|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Mar 7, 2012 11:13:55 GMT -6
Indians please understand , I can't believe I have to show you this yet again.
He gets Hudson for $13.5 yes ... BUT he is then $5 over the cap , so now he must drop a $10 player to get under the cap, meaning he just paid Tim Hudson at the very least $23.5 , plus a pick, plus his drop
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 11:17:50 GMT -6
I ain't telling ANYBODY what I think and Why I did it!! It is the OFF SEASON!!! Maybe Only 3 GM's Knows why I did this but the Rest can THINK what EVER they want LOL GOOD or BAD I don't care wuahaha
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 7, 2012 11:42:01 GMT -6
Indians please understand , I can't believe I have to show you this yet again. He gets Hudson for $13.5 yes ... BUT he is then $5 over the cap , so now he must drop a $10 player to get under the cap, meaning he just paid Tim Hudson at the very least $23.5 , plus a pick, plus his drop You're right, you soo smart and I'm just a dumby Who's to say he doesn't make another corresponding trade
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 7, 2012 11:56:28 GMT -6
WTF are you talking about. On the Adam Jones deal bidding had not begun, the guy had $100 in cap space wasnt dropping anyone. It's literally nothing like that at all. Again let Cubs come on here and tell us why he thinks it was smarter to give up a pick and eat $16 in cap while also dropping a player, rather than bid on him. If you or he truly believes that Tim Hudson who will miss a month + of baseball this year would have been paid as a top 5 starter in the league then it would make sense. The only way this trade makes any sense is if Cubs thinks he would have gone for more than $30. You comparing deals where it was rights for picks is seriously moronic now because it's clearly not even close to the same situations NAME CALLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VIOLATOR!
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Mar 7, 2012 11:57:17 GMT -6
While I agree with Yankees on the fact that I do not understand the reasons behind this trade, I do not believe that it is Yankees' job on the trade committee to make sure every trade makes sense. A committee member's job is to look at the trade at hand and make sure there is no collusion going on. Since this trade falls in line with the rules and we would not complain about someone with Hudson's talent level going for a 6th rounder, unless it was a complaint that the person giving up Hudson wasn't getting enough in return, then it makes no sense to veto. Sorry, Yanks, but it seems like you are abusing your power because you don't like Cards.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Mar 7, 2012 12:29:20 GMT -6
Wow you guys just can't help yourselves can you? I don't understand why you all can't just get along. I mean geez it is a stupid trade. Stop attacking trade committee members for vetoing trades. They are there for a reason.
As it is the trade has been vetoed and will now be voted on.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Mar 7, 2012 13:04:51 GMT -6
Can I just vote with I don't care? This trade doesn't make much sense to me but I don't like trades to be vetoes unless there is collusion. If someone makes a bad deal let them live with the consequences and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Mar 8, 2012 8:47:24 GMT -6
So here is the vote as it stand:
Yankees - veto Nationals - allow Cards - N/A Red Sox - pending Phillies - pending
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Mar 8, 2012 11:05:05 GMT -6
Cubs has time to make other, corresponding moves to get under the cap without just throwing players away.
The trade is awful in terms of value, but it's not destabilizing. The only reason I would veto would be to save Cubs from himself.
Allow.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 8, 2012 11:15:38 GMT -6
Phillies. I agree with you're logic. This isn't something I would do but if we were going to start saving people we should vetoing auctions too. It's basically the same thing. I like your point. It's his team.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Mar 8, 2012 12:02:01 GMT -6
I'll vote to allow, I don't see any collusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 12:39:50 GMT -6
LOL so U wanna save Me from getting Tim Hudson??? While giving up a 6th rounder??? LMFAOFL! I don't know IF U people Noticed but I TAKE care of MY team only!! AND I only need to sign 1 more guy and I am DONE! My Team is SET! U guys Sound Like I have a Roster like Twins and Needs like 20 Players to round of my team while I only have space for 1 or 2 players!! I am ready for whatever comes!! So MY SUGGESTION IS to CONCERN UR SELFS with UR OWN TEAM!!! And LEAVE MY TEAM for ME!!!
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Mar 8, 2012 12:53:32 GMT -6
The problem here is that the trade committee's job is to concern ourselves with the entire league, with all of the trades that happen. We aren't concerned with how you feel at all; we're making sure the league stays fair for everyone.
On its face, considering all factors, the trade is poor. I voted to allow so you would make deals that would make it make sense from a cap and team perspective. Please stop criticizing those of us whose *job* it is to review your actions for *doing* our jobs and just do whatever it is that you're doing.
Edit: the trade you made for Kuroda to save the $5M is what makes this all make more sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 12:56:19 GMT -6
Well i suggest U do a BETTER JOB!
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Mar 8, 2012 12:57:37 GMT -6
Would you rather I recant my allow vote and veto instead? That seems like what you're asking for.
|
|