ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: nerwffej on May 21, 2011, 05:09:28 PM
-
Red Sox trade
MI Reyes, Jose, $7m (2014)
Phillies trade
MI Donald, Jason, $0.5m (2011)
MI Escobar, Yunel, $6.5m (2012)
P Luebke, Cory, $0.5m (P-n/a)
I make deal I get Escobar player I like and feel fills Reyes shoes well and get 2 young players to add to my farm system for future and now
-
Phillies agree to terms.
I am happy to add Reyes to my infield. I gave up some youth but I'm happy with Reyes and Phillips in my infield. I feel this makes me more solid up the middle.
Thanks Jeff!! :toast:
-
I expected Reyes to fetch more. Both Luebke and Donald are getting old to call prospects, but both have a chance to have serviceable careers. Looks ok, if you both arer happy.
-
I completely agree, I believe Donald has missed his time. I would like to hear the rest of the TC's opinion on this one. If Reyes had been put on the open market, he would have fetched at least 3 times more.
~MTK
-
I disagree....Reyes is coming off two injury filled seasons. He is playing well this year. Escobar is young and not real far behind Reyes. Luebke will be in the rotation in a pitchers park in SD and Donald will be the starting 3b for Cleveland when he comes back from his injury. Jeff is looking to rebuild his team and he got some solid pieces back. It fits needs on both our teams. Of course I will agree with whatever the trade committee says but Jeff and I are happy with our deal.
-
I'll confirm, Escobar's contract is more manageable than Reyes, and he seems to be thriving in TOR.
However, I do agree Jeff could have garnered more or better offers if he put Reyes on the block.
-
I don't know about this one. Reyes is worth much more in my mind. And it's not like Yunel is coming in cheap at 6.5. In fact Reyes at 7m through 2014 has a very manageable contract. Even an appealing one. Maybe if a better prospect was included or another player to add depth.
-
We got two approvals and two not sures. I still stand by this trade. Point wise its not that far off without Donald. Donald will be starting at 3b for Cle very shortly. Compared to some of the other trades that have been approved this one is not bad at all. We both got what we wanted and are happy. I gave Jeff 3 out of 4 players he asked for and all were on my trade block. I understand that people think he could of gotten more but this is the deal we negotiated and I feel it is fair. Luebke is an injury from being in the starting rotation if he's not going to be there soon anyway. He is also my best reliever. Escobar is young with a lot of upside and Donald hasn't played yet due to injury. Reyes is in a contract year and a gamble with his health. I'm just not sure why this would be vetoed if we make a deal we both want.
-
I have watched Yunel for years, he will always be a defensive shortstop. At the end of the year, we will see his overall stats, which I expect will be career averages.
~MTK
-
The trade committee's job is to evaluate the fairness of a trade, not how much each manager likes the trade. If that were the only thing that mattered then no deal ever would be vetoed. Also, it is not about whether or not he could have fetched more elsewhere, there are many trades that are approved that could have fetched more... It is about whether or not the deal is fair enough for the league and its future. I for one I'm voting against this trade because after further evaluation I am certain that Reyes is worth significantly more than Yunel and a couple of so so prospects. I wanted to hear a better explanation from the Red Sox as to why they are doing this deal before deciding, but he hasn't offered one yet so I vote to veto.
I propose a renegotiation of the deal. A better prospect, or adding some major leaguers that provide depth would make it a good enough deal.
-
I won't offer my opinion one way or another, but for comparison here are Yunel and Jose's production in our scoring system for the past few seasons:
Player | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008*
Reyes | 22.59 | 13.57 | 16.18 | 18.5
Escobar | 16.57 | 8.6 | 18.06 | 10.79
Reyes has beat Escobar by about 5-8 PPG in 3 of the past 4 years, with Escobar being better by about 2 PPG in 2009.
Player | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008*
Reyes | 1039 | 1804 | 582 | 2940
Escobar | 745 | 1161 | 2546 | 1467
Both Reyes and Escobar have seen their totals vary pretty significantly, although other than 2009 Reyes has consistently out produced Escobar. However, Escobar's 2009 was almost as good as any year Reyes has posted.
* 2008 does not include defensive stats
-
I will also chime in because why not... As much as I dislike Reyes and wish him all the worst in life, when healthy he is an elite player. So far we have seen elite players get a much higher return than this. Donald will be a UT player in Cleveland - Chisenhall and Kipnis will make sure of that. Luebke hasn't started a game for SD yet this year, and is a bit old to be considered a prospect. I agree that Yunel is a solid player, but with the lack of a solid second piece is what is holding the deal up.
-
i think there are a lot of us that would have given up more then this for reyes
-
Are you two GMs working toward a revision for this trade?
