ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: daddypadre on February 26, 2010, 05:49:08 PM
-
Rockies Trade: Miguel Cabrera 19m (2015) 4-3, 5-3, 6-3, 6-18
Boston Trades: Mike Lowell 12.5m (2010) Clay Bucholz .5m (P-2011), Ryan Westmoreland .5m (P-n/a), Josh Reddick .5m (P-n/a) 7m in 2011, 7m in 2012
-
Rockies agree.
The management realized that it made a big mistake in obtaining Cabrera. This trade will hopefully begins the process of undoing some of the damages of the Cabrera deal. By getting Lowell and Bucholz, we should be still be able to compete this year. Westmoreland and Reddick are two of the best OF prospects in the game and could become bargaining chips down the line. Furthermore, 7m in 2011 + 12.5M off Lowell's expiring contract will ensure that we have the money to re-sign Upton and Cargo.
-
Red Sox:
The trade makes the base of players going into next year incredible (Cabrera, Youk, Pedroia, Lester, etc.) and boosts it to the point where the team is a very legitimate contender this year. The losses in the farm hopefully can be made up for in the draft.
-
I approve.
-
I see a problem with this trade guys, money can't be traded outright... it has to come as part of a player's contract. I'm not 100% sure about this, but you should start exploring alternatives just in case.
-
It is money for picks...it is not attached to the contract. I get five picks in the process. I made sure that didn't happen this time lo.
-
The 7 mil will be applied to Cabrera's contract.
Edit...
I'm an idiot. It is up to the TC to decide if those picks are worth that money since there is no contract to tie the money to.
-
I didn't know money could be traded for picks, but that's understandable. Now the question is can future money be traded for present picks? And if it is possible, I have another issue to point out because I understand that you cannot give an amount of money on a contract on a future year that is bigger than the amount of money given in the present year. This trade involves 7m in 2011 and 7m in 2012 while none is being paid in 2010. I have no problem with the trade value-wise, but I just want to make sure this is within the rules.
-
I didn't know money could be traded for picks, but that's understandable. Now the question is can future money be traded for present picks? And if it is possible, I have another issue to point out because I understand that you cannot give an amount of money on a contract on a future year that is bigger than the amount of money given in the present year. This trade involves 7m in 2011 and 7m in 2012 while none is being paid in 2010. I have no problem with the trade value-wise, but I just want to make sure this is within the rules.
It is just fine with the rules for that type of money to be traded.
-
All right, then :iatp:
-
movin it up
-
just wondering where the other trade went? cant find my trade with L.A.A anywhere. (processed, etc.)
-
nm found it lol
-
Can we get moving on the approval process on this trade? I'd like to make more bids but I want to make sure I have the cap space to do so.
TIA
-
I'm not sure what will happen to this trade considering the recent ruling on trading money. Maybe it will need to be renegotiated, I don't know. Dan?
-
I'm glad that my trades make way for debate about how to make this league better. Maybe I should just keep on posting them until we get all the loopholes out of the trading system lol.
Major League Franchise's trade money...no? And I am not even trading money straight up. 5 picks are coming my way and a huge star in Miguel Cabrera.
I wouldn't say I am buying Miguel Cabrera if I am getting 5 midround picks in return as well. Yes I am paying a lot of money, but I made some sacrifices to make cap room for it. When you guys come on here and tell me the trade is not right and it favors me with my high salary team, look at the moves I made before.
Tim Wakefield and JUSTIN MASTERSON for Mitch Stetter (Cap Room Trade)
J.D Drew for Johnny Gomes (Another Cap Room Trade)
I am not just using a ton of money to buy a ton of players (Real life Yankees). I am making sacrifices for them and freeing up space so I can take on their contracts.
Howe and I agreed on a deal. I am going short term (also getting 5 additional picks). Howe is going long term, with Bucholz and a few other guys. Don't know what is wrong with pitching in some money, afterall the object of the trade for Howe is to possibly eventually expand his budget, while having a new quality core of young players.
-
Sammy to answer your question on the status of your trade. It is still waiting the approval from the trade commission. You have one approval so far, and still need one more. The question isn't whether the talent going to the Rockies for Miggy is fair. I believe it is. And it is an obvious salary drop for Howe, considering what he gave up to get Miggy. The question of the trade, and this was prior to the new ruling, is whether or not paying 14 million over 2 years for mid-round picks is proper value. That is up to the TC. Again, you still need another vote since the Blue Jays already approved. So if Kris and Rick would like to chime in, we can move forward with this deal. IMHO, you need to send less money for the picks, since there value is far from 14 million. And if the value doesn't match up, then yes you are paying for players, and that was one of the reasons the Hanley deal didn't go through.
