Trade b/w Rockies & Cubs

[mjmezzetti]

I have no problem with this deal.  As long as there's no reason to suspect corruption I think it's best all trades are approved.  It's difficult enough to come to an agreement with one manager, I'm not sure it's in the best interest of the league to start interfering with trades.

[Dan Wood]

Just wanted to chime in since this seemed to be getting a bit tense. We have to remember ladies that this is just a game. That said, I am neither for or against this trade. I have no authority in this league and I am not a member of the TC. So anything I say can easily be passed off. However, I understand the trade from both perspectives - the Rocks and the Cubs, as well as the TC. Please correct me if I am wrong. The Cubs wanting to rid himself of the anchor that is Carlos Zambrano, had to give up something of value - Chris Carpenter. The Rockies in taking on Zambrano, would need something of value - Carpenter. The TC is merely saying what did the Cubs get back. In this case I think it is addition by subtraction. The Cubs now have the power to maneuver past what he was given by Jim Hendry.

But, we all signed up for this league and agreed to abide by its rules. So arguing over it, doesn't make the process go smoother, it just makes things worse. For better or worse, the TC is part of the league that we joined. So if they say no, then they say no... that is what we signed up for.
Also to say that Maloney is on the same level of Matusz is reaching to say the best. Maloney is a nice little pitcher, is a gutty pitcher who lacks a fastball that goes above 90. But he is a smart pitcher, and could be the Reds 5th starter in 2010. Currently he is #6 on the depth chart behind Micah Owings. Also to say that he was a top 5 pitching prospect (in the league) is also reaching. Matusz is a stud in the making and I hate to see him on my direct competitors team. Damn you again Brewers! If you are going to make an argument, or a statement like that have some facts to back it up. Which publication is this from? Here is Baseball America in 2008 - just the Reds mind you.
1.     Jay Bruce, of
2.    Homer Bailey, rhp
3.    Joey Votto, 1b/of
4.    Johnny Cueto, rhp
5.    Drew Stubbs, of
6.    Devin Mesoraco, c
7.    Todd Frazier, ss
8.    Juan Francisco, 3b
9.    Josh Roenicke, rhp
10.    Matt Maloney, lhp

and Baseball Prospectus in 2008
Five-Star Prospects
1. Jay Bruce, CF
2. Homer Bailey, RHP
3. Joey Votto, 1B/OF
Four-Star Prospects
4. Johnny Cueto, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
5. Todd Frazier, INF
6. Devin Mesoraco, C
7. Drew Stubbs, CF
8. Matt Maloney, LHP
9. Kyle Lotzkar, RHP
10. Juan Francisco, 3B
Two-Star Prospects
11. Neftali Soto, SS

[Colby]

I can see why the Cubs would make the deal.  Not many teams, if any, would take Zambrano's contract.  He had to package Carpenter.  The thing is besides the free up in cap space the Cubs are getting a whole lot less than they gave up to get him in the first place.

[bridgestone]

Howe, we will re-work a deal if this one doesn't go through.  Obviously it would be too my benefit but I could use a couple of scrub prospect OF if you have them.

[h4cheng]

This can be taken out of context if the league allows trades of questionable sort to pass.  For instance, a Joe Mauer for, let's say, Jose Guillen.  'One side is in need of a catcher, the other an outfielder, so what's the problem?' the teams claim.  The reality is that all players in this league do have a value, though it is never said or given.  It is just a consensus value that us members, experts, even the MLB itself has on it's players.  We know that the skill levels of certain players overmatch others, otherwise we would see outlandish trades all over the league.  It is just a given assessment in fantasy sports.  If we allow every trade to go through, what is the point of a Trade Committee then? What is the point of approving each trade if we are supposed to allow every one, every time?

Two of your reasons for this trade is that you are taking on injury prone players and that there have been uneven trades in the league already.  I don't see the logic in those reasonings, simply put.

I understand that the Pujols deal, as well as even the Dye/Helton deal seemed very iffy to some.  Looking back on it, maybe both should have been reviewed more carefully, but the decisions were made, and we cannot change that.  But we have to learn to not let those trades pass, not just keep allowing them.

I have not made a vote yet.  Rockies and Cubs, I would like to see the Cubs receive one or two more players of some sort, and they do not have to be great, or even good, players.  If that happens, I will definitely be more accepting of this trade.

Other RC members, please chime in here, let the league know how each of us feel on situations like this.  I'm only one member, and if I am overruled, that's totally fine, that's the game we play.

I brought up the other uneven deals because I thought this is a league where we do have heavy handed commissioners that would veto any deal that seems unfair. I brought up the probably of injury because that significantly affects the value of the player. Yes, we all deal for players based on the assumption that they won't get hurt. But, you have to account for probablity of injuries and lost dollars.

