ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: daddypadre on February 15, 2010, 01:45:50 PM
-
Boston Trades:
Jed Lowrie .5m (P-2011)
Stolmy Pimentel .5m (P-n/a)
Lars Anderson (P-n/a)
Michael Bowden (P-n/a)
7m in 2011, 9m in 2012
Florida Trades:
Hanley Ramirez 11.5m (2014)
How exactly does this process work? On what basis can you veto a trade?
-
How exactly does this process work? On what basis can you veto a trade?
That's currently up for debate, but the fact that you're first reaction is to worry about a veto is not a good sign.
EDIT: Also, every team must remain under the cap at all time - the Red Sox have 13M in cap space. This move would cost 11M in 2010, plus your open FA bids (60M for Holliday, which in itself would cost you 12M in 2010).
-
This would also be the part of the deal where we ask the GMs to explain themselves. Sammy I realize that you aren't paying any money to the Marlins until next year, but if the trade goes through as is, you are under the cap by 3.5 mil. Unless you ave something else up your sleeve, I can't see how you will be able to back up you 60 mil bid on Matt Holliday. As Colby has pointed out, bids cannot be rescinded, so unless you clear some space, or someone outbids you on Holliday - this trade, financially speaking, cannot go through.
-
I've really only got only question regarding this trade- IS IT EVEN LEGAL? I know the rules are very unspecific in this regard, but as far as I can tell, any trade that has been made where cash has changed hands from one team to another, it went along with a player in order to offset a portion or all of a players salary. Forget the cap ramifications- This is a straight up purchase of a player. Are we going to allow this to become an acceptable means of obtaining players? I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow players to be traded straight up for cash and a few middle of the road prospects. The higher tier teams already have a huge advantage in making trades, signing free agents and giving big bonuses to prospects... now they're flat out allowed to purchase a player? I don't agree with this and I really think this needs to be looked at... but maybe that's just me.
-
I was thinking same thing when trades made guy adds money usually is team giving player up to help with cap relief. Team recieveing big contract giving up the money seems to be almost like cheating in a way
-
Florida?
-
While I do not have any issues with financial muscle being used to obtain a player, I think the points have been raised are correct and there is to me a clear distinction between sending salary paid with a player, taking on a bad contract (the usual source of financial muscle playing out in a trade) and just sending large sums of cash. I agree with Roy this is effectively a transfer fee.
While cash considerations so sometimes get transferred between teams, multi year cash balances to make a trade happen do not.
I would support a rule that supports the payment of a players salary but not excessive cash considerations.
ps daddypadre don't feel we're ragging on you, this is I think the first time this has come up and needs to be debated out.
-
I agree with Roy this is effectively a transfer fee.
I agree with Roy K-Doc09 this is effectively a transfer fee.
-
While I do not have any issues with financial muscle being used to obtain a player, I think the points have been raised are correct and there is to me a clear distinction between sending salary paid with a player, taking on a bad contract (the usual source of financial muscle playing out in a trade) and just sending large sums of cash. I agree with Roy this is effectively a transfer fee.
While cash considerations so sometimes get transferred between teams, multi year cash balances to make a trade happen do not.
I would support a rule that supports the payment of a players salary but not excessive cash considerations.
ps daddypadre don't feel we're ragging on you, this is I think the first time this has come up and needs to be debated out.
I would not be opposed to a proposal that the amount of cash received in a trade cannot exceed the net increase in salary received (although I'd consider allowing exceptions, such as selling draft picks). We should continue this conversation in the RC threads.
-
The fish would still have to accept this trade, but I don't think this deal is legit as it stands. It is a bunch of money and grade B prospects. We have seen teams such as the Cubs, Diamondbacks, and Cardinals give up expensive players to make some cap space, but they still got a decent return in the trade.
With the level of debate over this deal already, I suggest that both Florida and Boston go back to trade talks and throw some draft picks and better prospects or even veterans in the deal.
-
I've really only got only question regarding this trade- IS IT EVEN LEGAL? I know the rules are very unspecific in this regard, but as far as I can tell, any trade that has been made where cash has changed hands from one team to another, it went along with a player in order to offset a portion or all of a players salary. Forget the cap ramifications- This is a straight up purchase of a player. Are we going to allow this to become an acceptable means of obtaining players? I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow players to be traded straight up for cash and a few middle of the road prospects. The higher tier teams already have a huge advantage in making trades, signing free agents and giving big bonuses to prospects... now they're flat out allowed to purchase a player? I don't agree with this and I really think this needs to be looked at... but maybe that's just me.
I hate to stick my nose in this but I think what he is saying is TRUE. No team can just throw money at a team just to trade a player.
ALSO: throw this thread into the INVALID section. THANKS
-
I think money should only be used to pay a player sallary... So it would be "attached" to the player...
In the case of picks, you could limit it to the signing bonus attached to that draft position or 0.5mil in the case of a pick without bonus...
-
I've opened a new thread in the RC section to discuss limits on trading cash, so please continue that conversation there.
I'm no longer on the TC (although I think our current TC may be understaffed with 2 members supposedly MIA), but I'll second Colby's proposal to send this trade back to BOS/FLA to put together another version (although we still haven't hear from FLA...)
-
I am not on TC, but I would let this trade go:
- Hanley is a bargain at 11.5M per year, but he becomes less of bargain at 14.7M (if we take into account the 16M sent to FLA)
-For a small market team, is it really smart to have so much $ tied to one player?
-The prospects are pretty second rated, but Anderson a year ago was a top prospect, there is still time to bounce back there. Bowden on the other hand can still be a solid #3.
I also don't have anything against rich teams essential buying players. There is a point in which it's advantageous for small teams to "sell" players to the richer team. By simply saying that it's unfair for rich teams to buy players would just block anther avenue for small market/medium markets to compete. If someone is willing to send me $ annually, I'd think about giving up Wieters or Upton.
-
Sorry guys, I was busy yesterday.
I accept this trade for an obvious reason - I want to be more active.
I can't do anything without money, so I decided to give up Hanley after serious consideration. If a small market team can not accept money from a trade, it will be extremely difficult to improve.
If there is no financial problem for Boston, I hope this deal be approved. Thanks!
-
Hank,
Being active aside - you still have 6.5 million to spend, plus a bunch of guys under prospect contracts that you can drop without taking a salary hit and adding to that 6.5 mil - Colby, Ben, myself, the TC, and RC will not allow this deal to go through as is. You are not receiving an adequate return for what is the second best player in baseball. You want to clear some salary that is fine. If you and Boston want to get back together and come up with a package that includes a better package, then that is fine, I encourage teams to trade. But what is currently on the table is not going to be accepted by me, the RC, or the TC. I hope we can all sort this out. As it stands now, this trade is invalid.
-
woah...im emptying out my prospects, no matter how good you think they are, for hanley...
Florida needs money, and the way their team can become bigger valued IS taking in more money and paying out more salary. Is that not what the tiers are there for?
I can see your point you guys, this is debateable, I am ok either way.
-
I am looking into ways to make this trade work, so im just bumping it up there.