Red Sox Rockies Make A Trade

[h4cheng]

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".

[Dan Wood]

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.

[h4cheng]

Please explain the reasoning behind it. I understand if it's an admin issue; don't understand it otherwise.

[Dan Wood]

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.

[h4cheng]

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?

[Dan Wood]

They were paying part of Silva's contract...next...

[mjmezzetti]

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.

[Colby]

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.

[mjmezzetti]

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?

[h4cheng]

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?