Colorado Rockies/Tampa Bay Rays Trade

[snbts]

I normally dont vote at all on trades, but I feel I need to make an exception on this one.  While I completely understand the salary dump and by all means do not disagree with it, I dont feel that this trade should be accepted as is.  The trade is lopsided to Tampa Bay.  If more prospects are sent to Colorado, I could agree to the trade but not enough is being sent to the Rockies.  If someone of a Matt Moore was sent along I would by no means veto it.  Pujols for 4yrs will still be solid, if it was Pujols for his 10yrs that would be different.

 

[yahoolando]

I normally dont vote at all on trades, but I feel I need to make an exception on this one.  While I completely understand the salary dump and by all means do not disagree with it, I dont feel that this trade should be accepted as is.  The trade is lopsided to Tampa Bay.  If more prospects are sent to Colorado, I could agree to the trade but not enough is being sent to the Rockies.  If someone of a Matt Moore was sent along I would by no means veto it.  Pujols for 4yrs will still be solid, if it was Pujols for his 10yrs that would be different.

 

totally agree

[nicole]

I am sorry but I have to as well

 

[larry]

Need to have more sent to the Rockies


 

[kenny]

I understand the logic behind the trade, but don't think the values are close enough to even argue. This package of prospects is worth somebody along the lines of Alex Rodriguez, who has a high salary, long contract with a history of performing well, but an uncertain future.

Will wait to see if others have some input as well.

[Awesom-o]

I agree with those saying that it's not enough value for Pujols.  I understand salary dumps but like others have said Pujols should still be good for 4 more years.

[PlayerX3D]

I'm fine with the trade being voted down.  But I would not pay any more than I did for Pujols.  His contract is at his market value and because of that, he should be traded for essentially no additional value.

Matt Cain is the best free agent pitcher in this year's free agent class.  He was signed to a 5 year $33M contract.  How much would you trade for him?  If the answer is anything other than "nothing" then you are a bad GM.  He is worth exactly his contract in the free market.  So unless Pujols outlived expectations on his 5 year contract as one quarter of a full salary cap (spoiler alert: he didn't) then he certainly isn't worth his contract moving into his late 30's.

I was essentially willing to pick up the salaries of two overvalued players for the sake of me being able to do some creative salary alleviation in future years.

If one of you is willing to pick up Pujols' contract AND give him prospects, please do.  He's a good GM and will make good use of it.  If not, don't be surprised if he's a little frustrated that you "saved him from himself" when he has a 37 year old 1B eating a quarter of his salary in a couple of years.

[nicole]

I agree pujols is overpayed but with all teams having $125M cap some teams will over pay of stars.  The teams that have not built actual teams and instead go for the studs will drive up the prices.  Just wait and see what Kemp gets at the end of FA.  I bet he will be up over the $25M mark easily.

This doesnt mean they are not worth the money, players, or prospects but the way the league is set up (which I like) this is how it plays out.

[PlayerX3D]

I agree pujols is overpayed but with all teams having $125M cap some teams will over pay of stars.  The teams that have not built actual teams and instead go for the studs will drive up the prices.  Just wait and see what Kemp gets at the end of FA.  I bet he will be up over the $25M mark easily.

This doesnt mean they are not worth the money, players, or prospects but the way the league is set up (which I like) this is how it plays out.

This is precisely the point Nicole.

Let's assume Kemp goes for $40M a year on the open market, and then the owner immediately placed him on the trade block (let's assume this is a legal maneuver).

What would his trade value be?  It should be zero.  Because if the contract comes along with him, he will take up exactly his market value against the cap.

By the logic of those protesting this move, if Kemp was making $60M a year and someone offered a lower level prospect for him, we should not allow the trade because Kemp is great and will continue to be great for several years, and the prospects in return are not good enough to justify it.

This should be inconsequential.  If the Rockies view Pujols as being overpaid, then they should be willing to deal him off for basically nothing to simply get rid of the salary.  And even if you think he's worth slightly more than the contract amount, it is CERTAINLY not vetoable.

It's a failure of the system pure and simple.  The basic tenets of a contract based system are being ignored or misunderstood in this instance.

[kenny]

It would depend if Kemp's production was worth $60M a year. If so, I would say the same argument applies here (I am of the belief that Pujol's production is in line with his salary).

Also, by your logic, the Rockies would do just as well if they had put Pujols on waivers (under the assumption that his trade value is negligible). I understand his salary is essentially market value, but since he is not available and that there are few players of a similar caliber, there is now a premium on his services. It would be a different story if it was an average player, where there are numerous alternatives a GM could go after.

I'd compare this to Super Bowl tickets, under the assumption that ticket prices are not artificially constrained. You can buy them at face value for $1000, but scalpers can sell them for 3x that amount. Why? Because there is a limited supply of tickets, so the current ticketholder is at an advantage.