Red sox / phillies come to terms

[28]

sorry didnt mean to make it seem like i thought they were equal but kinda close

[KDoc09]

Normally I don't chime in on these sort of things, but in this case I feel like saying something. Jose Reyes is not elite, and especially not in this format. But he does is perceived as a star and his name makes him recognized as one. I am not a huge fan of Luebke (sp?) or Donald for a variety of reasons, but the fact that a quality everyday MI went the other way with these two "prospects" should at least make the deal a fair one. Everyone in this league judges prospects based on the their own opinions so for me or anyone else to say that Donald and Luebke are too old, not productive, no jobs etc... I think is kind of ridiculous. I have seen a lot of players change hands in deals a lot more one-sided than this one and I don't think that the name value of Jose Reyes should cause this deal to be rejected. And that's pretty much how it seems to me... I think as long as the perceived value of Luebke and Donald to the owner making the deal is enough to make up the difference between Reyes and Escobar, that should be good enough for us. This isn't the case of an owner not knowing what he is doing; I have dealt with and spoken to both of these gentlemen and I think you will all agree that they are both competent and fair negotiators.

This past off-season my predecessor traded a SS who scored more than 18.5 PPG for the following collection of players and not a single one of you batted an eyelash...

SP Correia, Kevin, $1.5m (2011)
SP Bannister, Brian, $1m (2011)
SP Moskos, Daniel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
RP Runzler, Dan, $5m (2011) + $4.5m in 2010 from Angels
CI Kotchman, Casey, $5.5m (2013) + $3m in 2010 from Blue Jays
CI Tracy, Chad Samuel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI-MI Hoffpauir, Jarrett, $0.5m (P-n/a)

Not a very good deal if you ask me and these are all players I inherited.

I'm in no way attacking Colby on this because he made a deal that was of benefit to his team, but the TC approved it unanimously, so it seems kinds of ridiculous that they would disapprove of this deal which in my eyes is much more equitable. Like I said, it may not be my place, but those of you who know me know that I don't get involved in these sort of things because they usually wind up being counter-productive and rift-inducing, but in this case, I had to say my peace. Thank you for your time.

[lp815]

Well said, Kris. I stand by my approval vote.

[rcankosy]

Sorry guys, but I also feel the need to say something.  The TC has a job to do, and they did it.  The TC has a thankless job, and it becomes a helluva lot harder when other owners chime in on the merits or drawbacks of a trade.  The TC recommended that the two owners re-work the deal, and we should all respect and support their decision whether we agree with it OR NOT.

Peace.

[Canada8999]

Sorry guys, but I also feel the need to say something.  The TC has a job to do, and they did it.  The TC has a thankless job, and it becomes a helluva lot harder when other owners chime in on the merits or drawbacks of a trade.  The TC recommended that the two owners re-work the deal, and we should all respect and support their decision whether we agree with it OR NOT.

Peace.

I agree in principle and the second guessing can have a negative impact, but at the same time it is standard practice for other owners to weigh in when there is controversy.

[h4cheng]

There are a lot more lopsided deals that got approved. Let it go through.

[rcankosy]

There are a lot more lopsided deals that got approved. Let it go through.

I don't agree with that logic.  The point here is that the TC made a ruling.  They told the two owners that the trade had to be revised to be approved.  We would be setting a bad precedent if we over-rule their decision.

I think it's fine to comment on potential trades BEFORE the TC makes its ruling.  However, AFTER they have made their decision we need to abide by it.  Otherwise, the whole process loses its integrity.  That's my two cents on the process.

[h4cheng]

I don't agree with that logic.  The point here is that the TC made a ruling.  They told the two owners that the trade had to be revised to be approved.  We would be setting a bad precedent if we over-rule their decision.

I think it's fine to comment on potential trades BEFORE the TC makes its ruling.  However, AFTER they have made their decision we need to abide by it.  Otherwise, the whole process loses its integrity.  That's my two cents on the process.

I see where you are coming from Roy and dont want to diminish the importance of TC. I just want some consistency with the TC rulings. It's long estbalished that as long as both owners are vets and know what they are doing, trades go through. I don't see how this trade is any different from what's been allowed in the past.

[guak2005]

It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation. And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.

[Canada8999]

It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation.

While I personally would not have voted against the trade, if TC members have concerns and Boston isn't stepping up to defend it then it's a pretty easy decision to veto.

And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.

Agree again.  I don't think this trade is that lopsided, but if the TC does they shouldn't approve it just because other bad trades were allowed - we should not be in the business of following one mistake with another.