Plus it isn't just your trades, so far you are 2 for 3. The Pirates and Blue Jays had a deal not go through, and they went back to the drawing board. Again, I will follow what ever decision the TC makes, as should you and Howe.
-
Rockies Trade: Miguel Cabrera 19m (2015) 4-3, 5-3, 6-3, 6-18
Boston Trades: Mike Lowell 12.5m (2010) Clay Bucholz .5m (P-2011), Ryan Westmoreland .5m (P-n/a), Josh Reddick .5m (P-n/a) 7m in 2011, 7m in 2012
The cash should be applied to some player's contract. Given Lowell's only runs through 2010, this would have to be restructured in some way.
-
14m vs 12.5m, pretty reasonable if we use apv
-
Why does the cash have to be applied to a contract? Just put a line item on the roster page "cash from Boston."
-
Sammy to answer your question on the status of your trade. It is still waiting the approval from the trade commission. You have one approval so far, and still need one more. The question isn't whether the talent going to the Rockies for Miggy is fair. I believe it is. And it is an obvious salary drop for Howe, considering what he gave up to get Miggy. The question of the trade, and this was prior to the new ruling, is whether or not paying 14 million over 2 years for mid-round picks is proper value. That is up to the TC. Again, you still need another vote since the Blue Jays already approved. So if Kris and Rick would like to chime in, we can move forward with this deal. IMHO, you need to send less money for the picks, since there value is far from 14 million. And if the value doesn't match up, then yes you are paying for players, and that was one of the reasons the Hanley deal didn't go through.
Plus it isn't just your trades, so far you are 2 for 3. The Pirates and Blue Jays had a deal not go through, and they went back to the drawing board. Again, I will follow what ever decision the TC makes, as should you and Howe.
First, we already have 2 approvals (Jays and Giants)
<probably should go in the RC thread>
Let's suppose the 14m isn't for the picks. Let's suppose the 14m is for the Cabrera. What is wrong with it? Some are saying that it's unfair advantage for big market teams. How so? The 14M is meaningful regardless of whose hand it is in. Taking away the ability to trade players for cash denies small market teams the ability to take advantage of all possible avenues to improve their teams. I still have yet to see a concise argument as to why we should limit the amount of $ traded besides the fact that "it divides opinions".
-
Sorry - didn't see the first approval.
And from this moment forward, just so everyone knows, trading cash that is not attached to a contract is against league rules.
-
Please explain the reasoning behind it. I understand if it's an admin issue; don't understand it otherwise.
-
I think Kris said it best...
"I think if you allow for players to be bartered for cash you enter into a whole new realm of problems regarding deferred cash payments in future years, flat out purchasing of a player by a large market team (which they can already do in free agency) and I'm sure there are many other issues that could arise but they elude me at this time."
I agree and so does the RC. This isn't the 1900's where players are sold for cash. This also isn't soccer where superstars can be bought. It is not done in MLB, therefore it is not done here. If you want to add more money to your team, then dump a high salary player to a team that has the money. Or release the player outright, as is normally done - see Gary Sheffield.
-
So the only gripe is that MLB doesn't do it?
Do we really want to mimic everything in MLB and ends up with 10 competitve teams a year?
-
They were paying part of Silva's contract...next...
-
The mlb doesn't trade players for "cash considerations?" I'm pretty sure they do. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for instituting this rule. As a member of the RC, I think it should be discussed and not dismissed.
-
Why does the cash have to be applied to a contract? Just put a line item on the roster page "cash from Boston."
It sets a bad precedent for outright selling players.
-
Why is this a bad precedent? Personally, I think the Cabrera deal was a great move for the Rockies. They got huge cap relief, one great young pitcher and arguably the Red Sox best prospect. I think it's a disservice to trade negotiations and small/mid-cap teams to disallow cash considerations. If this isn't legal maybe we should re-think having big market and small market caps, why not institute a fixed cap for all teams?
-
This is what I am saying, just because MLB doesn't do it (they kind of do it with waivers), don't mean it's bad. Hell, there is no tiers in MLB but we use it. As long as it's reasonable, fun, and fair, what's wrong with it?