Reds/ Tigers trade

[Dan Wood]

Reds get

OF Snider, Travis, $0.5m (P-2012)

Tigers get

OF Johnny Damon, $5.5 (2010)
P Cahill, Trevor, $0.5m (P-2012)
P Cordero, Francisco, $11.5m (2011)
1st Round Pick - 9th overall

Tigers to confirm

[nerwffej]

i agree that is the agreed deal

[BHows]

If I am to approve a trade strictly on the basis of collusion or other means of cheating then I approve. I know that this is a legitimate trade.
The reason I have hesitated this long is that I question it's fairness. I'm sorry but I believe it is grossly imbalanced in favor of the Tigers. That said, I feel that I can't just "rubber stamp" this transaction. Doing so would only minimize my position on the TCC.
If I'm out of line let me know. Otherwise, I'm affraid I need further justification before I can approve. Sorry.

[nerwffej]

it does lean towards me in a way but i took on a huge contract or cordero and for me to do it i had to get something to make it worth while. just my reason i had to get what i did to do deal.

[Dan Wood]

My justification for doing this is...

1. I get a young stud hitter in Snider which was my main goal - and the best player in the trade. He is also oneof the youngest people in the majors.
2. I get rid of Cordero - paying 11 mil to someone who doesn't score that differently than other rps is ridiculous in my mind.Plus he is 35
3. Damon - was a 1 year rental and he would have been gone next year.
4. Cahill hurts to give up, but see #1
5. Pick - didn't care in being part of the draft

[BHows]

Sorry Dan but, in my opinion, this trade is way too one-sided.
But.....opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one. And,since I'm not sure of the perimeters required in sanctioning a trade, I'll approve.

[Canada8999]

Sorry Dan but, in my opinion, this trade is way too one-sided.
But.....opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one. And,since I'm not sure of the perimeters required in sanctioning a trade, I'll approve.

As an RC member I'll throw out what my interpretation of the rules are:
In general, if you think both teams are acting in the best interest of their teams (whether you agree with the balance of trade or not) considering either short term or long term implications (allowing each GM the freedom to set their goals), and you have no reason to suspect the involved GM's of collusion, then you're free to approve the trade (and should do so). 

In any cases where you may hesitate to approve (based on the above conditions), you should absolutely request the involved GM's offer some indications into why they agreed to the trade.  Upon reply, if you're able to interpret their arguments as genuine reasons for making the transaction then you should approve the deal (again, even if personally you do not agree on the valuation).

I invite other RC members and active GM's to add to this, as the TC is an extremely important committee and all league owners should be on the same page with respect to it's responsibilities and reach of power.

[rcankosy]

I don't believe that we need a TC if the only reason for rejecting a trade is collusion.  The commissioner could make that ruling himself.  If we want a TC with real "teeth" and acting in the best interests of the league itself, then we should amend the rules if the rules really declare that collusion is the only grounds for rejecting trades.  Trades in a dynasty league have long-term implications, so we should really take long look at this topic.

[lp815]

Going off of Ben's request, I'll put in my cents...

I see all of Dan's points as acceptable, except the draft pick.  While there's nothing in the rules on how each member values their players/picks (and there shouldn't be), it might upset GM's to see a trade where a pick is traded simply because the GM didn't want to be in the draft.  It makes it appear as if it was dumped off, with no real validity to it's value (any value) on the GM's part.

I'll wait to see if any of the other TC members chime in before us RC members use a vote, but maybe give a bit better explanation on the draft pick, Dan-o?  Was the pick necessary for the Tigers to accept?  If it wasn't, possibly seeing it removed might make the members a bit more comfortable in seeing this trade go through.  However, that won't change my opinion of the trade vote wise, as Rick nailed it on that we are really only employed to look for collusion and cheating, not valuing players/picks.

My two cents, gentlemen. :koolaid:

[nerwffej]

as per draft pick
yes it was necessary when we started talking trade i was taking on a 11.5 mil contract and a pick was being offered  for someone to take it so we just worked other parts to deal around that