ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: papps on August 07, 2011, 06:13:19 PM
-
OF Abreu, Bobby, $5.5m (2013)
-
claim
-
Did you two come to an agreement?
-
I think we have agreed on a deal.
-
72 has long expired.....post the deal or pull him back or give him to :TOR:
-
We are still in the negotiating phase, I proposed something and haven't heard back yet from Daniel.
-
Yes, Pridie for Abreu is the deal.
-
Phillies confirm
OF Abreu, Bobby, $5.5m (2013)
for
OF Pridie, Jason, $0.5m (2012)
I do this to shed Abreu's contract. It saves me some money the next few years and I feel his skills are declining as he turns 70 years old next year I believe. I'm taking a chance if Pridie turns into anything. Thanks Daniel!
-
:iatp:
-
Was Pridie won on waivers?
-
Yes I put a claim in for him. Daniel got the claim on Abreu and I got it on Pridie. We decided to trade the two.
-
:iatp:
-
I'm not sure that works from a technical point of view since no team technically owned the other player, because they did not clear waivers. You can't trade what you don't own, and the 72 hour expiration times were also different for both players.
-
Both teams claimed each player...Philly claimed Pridie and Tor claimed Abreau...each team could have sent the other player to the other team without compensation, this just ties it up in a nicer bow.
-
Both teams claimed each player...Philly claimed Pridie and Tor claimed Abreau...each team could have sent the other player to the other team without compensation, this just ties it up in a nicer bow.
No. Each team had to complete the trade w/o involving the other player, because they did not *own* the other player. Think it through as two independent moves. In a way, they screwed each other by not allowing the players to go through waiver unclaimed. Then they could have traded them for each other.
-
I think we are splitting hairs now. What difference does it make. We each claimed each player. Nobody else claimed either player. There is no big deal here.
-
It's not a matter of whether I think it's fair or a minor trade if the trade itself violates the waiver rules. Think of it this way. You had 72 hours from the last claim on Abreau to make a trade, and he had 72 hours from the last claim on Pridie. It would have been impossible for the FIRST waiver trade to have been completed, because the other team did not have the player they were trading. You can't trade what you don't own.
-
Colby, can we get a ruling on this please.
-
Abreu was put on waivers August 7th
Blue Jays claimed Abreu
Deal needed to be worked out by the 13th
Pridie was put on waivers August 11th
Phillies claimed Pridie on the 12th allowing a potential waiver deal
Deal was posted late on the 18th
How I see it is that a deal could have been posted by the 13th. It required another pending move to finish or else everything would fail and Abreu would automatically be dealt to the Blue Jays. A deal was made... the timing isn't the greatest, but I see no reason not to allow it.
Timing wise, this deal pushes the envelope with our waiver rules, but the intentions are straight and there is some overlap in the claims. Try and post your waiver deals in time people.
As commish, I approve. :judge:
-
Here's another issue... if the deal isn't allowed then the deal still happens (without cash exchanges, but there aren't any) as the Jays claimed Abreu and won the claim and the Phils claimed Pridie and won the claim. Effectively, it is a trade without declaring one.
-
Here's another issue... if the deal isn't allowed then the deal still happens (without cash exchanges, but there aren't any) as the Jays claimed Abreu and won the claim and the Phils claimed Pridie and won the claim. Effectively, it is a trade without declaring one.
Excellent point!