ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: VolsRaysBucs on March 29, 2014, 02:06:19 PM
-
:TB: sends:
MI Dee Gordon .5(2016)
:SF: sends:
CI Kaleb Cowart .5(p-n/a)
Tampa achieved goal of replenishing the farm with a young CI using a position of depth. With Hill, Miller, Owings, Lomardozzi and Zobrist at MI we could afford to move Dee. Thanks for the easy talks Flash, Giants to confirm.
-
Giants - Rays trade:
Tampa Bay trades:
MI Dee Gordon, $0.5m (2016)
San Francisco trades:
CI Kaleb Cowart, $0.5m (P-n/a)
Giants confirm. As with all prospects it would be easier if we had a crystal ball and could see into the future. Cowart could turn out to be a good player in the future, but I'm thinking he could also be the next Brandon Wood. In spite of all the hype at the A+ level, he failed miserably when promoted to AA. Weighing my options, I'm willing to take a flyer on Dee Gordon, who has some baggage too, but who seems to have turned the corner. As with all trades, time will tell.
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
:TB: sends:
MI Dee Gordon .5(2016)
:SF: sends:
CI Kaleb Cowart .5(p-n/a)
Tampa achieved goal of replenishing the farm with a young CI using a position of depth. With Hill, Miller, Owings, Lomardozzi and Zobrist at MI we could afford to move Dee. Thanks for the easy talks Flash, Giants to confirm.
Fantraxed 3/31/14
-
This trade should be invalid. Gordon was resigned which makes him untradeable for 60 days
-
This trade should be invalid. Gordon was resigned which makes him untradeable for 60 days
This is a peculiar case, as there is no tangible benefit given its for a league minimum salary. Im ok either way.
-
This is a peculiar case, as there is no tangible benefit given its for a league minimum salary. Im ok either way.
Agreed but in the past these were not allowed because of the 60 day signing period
-
This case could also bring to light something for the RC to consider...I can see the rule's benefit for newly signed FA, but the rule carries less benefit for extended players. Again, not speaking towards this case (my return was a spec, so no dog in the hunt) just those in the future...a player whose contract did not expire should not be subjected to the same restrictions as newly signed FA IMO. There is no competitive advantage to be gained from extending then trading a player, at least not that I can find. Food for off season 2015 if nothing else. :bacon:
-
This case could also bring to light something for the RC to consider...I can see the rule's benefit for newly signed FA, but the rule carries less benefit for extended players. Again, not speaking towards this case (my return was a spec, so no dog in the hunt) just those in the future...a player whose contract did not expire should not be subjected to the same restrictions as newly signed FA IMO. There is no competitive advantage to be gained from extending then trading a player, at least not that I can find. Food for off season 2015 if nothing else. :bacon:
Agreed Mike
-
Rules are rules
-
Rules are rules
-
This trade is invalid as the rule clearly states no trades until 60 days after an extension.
-
This trade is invalid as the rule clearly states no trades until 60 days after an extension.
Trade reversed 4/20/14