The fact that you said " I would like to see the Cubs receive one or two more players of some sort, and they do not have to be great, or even good, players.  If that happens, I will definitely be more accepting of this trade." simply demonstrate  that you have different player evaluation standards then I do and anything that doesn't meet your standard needs to be adjusted.  Maloney prior to 2009 is ranked as one of the top 5 pitching prospects in the league according to at least one site.  That alone should be enough to let the deal through (Matsuz for Broxon as an example of a similar deal that is getting through). However absurd you think the Maloney assertion is, it is my (Cubs) player and my (cubs) opinion. We play this game because we want to test out our own theory on players and team building, not because we want to following the concensus. The degree for which we depart from the concensus is not a reason to veto a deal.

[lp815]

As long as there is no evidence of cheating, then that should be enough to let the trade through. Why dont I say anything if I see an uneven deal? Because it's part of the game. Trades that I see as one sided may look fair to others. Trades that everyone sees as one sides might work out unexpectedly. The point it, just because a trade seems to be one sided doesn't mean it is or will be one sided. Therefore, simply saying that you feel a trade is unfair is not grounds for rejection. We both offered our views on the trade, there is no evidence of cheating, let the deal go...

This can be taken out of context if the league allows trades of questionable sort to pass.  For instance, a Joe Mauer for, let's say, Jose Guillen.  'One side is in need of a catcher, the other an outfielder, so what's the problem?' the teams claim.  The reality is that all players in this league do have a value, though it is never said or given.  It is just a consensus value that us members, experts, even the MLB itself has on it's players.  We know that the skill levels of certain players overmatch others, otherwise we would see outlandish trades all over the league.  It is just a given assessment in fantasy sports.  If we allow every trade to go through, what is the point of a Trade Committee then? What is the point of approving each trade if we are supposed to allow every one, every time?

Two of your reasons for this trade is that you are taking on injury prone players and that there have been uneven trades in the league already.  I don't see the logic in those reasonings, simply put.

I understand that the Pujols deal, as well as even the Dye/Helton deal seemed very iffy to some.  Looking back on it, maybe both should have been reviewed more carefully, but the decisions were made, and we cannot change that.  But we have to learn to not let those trades pass, not just keep allowing them.

I have not made a vote yet.  Rockies and Cubs, I would like to see the Cubs receive one or two more players of some sort, and they do not have to be great, or even good, players.  If that happens, I will definitely be more accepting of this trade.

Other RC members, please chime in here, let the league know how each of us feel on situations like this.  I'm only one member, and if I am overruled, that's totally fine, that's the game we play.

[h4cheng]

Rockies, I'm not questioning that you or the Cubs know what you are doing.  I'm questioning whether the trade is too one sided.  Trades in this league rarely have rules, but I believe the league should have a bit of consistency when players are moved. 

With injury risks, it isn't wise to assume players will get hurt, teams assume they WON'T get hurt.  If you knew Carp and Z would get hurt, you wouldn't take them, and neither would I.  So I wouldn't value injury risk as a reason to move nothing better than a 5th round pick and Maloney for a SP1. 

If you believe that there have been uneven trades in this league, this is the first I have heard of it from you.  If you wish to go over it with the RC, feel free to.  It is encouraged.  Otherwise, the RC will go over the trade, and see if it is good as is, or if it needs to be improved.  I assure you, we know what we are doing.

As long as there is no evidence of cheating, then that should be enough to let the trade through. Why dont I say anything if I see an uneven deal? Because it's part of the game. Trades that I see as one sided may look fair to others. Trades that everyone sees as one sides might work out unexpectedly. The point it, just because a trade seems to be one sided doesn't mean it is or will be one sided. Therefore, simply saying that you feel a trade is unfair is not grounds for rejection. We both offered our views on the trade, there is no evidence of cheating, let the deal go...

[lp815]

Rockies, I'm not questioning that you or the Cubs know what you are doing.  I'm questioning whether the trade is too one sided.  Trades in this league rarely have rules, but I believe the league should have a bit of consistency when players are moved. 

With injury risks, it isn't wise to assume players will get hurt, teams assume they WON'T get hurt.  If you knew Carp and Z would get hurt, you wouldn't take them, and neither would I.  So I wouldn't value injury risk as a reason to move nothing better than a 5th round pick and Maloney for a SP1. 

If you believe that there have been uneven trades in this league, this is the first I have heard of it from you.  If you wish to go over it with the RC, feel free to.  It is encouraged.  Otherwise, the RC will go over the trade, and see if it is good as is, or if it needs to be improved.  I assure you, we know what we are doing.

[h4cheng]

Seriously guys, there has a lot more uneven trades in this league then this one. I am taking on over 60M of salary for one injury prone pitcher and one guy who is becoming injury prone. Maloney is hell lot better than just a low level prospect. Let the deal go, we both know what we are doing...

[bridgestone]

Cubs, I think I'll need a bit better reasoning on giving up a SP1 and an SP2/3 for a low end prospect and nothing above a 5th round pick.  I understand the salary dump, but this might be a bit too one sided.  The Haren and Vasquez trades come to mind when I think about SP1's moving teams, and both of those trades involved high picks and decent players.  I'm not set on saying no, but would like a bit more information on the trade.

I really needed to cut salary, so acquiring a star like Carpenter was going to help me do it.  I will end up with more picks in the draft albeit further back plus a star pitcher in the making with Maloney.  This allows me to make a splash in free agency.