top 5 prospect in baseball. Absolutely zero chance I would trade him now for Suarez.

This year one of the top intl guys Leodalis De Vries is already ranked 38 on Fangraphs top 100 prospects.

If someone gave up a top prospect in all of baseball for 2 years of free Eugenio Suarez we?d be talking about vetoing from the other direction.

My point is, the nearly 5M could have ensured he got any top guy he wanted who maybe a year from now is also a top 5 like Ethan Salas. I was going for safety, he was going for risk and upside. That?s trading.