Phillies - Rockies Trade

[Flash]

If Colorado is not returning to the league then this trade should not be processed.  If he stays in the league then the trade should be honored and processed. 

From the looks of COL being listed as available then this trade should not go through.  The new owner should be able to make his own decisions.

It would appear as if the Colorado GM has left the league.
 
The post regarding the availability of the Colorado Rockies and Cleveland Indians was initiated on November 4th and he has not responded to the contrary.  He was online today. 

Last Active: Today at 09:30:11 AM

So we can surmise that he is no longer interested in being a part of FGM.

[papps]

If Colorado is not returning to the league then this trade should not be processed.  If he stays in the league then the trade should be honored and processed. 

From the looks of COL being listed as available then this trade should not go through.  The new owner should be able to make his own decisions.

[VolsRaysBucs]

 

Classy, thoughtful, and well-worded post Flash, nicely done! 

[Flash]

Rockies GM is pulling this deal from consideration by the TC. They will be evaluating their position in this league and if a change needs to be made then they want the new GM to be able to go forward. Thanks TC

Hmmm...I see the frustration here, but I'm not sure what I'm missing.  I know you're "...pulling this deal from consideration by the TC...", and I have to admit, I don't really remember any GM doing this before--but I guess you do what you need to do.

As for the rest of the post, are you trying to provide some cryptic message for us to decipher?  Are you leaving the league?  Threatening to do so?  Or what?  Is your sarcastic "Thank You" a way to say we caused you to leave the league?  Just asking.....

I'm not looking to make any enemies here, but this entire situation has gotten way out of hand.  In all honesty, as a member of the TC I should probably take the time to research each trade like Miller Time did.  His statistical breakdown makes a lot of sense, and given his analysis, I see why a veto was cast.  I usually look at the salaries involved and, unfortunately, I often take the position offered by OUDAN, "that more should be gotten and no one is cheating so whatever give away your MLB MIs".  I think it's a shame MT has decided to resign from the TC because of all the drama associated with these two trade proposals between the Rockies and the Phillies, but I also understand that none of us need to be bashed on this board because we disagree with a trade proposal. 

The emotional outbursts by the participants, along with the unrealistic proposal listed in another thread to get rid of the Trade Committee, have not demonstrated that there is a viable alternative to the current process.  We all evaluate things in different ways, and yes, sometimes we "rubber stamp" a trade at times.  I understand that we all want to run our teams as we see fit, but we can never take out the subjective component when it comes to to evaluating a variety of things related to our league--especially trades.

We saw what a mess we had when GMs wanted to change teams.  We couldn't come to a consensus because we had differing "opinions " on what constituted success and got stuck on the "what's good for the league" argument--something that has surfaced in the approval/veto discussions.  We have seen trades vetoed before, for a variety of reasons, but it usually came down to a question of fair market value.  Earlier this season, I traded Caleb Kowart for Dee Gordon, which, at the time seemed like a fair trade.  Would that trade be approved today?  A prospect valued in his organization for a high scoring MI.  That trade was reversed because of the 60 day rule.  I made out like a bandit in that trade, and I was very upset when it was overturned.  I even sent some regrettable Poison PMs to the Rays GM because I let my emotions get the best of me.  Regrettably, I also called out BHows on this board for processing a trade too soon during a matchup between our two teams when I should have been more discreet.  I point these things out because I know all about being "p---ed off" and "frustrated".  It makes you say and do dumb things.  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I value my membership in this league and I think we do a lot of things right.  However, like every fantasy league, we are going to have some things go against us--but does that give us license to trash a member we disagree with?  As I mentioned, I have done some regrettable things, but in each case, because of the high character of my fellow GMs, we were able to patch things up.  I survived my reckless behavior and got back to the reason why I play fantasy baseball--which is to have fun.

So a trade is vetoed.  This is not life and death, and some of us have too stop taking ourselves so seriously.  If someone has a viable alternative to our present process of evaluating trades, then please, put that solution on the table.  No rhetoric, no mindless criticism, no whining, no threats, present something you believe is better than what we do right now. Then apply that process to the last two Rockies-Phillies trade proposals, since each is only a hypothetical situation now, and show how it is a viable alternative to the Trade Committee.

 

[MillerTime]

Just to follow up on what I was saying earlier.

Player A scored 7121 pts over 2012 - 2014

Player B scored 6951 pts over 2012 - 2014

One is on $15m (p-2015) and available for prospect extension at 40% discount over a 5 year contract.  The other is $15m (2017).

This type of evaluation factors in down years and injuries, perfect for both these players.  Tulo or Kipnis?

It does not matter, my vote is withdrawn, just wanted to reinforce why my opinion was what it was.

[MillerTime]

I don't think you need to, my vote is not valid, I quit TC.

I am sure someone will rubber stamp this for you guys.

[OUDAN]

More should have been gotten but no one is cheating so whatever give away your MLB MIs 

[patjossom]

Rockies GM is pulling this deal from consideration by the TC. They will be evaluating their position in this league and if a change needs to be made then they want the new GM to be able to go forward. Thanks TC

[papps]

Double the financial commitment with a much better player.  Less of a financial commitment with a player not half as good.  It makes no sense.  Its inconsistent.  The trade before was better player with more money commitment and this trade is a lesser player with less money commitment.  That one was approved and this one is not.  I'm sorry, I'm just having a difficult time with this. 

[MillerTime]

Rob, its not popular because the voting is horribly inconsistent.  You approve the last trade with Tulo but veto this one???  There is way less coming back then the last deal.  Prospect rankings mean squat!!!  And top catching specs score big?  Since when?  For him to keep Phillips for almost the whole season makes no sense if he needs the money now.  Maybe there are other moves he needs to make?  I'm no sure where smith, cuthbert, rosario came from. 

My frustration with this league is growing incredibly.  This trade is not even close to being a veto.  NOBODY KNOWS HOW GOOD SPECS ARE GOING TO BE.  These vetos are really starting to piss me off.   

Last trade had double the financial exchange.  Kipnis is healthy and very good, although down year.  Still eligible for prospect ext as well.  It is about contract and positional value, regardless of who the specs are.

The last trade was better.  Sorry.