Trade: COL/LAD

[OUDAN]

I am ok with the trade veoted because of the 2 weeks rule. But to veto this deal because it's comparable in anyway to the Greinke/Pedroia deal is an insult. I appreciate Ben's impartial judgement in these posts. I wish some of the others could do the same.

i would do the same IF my trade was treated fairly i will be back later after i decide whether or not i can be aprt of a league that isnt always done the same

[papps]

I am ok with the trade veoted because of the 2 weeks rule. But to veto this deal because it's comparable in anyway to the Greinke/Pedroia deal is an insult. I appreciate Ben's impartial judgement in these posts. I wish some of the others could do the same.

I would never let one deal influence another.  I have too much respect for the guys in this league to do that.  One trade has nothing to do with another. 

[Canada8999]

I would never let one deal influence another.  I have too much respect for the guys in this league to do that.  One trade has nothing to do with another.

There is an element of precedence to what can be a very subjective task of evaluating the fairness of trades, but the emotions attached to previous trades (or more importantly vetoed trades) should never be involved. 

Another element that seems to be frustrating some new owners is that not all trades are treated equally since veteran GM's are given more leeway when on what seem like the short side of a deal since they have proven their abilities.  There were some questions when I traded Gallardo for LaPorta/Cabrera in that I was getting a AAAA player and a no hit MI for a budding ace, but I'd say so far that one has worked out in my favor with Cabrera showing he can hit just fine.  There are likely more extreme examples of this, but obviously my own moves come to mind first.

[KDoc09]

I know I am not on the TC but I have to say this whole thing STINKS. For Howe to come out and bash another deal (rightly so in my opinion) under the guise of the new Rox owner not being familiar with the setup of the league and then going forward and making a deal with him under similar circumstances is extremely hypocritical and IMO a tad shady. I also think this is a stark reminder of why owners should not be allowed to switch franchises in the first place, especially one who has been around as long as Howe. He obviously became attached to some of his players and he knows how valuable some of them are in this format and as a result he's targeted them from an owner who may or may not be entirely familiar with the league; a judgment I will not make, instead I will leave it up to the owner himself to decide if he is comfortable enough in the scoring and structure of the league to begin making moves. Aside from the fact that I personally think the deal is (a 4-letter word I will not type) to speak out against one deal while making one of your own with the same owner under similar circumstances seems a little wrong to me.

[OUDAN]

 quote author=KDoc09 link=topic=23438.msg118990#msg118990 date=1307820127]
I know I am not on the TC but I have to say this whole thing STINKS. For Howe to come out and bash another deal (rightly so in my opinion) under the guise of the new Rox owner not being familiar with the setup of the league and then going forward and making a deal with him under similar circumstances is extremely hypocritical IMO a tad bit shady. I also think this is a stark reminder of why owners should not be allowed to switch franchises in the first place, especially one who has been around as long as Howe. He obviously became attached to some of his players and he knows how valuable some of them are in this format and as a result he's targeted them from an owner who may or may not be entirely familiar with the league; a judgment I will not make, instead I will leave it up to the owner himself to decide if he is comfortable enough in the scoring and structure of the league to begin making moves. Aside from the fact that I personally think the deal is (a 4-letter word I will not type) for the new COL GM to speak out against one deal while making one of your own with the same owner under similar circumstances seems a little wrong to me.
[/quote]

 :iatp:

[h4cheng]

I will re-interate:

Tulo: 1294pts


Castro: 608pts
Hart: 556 pts
Marcum: 714 pts
Total: 1878 pts

Pedoria: 1274 points
Greinke: 481 pts
Let's add 4 more starts: 481 / 7 * 11 = 755

I bashed the Pedroia deal because I thought it was a bad deal, period. I did not bash the deal just so I can steal one of my former players.
I honestly thought the Tulo deal would help both clubs (see the figures above). You are all free to disagree with the deal. But to question my character and attemp to tie this to the Pedoria deal is simply unfair.

[Dan Wood]

" 20M contract in AJ Burnett off his hand, freeing money to re-sign Bruce and Bucholz"

Did you mention to him that if he drops Burnett after July 31st he pays 2 mil next year, and 0 the following year? How does taking on salary next year help him re-sign Bruce and Bucholz? So not only does he lose Tulo, he will also most likely lose Bruce.

I don't disagree that there is value in the players that you are sending to the Rockies. But I have to agree that you prolly weren't completely up front with Reid in your dealings. I'm assuming a big part of the deal was taking on Burnett's contract, which isn't such a huge factor at all, in the grand scheme of things.

[Dan Wood]

Plus when you call another GM out, like you did to LTD (for possibly taking advantage of a GM unfamiliar with our scoring system), you open yourself up to the same sort of scrutiny.

You put on your cape to rescue Reid in his Pedroia deal, now others are doing the same... all's fair.

[KDoc09]

The posting of a points disparity as an argument for why a trade is good might be good in theory, but it only works if you also account for the points lost by the players that must be taken out of the lineup in order for the owner to receive the benefit of having those new players on his club. Besides, we all know that there is more to a players value than just points, a favorable long-term contract for example.

And I never attacked your character I just made an observation based on the two deals and the subsequent arguments that followed. In my opinion, which I am allowed to have, there is a direct correlation between the two, not because of the deals themselves but the similarities in the circumstances surrounding them. I think if you are willing to apply your lens to one deal and not another because you are involved in one of them that is hypocritical. That is where my observation comes from. I have no axe to grind with anyone and I have no personal agenda at stake, I just want consistency in behavior.

[28]

i agree with kdoc about the points lost for people taken out of lineup because hart is going to go from being on your bench to going to his bench