ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: h4cheng on October 19, 2010, 07:29:28 PM
-
COL:
OF Crisp, Covelli (Coco), $2.5m (2011)
$2.5M Cash
SP Wolf, Randy, $5m (2012)
LAA
C Martinez, Victor, $3m (2010)
Agreed
-
:iatp:
The deal is merely just to make cap room.
-
:iatp:
~MTK
-
How are you getting cap room? You are losing cap room.
This deal is outlandish... a top bat at a scarce position for an older, more expensive SP and an outfielder who overachieved expectations in 2010?
-
VMart costs 12.5M to re-sign, he doesn't have the room for that.
-
I agree with Mike. (no im not on committee) he could get better just by rfa'ing him. Awful trade
-
How is RFA any better? At best, he gets a 1st and 2nd rounder who could take years to develope. Instead, he gets Crisp (who outscored Vlad, Ichiro and Wells on a per game basis) and Randy Wolf, both at very reasonable salary.
-
Coco has never been a full timer, and Wolf is terrible. 5m for 2 more years for a guy who averages 30 points a start. thats bad. neway no need to argue, im just voicing my opinion, its for the trade committee to decide.
-
Coco has never been a full timer, and Wolf is terrible. 5m for 2 more years for a guy who averages 30 points a start. thats bad. neway no need to argue, im just voicing my opinion, its for the trade committee to decide.
Coco was always a full timer when healthy. Wolf ranked just below Hughes last year, a guy you traded CC Sebathia for.
-
I will listen to both sides. I initially approved this trade because I was thinking that he could not afford him.
~MTK
-
Hughes was nothing in that deal. I got 5000 points of production in that deal. A third OF in Ibanez and a solid CI to play at utility. big difference. Coco was benched in Boston, and When healthy is another statement. Hughes wasnt even on my team for a 2 days. He is not worth it. Hopefully he gets better but no guarantee he is not a gb pitcher but Wolf is the same except really past the age where he will improve. We will just see what the committee. I just fully agree with Mike(Bridgestone) on this.
-
Corey/Trade committee:
Below are the points per million break down of the key players involved in this deal:
Crisp - 1422 pts
Wolf - 1215 pts
Total = 2637
Salary = 5M (I am eating 2.5M)
Points per million spent: 527.4
Martinez: 2163
Upcoming contract: 12.5M
Points per million spent: 173.04.
-
Martinez is a premiere player at a very shallow position. Coco currently has no team, but an option to be in a very crowded A's OF scenario. His health is also an issue, the same can be said for Wolf.
Due to VMart's value due to shallow position, I agree with the other diapprovals.
-
I have to agree with other 2 catcher thin position with vmart talent for aged sp and middle road outfielder isn't good deal
-
Martinez is a premiere player at a very shallow position. Coco currently has no team, but an option to be in a very crowded A's OF scenario. His health is also an issue, the same can be said for Wolf.
Due to VMart's value due to shallow position, I agree with the other diapprovals.
Rob, regarding the injury history argument:
Crisp has averaged 97 games in the past 4 years whereas Martinez averaged 125.5. Last year, Crisp played in 75 games and Martinez played in 127. Therefore, it is likely that Crisp will score more points next year than this year given his injury history. For Wolf, he has averaged 180IP for the past 4 years and this is above average for a starting SP as well.
Regarding the shallow position argument:
Let's go back to my previous points scored per million argument. Using goal-seek, it turns out that if Crisp and Wolf BOTH perform 70% worse than this year, the trade will come out completely even in terms points per million spent. In other words, I am paying a 70% premium, or 70% * 12.5 = 8.75M for VMart due to his position. I think that is more than a fair premium.
Rob, I know you are a reasonable person who won't just go along with the crowd. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider the veto.
-
How are you getting cap room? You are losing cap room.
This deal is outlandish... a top bat at a scarce position for an older, more expensive SP and an outfielder who overachieved expectations in 2010?
Mike, please see my post to Rob. I very interested in hearing more about why you think this is a bad deal.
-
Rob, regarding the injury history argument:
Crisp has averaged 97 games in the past 4 years whereas Martinez averaged 125.5. Last year, Crisp played in 75 games and Martinez played in 127. Therefore, it is likely that Crisp will score more points next year than this year given his injury history. For Wolf, he has averaged 180IP for the past 4 years and this is above average for a starting SP as well.
Regarding the shallow position argument:
Let's go back to my previous points scored per million argument. Using goal-seek, it turns out that if Crisp and Wolf BOTH perform 70% worse than this year, the trade will come out completely even in terms points per million spent. In other words, I am paying a 70% premium, or 70% * 12.5 = 8.75M for VMart due to his position. I think that is more than a fair premium.
Rob, I know you are a reasonable person who won't just go along with the crowd. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider the veto.
Howe,
I am opposed to this trade for those reasons stated and more. I am not simply going along with the crowd. Also, once I have posted my ruling, it won't change unless something regarding the players drastically changes.
I shopped Coco Crisp for some time and can tell you how the league managers value him. I pitched all of the numbers that you have conveyed and the fact that he has a really good contract going forward. Here is some of the feedback that I received.
He has no team, Oakland has not exercised him for next year. This makes his playing time situation a wildcard. Even if he lands in Oakland - There are 4 positions (3 OF and 1 DH) to get Crisp, Sweeney, Davis, C Jax, Carson, Michael Taylor, Chris Carter, and possibly Jack Cust at bats. If he lands somewhere else he most likely is not a starter. Once he is signed his value will either increase or could decrease.
