|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Aug 9, 2012 6:27:59 GMT -6
Rays get Justin masterson 2012 4.0 Lomo 2014. 1.75
Boston gets Yovanni gallardo OY* 26.9
Cardinals get Aramis Ramirez 17.0 2014 3rd rounder from Bo sox.
Bo sox is going to cut to make this happen. I will let him say who.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Aug 9, 2012 9:49:04 GMT -6
I accept. Cutting Joey Bats, along with his gimpy wrist and expiring contract.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Aug 9, 2012 10:32:48 GMT -6
Sorry guys this has to be under review and may be one of the easiest veto's in the league. At the end of this deal Red Sox is losing Jose Bautista, Lomo, and a 3rd rounder for what will be less than 10 starts from Gallardo.
The fact that the original deal to send Gallardo to Cards had a provision on it about free agent rights being kept and was deemed illegal can not be forgotten here. Rays is fine in all this but can anyone tell me that Joey Bats, Lomo, and a 3rd isn't shady for a Gallardo rental and going back to the team where there was an under the table agreement already in place?
No one should be allowed to bid on Bautista at this point in the year, this hurts the leagues integrity in numerous ways, this late in the season dropping a huge player like that can lead to massive collusion. This is why most leagues out there have "undroppable" players , no way in August should a team out of the race be able to decide the winner of a division just because he feels like it. The timing of this deal and method of which it went down has some real bad feelings surrounding it all over and no it does not affect me directly but I see it as yet another sneaky loophole and finding the crack in the rules shit that has gone on way too much in this league.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Aug 9, 2012 10:40:57 GMT -6
Not arguing your post here Yanks.
But you are telling me that one of the division leaders or teams fighting for that spot is going to outbid Cubs, Royals or I for Bautista? Who each have $50 or so in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Aug 9, 2012 10:42:52 GMT -6
Sure it doesn't effect you directly.
You seem scared to face me in the playoffs.
The bautista I traded is not the guy he is cutting. We removed those clauses about the rfa rights after "the ruling was created and posted - again there was no rule against that". We adhered. This guy is done for the year. He expressed an interest in regaining gallardos rights and I have too much pitching now.
Jose b may not play this year or contribute.
Excuse me for being creative.
I am fine with him being I eligible.
I just don't want my competitors getting him for $10 as that could be interpreted as behaviour to harm me.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Aug 9, 2012 10:47:14 GMT -6
No no , maybe I didn't make my point. Basically what I was saying is that if Boston outright dropped him for a player to bid on it would make sense and bid away freely, but in this case he is dropping a player for no gain at all and (not this year probably with a ton of cash around) but could determine divisions and playoffs. That is exactly why most fantasy leagues have a list of undroppable guys because of what can happen like this.
With all that said if a team must drop a player in order to make that trade happen that must be evaluated as part of the deal by the trade committe. So when all the smoke clears this is what we have ...
Boston deals - Bautista, Lomo, and a 3rd for Gallardo
that is extremely lopsided, hints of a secret deal, and in no way shape or form benefits Boston on any level. So for me this is a clear veto.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Aug 9, 2012 10:50:28 GMT -6
The only issue I have with this is the Bautista part of it. If he is done for the year then its no problem but apparently he is still trying to come back and is starting to swing a bat again. Even if he isn't the same Joey Bats from last year or the beginning of the year just about anyone in the playoff race would have tried to make a deal for him, I know I would have tried.
I like Yanks idea of no one being able to bid on him until the off season. I know that basically all of the contenders dont have the money to bid on him but that doesn't mean that one of the other teams wont sign him and immediately deal him to someone in contention. It's just a weird situation that player of his caliber, who still might play and contribute this season, is dropped this late in the year.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Aug 9, 2012 10:50:52 GMT -6
Cards your not a playoff team so why would I be scared to face you? That makes no sense, and essentially you proved my point thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Aug 9, 2012 10:53:33 GMT -6
Yes but Bautista has no value.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Aug 9, 2012 10:53:35 GMT -6
Not sure how Boston is "dealing" Bautista. He is out of the running this season so carrying Bautista does him absolutely nothing other than tie up money he could use elsewhere (like to reaquire Gallardo so he can re-sign him next year). He has to cut a big salary in order to get Gallardo back, to him having Bautista is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Aug 9, 2012 10:54:15 GMT -6
The voice of reason. Rockos!
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Aug 9, 2012 10:58:52 GMT -6
And yanks you must not be in sales and understand perceived value.
Gallardos value is whatever I can get.
Like if you wanted to trade back Moore and Jennings for trout, that would look like a rip off to royals now.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Aug 9, 2012 11:05:26 GMT -6
What I don't get is you guys who complain about loopholes but then want to enforce rules that just simply aren't there. Like making Bautista ineligible to be bid on.
The fact of the matter is that this league does not have "Undroppable" players. Anyone can be cut at anytime. Hell I could cut my whole team if I wanted to.
And the trade deadline as well the deadline to sign guys to mulitple year contracts is Aug 12th. According to my calendar today is Aug 9th, so it's before that deadline.
Also the one thing I don't get about this league is how or why the trade commitee controls (or thinks they do) who a team cuts in order in order to get under whatever cap to make the trade work for their team
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Aug 9, 2012 11:05:59 GMT -6
that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard but maybe that's why you haven't been a playoff team in 2 years Cards. And no matter how you want to spin this at the end of the day Boston is losing the #1 paid player in the league, a young cheap and signed player and a 3rd round pick for the RFA rights to Gallardo.
If you want to talk perceived value, go back in the history of the league and tell me what RFA rights for a middle of the rotation starter goes for during the offseason, then tell me if this deal is even close to fair.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Aug 9, 2012 11:10:57 GMT -6
Indians - the issue here is not who can be bid on in my opinion it's who was traded and why.
The trade committe has to look at all aspects of a trade so if Bautista was not dropped this trade is fine. Boston overpays a bit because Gallardo would go for about a 3rd rounder in the offseaosn for his rights but no issue there. The issue is that Bautista IS involved here. He has not been ruled out for the year like Cards wants you to believe, and still is the highest paid player in the league.
Sure we all know about the admitted future deals of Cards and Boston but as a committee member this trade is simply Lomo, a 3rd, and losing the highest paid player in the game to get the RFA rights to Gallardo. If you think that's fair then go against my Veto, if not the vote with me. I never understand why we have a trade committee if we all get bashed on our opinion of a trade. We should just allow all trades from here on out
and Indians as far as loopholes, we as a league can not predict the future, nothing is perfect but we mold with it. We have never had a situation where a player of this callibur was dealt this deep into the year in a teams dump mode. If this is allowed then fine, but we should certainly protect against this down the road.
|
|