-
Are you two GMs working toward a revision for this trade?
if doesnt pass i am stepping back and just going to hold for bit and maybe rework deal but nothing different for now
-
I've reached out to Jeff about renogiating and he doesn't seem interested. I'm already aggravated enough with this trade and at this point I really could care less if it goes through or not. I've been soured enough with this process. I think its BS that this trade was not approved. I take pride in making fair trades and I think there is nothing wrong with this deal. I think there have been other trades that have been approved that were way more lopsided than this. But whatever...it is what it is. :soapbox:
-
Not that it matters but here are the points for this year:
Reyes - 1056
Escobar and Luebke with no stats for Donald - 1055
Yes very unfair.
-
I said I wasn't going to chime in, but I can't help it ;D
In my opinion, it sounds like many of you are overrating Reyes for this league. He's an elite player in most fantasy leagues where SB's are really important, but we hardly reward them (especially when we have a decent penalty for CS). Looking at his track record outside of this year, his PPG averages of 13, 16 and 18 are above average but far from elite, and that does not include his injury history. His current 22 PPG rate is inflated by a %BABIP 31 points above his career average ... enough to drop his PPG back into the 13-18 range should it normalize.
Whether or not the trade is fair is up to the TC, but I don't think it should be rejected on the premise that Reyes is an elite player since he has not performed like one in our league.
-
I said I wasn't going to chime in, but I can't help it ;D
In my opinion, it sounds like many of you are overrating Reyes for this league. He's an elite player in most fantasy leagues where SB's are really important, but we hardly reward them (especially when we have a decent penalty for CS). Looking at his track record outside of this year, his PPG averages of 13, 16 and 18 are above average but far from elite, and that does not include his injury history. His current 22 PPG rate is inflated by a %BABIP 31 points above his career average ... enough to drop his PPG back into the 13-18 range should it normalize.
Whether or not the trade is fair is up to the TC, but I don't think it should be rejected on the premise that Reyes is an elite player since he has not performed like one in our league.
i agree escobar and reyes are pretty equal not that far apart i think it shouldnt be rejected either
-
i agree escobar and reyes are pretty equal not that far apart i think it shouldnt be rejected either
I wouldn't go as far as saying they're equal, but not too far apart sure. Escobar has been between 8-18 PPG, Reyes 13-18 PPG.
-
sorry didnt mean to make it seem like i thought they were equal but kinda close
-
Normally I don't chime in on these sort of things, but in this case I feel like saying something. Jose Reyes is not elite, and especially not in this format. But he does is perceived as a star and his name makes him recognized as one. I am not a huge fan of Luebke (sp?) or Donald for a variety of reasons, but the fact that a quality everyday MI went the other way with these two "prospects" should at least make the deal a fair one. Everyone in this league judges prospects based on the their own opinions so for me or anyone else to say that Donald and Luebke are too old, not productive, no jobs etc... I think is kind of ridiculous. I have seen a lot of players change hands in deals a lot more one-sided than this one and I don't think that the name value of Jose Reyes should cause this deal to be rejected. And that's pretty much how it seems to me... I think as long as the perceived value of Luebke and Donald to the owner making the deal is enough to make up the difference between Reyes and Escobar, that should be good enough for us. This isn't the case of an owner not knowing what he is doing; I have dealt with and spoken to both of these gentlemen and I think you will all agree that they are both competent and fair negotiators.
This past off-season my predecessor traded a SS who scored more than 18.5 PPG for the following collection of players and not a single one of you batted an eyelash...
SP Correia, Kevin, $1.5m (2011)
SP Bannister, Brian, $1m (2011)
SP Moskos, Daniel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
RP Runzler, Dan, $5m (2011) + $4.5m in 2010 from Angels
CI Kotchman, Casey, $5.5m (2013) + $3m in 2010 from Blue Jays
CI Tracy, Chad Samuel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI-MI Hoffpauir, Jarrett, $0.5m (P-n/a)
Not a very good deal if you ask me and these are all players I inherited.
I'm in no way attacking Colby on this because he made a deal that was of benefit to his team, but the TC approved it unanimously, so it seems kinds of ridiculous that they would disapprove of this deal which in my eyes is much more equitable. Like I said, it may not be my place, but those of you who know me know that I don't get involved in these sort of things because they usually wind up being counter-productive and rift-inducing, but in this case, I had to say my peace. Thank you for your time.
-
Well said, Kris. I stand by my approval vote.
-
Sorry guys, but I also feel the need to say something. The TC has a job to do, and they did it. The TC has a thankless job, and it becomes a helluva lot harder when other owners chime in on the merits or drawbacks of a trade. The TC recommended that the two owners re-work the deal, and we should all respect and support their decision whether we agree with it OR NOT.