His most recent injury is to his hand. This is burdensome for a hitter to come back from.
He is not a regular player. He only played this much this year since Sweeney and C Jax went down with injuries. He started last year (2009) until he got hurt and was not a starter in Boston previously, you will have to go back to Cleveland to find him as an official starter before that.
One problem with this trade is that Crisp + a mid-level prospect (Duda) was traded for an upper echelon prospect (Colome). So in this trade his value was the difference between a mid-level prospect and upper echelon prospect. Later that day, his value is being represented as the better player of two traded for a top level Catcher.
The bottom line is there are many teams that do not have a starting Catcher on the roster, in this league. Catcher is a very shallow position. I believe that the Angels will have multiple offers that are better than this deal. As a TC representative, this is the type of trade that needs to be evaluated very strongly.
My vote will remain a veto.
-
I am opposed to this trade for those reasons stated and more. I am not simply going along with the crowd. Also, once I have posted my ruling, it won't change unless something regarding the players drastically changes.
I shopped Coco Crisp for some time and can tell you how the league managers value him. I pitched all of the numbers that you have conveyed and the fact that he has a really good contract going forward. Here is some of the feedback that I received.
He has no team, Oakland has not exercised him for next year. This makes his playing time situation a wildcard. Even if he lands in Oakland - There are 4 positions (3 OF and 1 DH) to get Crisp, Sweeney, Davis, C Jax, Carson, Michael Taylor, Chris Carter, and possibly Jack Cust at bats. If he lands somewhere else he most likely is not a starter. Once he is signed his value will either increase or could decrease.
His most recent injury is to his hand. This is burdensome for a hitter to come back from.
He is not a regular player. He only played this much this year since Sweeney and C Jax went down with injuries. He started last year (2009) until he got hurt and was not a starter in Boston previously, you will have to go back to Cleveland to find him as an official starter before that.
One problem with this trade is that Crisp + a mid-level prospect (Duda) was traded for an upper echelon prospect (Colome). So in this trade his value was the difference between a mid-level prospect and upper echelon prospect. Later that day, his value is being represented as the better player of two traded for a top level Catcher.
The bottom line is there are many teams that do not have a starting Catcher on the roster, in this league. Catcher is a very shallow position. I believe that the Angels will have multiple offers that are better than this deal. As a TC representative, this is the type of trade that needs to be evaluated very strongly.
My vote will remain a veto.
Rob, I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
My comments are as follow:
- Your presented a lot of anecdotal evidence on why Crisp is not worthy. However, the numbers show otherwise. If you fill a roster with only players producing at Crisp and Wolf level, the team will outscore every other team last year with a 80M payroll. The fact that Crisp does not have a team next year does not diminish his value; it only adds variance to his value. From my previous post, we saw that even if Crisp's production falls further, LAA still comes out ahead. . No matter which way you look at the numbers, LAA does not lose in this deal.
- Your other main concern seem to be that most of the league don't view Crisp as an useful player. I don't see how this should affect your decision. As long as LAA values Crisp, does it matter what the rest of the league thinks?
- Crisp was involved in two deals in the same day with different perceived value argument: I merely recognized the fact that I have leverage in both cases because neither you nor LAA have any cap room left. Why should I be punished for recognizing this?
- Finally, please remember that this is not a 1 for 1 deal. LAA also received Randy Wolf, who has outscored on a per million basis Martinez by himself
Again, I appreciate your coherent arguments. It's refreshing to hear some well thought arguments from the TC rather than just a simple "it's not fair because I say so" with no backup whatsoever.
-
Rob, I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
My comments are as follow:
- Your presented a lot of anecdotal evidence on why Crisp is not worthy. However, the numbers show otherwise. If you fill a roster with only players producing at Crisp and Wolf level, the team will outscore every other team last year with a 80M payroll. The fact that Crisp does not have a team next year does not diminish his value; it only adds variance to his value. From my previous post, we saw that even if Crisp's production falls further, LAA still comes out ahead. . No matter which way you look at the numbers, LAA does not lose in this deal.
- Your other main concern seem to be that most of the league don't view Crisp as an useful player. I don't see how this should affect your decision. As long as LAA values Crisp, does it matter what the rest of the league thinks?
- Crisp was involved in two deals in the same day with different perceived value argument: I merely recognized the fact that I have leverage in both cases because neither you nor LAA have any cap room left. Why should I be punished for recognizing this?
- Finally, please remember that this is not a 1 for 1 deal. LAA also received Randy Wolf, who has outscored on a per million basis Martinez by himself
Again, I appreciate your coherent arguments. It's refreshing to hear some well thought arguments from the TC rather than just a simple "it's not fair because I say so" with no backup whatsoever.
No problem. I take a similar look at each and every trade. In your rebutal and all of your points, you do not address production by position and availability of an equivalent SP and OF. This is my main point.
-
No problem. I take a similar look at each and every trade. In your rebutal and all of your points, you do not address production by position and availability of an equivalent SP and OF. This is my main point.
I will address these quickly:
Production by position: see my previous post, I am paying almost a 70% premium because Victor is a catcher
Availability of equivalent SP/OF: it's not TC's job to make sure every team gets the best possible offer out there. I have shown that LAA is getting more than a fair return, and that should be enough.
-
This trade has been vetoed. I agree with the TC's points on the position scarcity of V-Mart and the projected fantasy point differences. This trade is further complicated because we have a new Angels GM in the mix. Please come to an agreement on a new deal as this one is not allowed.