ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: RyanJames5 on January 28, 2019, 02:17:45 PM
-
:NYY: receives:
Clayton Kershaw 12(2019)
Aroldis Chapman 5.5(2019
:STL: receives:
Dee Gordon 10.5(2021)
Dexter Fowler 10.5(2019)
Hunter Pence 10(2019)
Mike Napoli 7.5(2019
Hishashi Iwakuma 5.5(2019)
Jose Reyes 5(2019)
Denard Span 5(2019)
Homer Bailey 3.5(2019)
Kris Medlen 3(2019)
Connor Gillaspie 2(2019)
Nate Pearson .5(P-n/a)
Shane McClanahan .5(P-n/a)
Adam Kloffenstein .5(P-n/a)
Bubba Thompson .5(P-n/a)
Mike Siani .5(P-n/a)
to be confirmed by :NYY:
:STL: makes this massive deal for a few reasons. One of the biggest being that I have a ton of cap space with little to no need to spend, so the hope is to cash in a bit on that cap space. Secondly, Kershaw and Chapman were both players I was hoping to be able to sell for a prospect and grabbing the caliber of prospects I get here, is worth both of them, as well as balancing the money a bit for me. I'm very happy getting back 3 top level arms with a ton of upside as well as 2 prospects in Thompson and Siani that add to my strong minor league system. Thanks and good luck to :NYY:
Flash: I will have roster moves to post as this trade would give me invalid rosters, but I will post those once the approval processes has progressed, unless you'd like them posted sooner. Just let me know.
-
NY agrees because I need to blow this roster up and start over. Three of these players are officially retired or overseas, four are 35+ FA, and Gilliaspie is 29 is washed up. Fowler and Gordon are the only two MLB players with any value and both are declining rapidly. I'm basically riding myself of $51.5m in dead cap this year and turning the $21m of Gordon and Fowler into $17.5m of Kershaw and Chapman. All of this is being done by basically gutting my farm system of it's top tier talent, but gives me the roster and payroll flexibility to attack free agency like the old Yankees that we knew and loved.
This deal was actually a lot easier to form than it looks like, thanks Ryan and good luck.
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
Although I understand the reasoning behind getting three prospects for Clayton Kershaw, which I wholeheartedly agree is justified, the rest of the deal makes little sense. Having a roster with nine open spots, with $77.0m in cap, in the midst of free agency, seems to negate the argument that "there is little need to spend".
I would surmise that many of the acquired players will be dropped, but again, I see no need for taking on so many dead contracts for three prospects you should reasonably get for Kershaw anyway.
:veto:
-
While I do agree with Flash you don't necessarily need to take on all these contracts to make this work, I don't agree that building through FA is the way to go always, that's how you end up having to get rid of a 10m Pence down the road.
I'm fine with it. :iatp:
-
Although I understand the reasoning behind getting three prospects for Clayton Kershaw, which I wholeheartedly agree is justified, the rest of the deal makes little sense. Having a roster with nine open spots, with $77.0m in cap, in the midst of free agency, seems to negate the argument that "there is little need to spend".
I would surmise that many of the acquired players will be dropped, but again, I see no need for taking on so many dead contracts for three prospects you should reasonably get for Kershaw anyway.
:veto:
I'm not debating the veto at all. I assumed the potential for this to be debated existed.
I would only like to reply to this to state, that having open roster spots and available cap, does not mean I need spend in free agency. That is why we each run our own teams. I likely have 2 starting CI, 2 starting MI, 3 starting OF, 4 SP and 5 RP currently before the trade and even more active players after the trade. The veto should not be used because a member of the TC thinks I should be running my team differently, that is not why we have them.
-
:iatp:
While it does seem excessive, I don't see this as needing to be vetoed. I trust that Ryan knows what he is doing with his team.
-
:veto:
I'm sorry guys. I rarely and I mean rarely use the veto. Kershaw is worth the prospects but I think the confusing part is St Louis taking on all the terrible contracts. I just don't see it guys. 10+ players for one also seems as a reach. I believe the trade needs some simplification. I truly believe in the let guys manage their team approach, but I also believe this one doesn't fit. A little massaging and this will push through. Again, sorry for the veto guys.
-
This isn't Kershaw of 3-4 years ago. He's probably closer to a #2 now and he is injury prone. He's had the same back issues 3 years in a row
-
Before this gets moved away can I have some clarification on what needs to be changed?
-
Plus, have you seen some of Ryan's teams in other leagues? I think he knows what he is doing. This trade isn't shifting major power like taking the outfield of the Red Sox, along with Devers and a few starters and relievers, and combining it with the infield and starting pitching of the Indians. That would be a ridiculously good team. This trade is nothing like that
-
Trade received 2 vetoes and is rejected as written.