Peace.
-
Sorry guys, but I also feel the need to say something. The TC has a job to do, and they did it. The TC has a thankless job, and it becomes a helluva lot harder when other owners chime in on the merits or drawbacks of a trade. The TC recommended that the two owners re-work the deal, and we should all respect and support their decision whether we agree with it OR NOT.
Peace.
I agree in principle and the second guessing can have a negative impact, but at the same time it is standard practice for other owners to weigh in when there is controversy.
-
There are a lot more lopsided deals that got approved. Let it go through.
-
There are a lot more lopsided deals that got approved. Let it go through.
I don't agree with that logic. The point here is that the TC made a ruling. They told the two owners that the trade had to be revised to be approved. We would be setting a bad precedent if we over-rule their decision.
I think it's fine to comment on potential trades BEFORE the TC makes its ruling. However, AFTER they have made their decision we need to abide by it. Otherwise, the whole process loses its integrity. That's my two cents on the process.
-
I don't agree with that logic. The point here is that the TC made a ruling. They told the two owners that the trade had to be revised to be approved. We would be setting a bad precedent if we over-rule their decision.
I think it's fine to comment on potential trades BEFORE the TC makes its ruling. However, AFTER they have made their decision we need to abide by it. Otherwise, the whole process loses its integrity. That's my two cents on the process.
I see where you are coming from Roy and dont want to diminish the importance of TC. I just want some consistency with the TC rulings. It's long estbalished that as long as both owners are vets and know what they are doing, trades go through. I don't see how this trade is any different from what's been allowed in the past.
-
It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation. And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.
-
It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation.
While I personally would not have voted against the trade, if TC members have concerns and Boston isn't stepping up to defend it then it's a pretty easy decision to veto.
And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.
Agree again. I don't think this trade is that lopsided, but if the TC does they shouldn't approve it just because other bad trades were allowed - we should not be in the business of following one mistake with another.
-
It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation. And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.
I support Daniel here. He is correct, further explanation may have allowed this trade to pass or led to renegotiation. Roy, is correct as well regarding the process.
Everyone be clear, the TC did not veto, only asked for further explanation, when this is not received from both parties, then there is no choice on moving forward.
-
What do you expect Jeff to say? We have a week debate over Jose Reyes! I am not speaking for him but we have gone to a 3 page thread over potentially a bad deal made by him. What do you want him to do? We both made the deal because we thought it was best for our teams. He posted the deal and gave you the reason why he wanted to do it. I can understand now if he didn't want the deal or not want to renegotiate. Again, I don't speak for him and I may be wrong but if it was me and people were debating a trade they thought was bad for me I'd be feeling like maybe I made a bad deal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We have a lot of well respected GM's saying that the trade is fair and there is nothing wrong with it. Daniel and Aubrey are the only two opposed to it. Again, the whole purpose for the trade committee is that the trade be fair. I think its overwhelmingly obvious the trade is fair. I also feel is why should I have to give up more if the trade is fair already? Is that fair to me?
-
To make it clear, I did veto the deal on the sole premise that Reyes is an "elite" player and could have fetched more. I vetoed the deal because Jeff wants to get younger and build a team. What are the ages of Yunel, Donald, and Luebke are close to Reyes' age if I am not mistaken, and regardless of age, I believe that Reyes will out produce Yunel and Luebke (maybe Donald) also for the remainder of his career. If he doesn't out produce all 3, the 3B or UTIL that he acquires will most likely out produce Donald, who I remind everyone has already had several shots to stick in the MLB and we all see where he is. If ya'll can persuade Daniel, then I guess I will approve it.
~MTK
-
I won't approve if Jeff doesn't explain himself further. It makes me think that he himself wasn't entirely convinced of the deal to begin with. The TC's job is not to stamp approvals on all trades, but to evaluate each trade, give their opinions and determine the fairness of a trade. When the members of the TC are hesitant to approve it is needed that all participants in the trade chime in with their reasons to do the trade and prove they are convinced. I have many times approved trades I was doubtful about after further explanations were given.
-
There is nothing more to explain after TC evaluated it makes sence I am fine with it
-
I think everyone has said their piece on this matter. I am moving it to the invalid transactions folder. Believe me when I say this, no one in this league likes to see trades vetoed. It might lead to GMs being gun shy in the future. And as most of you know the best way to obtain players is through trades, or over pay for free agents. I hope this doesn't affect anyone's future participation in the trade market.
-
This trade should have been honored.
-
Totally agreed.
And in response to Rob's question since the other thread got locked, if you are on TC, be consistent, expect to be challenged sometimes and don't take criticisms personally