Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2011 21:36:07 GMT -6
Angels Send: C Miguel Montero -4.40M
Red Sox Send: OF Vernon Wells RFA rights
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2011 14:34:17 GMT -6
Veto - I will save you from yourself angels. See if you can defeat this logic.
Some manager may desire vernon wells' service for the 40 mil through 2013. This jades the whole trade with the cap that may be traded.
Maybe you think you will get him for 15-20 and that may be so, but my argument is still logical.
Now, if montero was a nobody or a prospect this would be different. He is an elite fantasy catcher. He is the #7 rated catcher on espn for 2011 while wells is the #37 OF. We all know a good catcher is more valuable. After May last year wells was just average. Angels is giving up a key part of his team for a more available and way more expensive and unsure piece. It doesn't make sense for his team bc he already has a position of strength in his OF. Let's see if any one else sees this my way.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Feb 16, 2011 14:42:16 GMT -6
I see no problem with this deal. Cards I see your point but when someone in a league like this makes a move similar to this one there is a reason for it. The only reason I see to ever veto a trade is either collusion or in the circumstance like with the astros- yanks deal where one person left before the deal was done. Yes Angels is taking a risk here but isn't making a move like this supposed to be his choice and not vetoed by people who may not understand the whole plan behind a trade when there is clearly no collusion
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 16, 2011 14:42:23 GMT -6
I actually was going to veto this myself and spoke to Braves about it, while it's a totally bonehead move and I'm not sure he fully gets the rules so I agree it can be veto'd , that being said the reason I didn't veto was simply because I will only speak up if I think there is collusion or crazy unfair player dump.
This is insane yes because Sox doesn't even have the cash to sign Vernon, but the reality is Angels made these deal before and we have allowed it. The Josh Johnson deal should have been veto's as should the Matt Kemp fiasco. I'm not saying I don't agree with the veto and if it comes to a vote I'll be torn, but this is just bad trading not collusion or player dumping. Not sure we can veto but yeah this is bad Cards, and me and you rarely agree LOL
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 16, 2011 14:47:26 GMT -6
so yes in all that rambling I think we have to allow
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2011 14:51:38 GMT -6
if someone could show me how angels will benefit from this I will change my reasoning. I just know rookies do crazy things like this. Even our greatest braves trading me little old shelby miller for 5.0 and a 5th rnd pick. He regrets that often.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2011 14:53:10 GMT -6
this looks nothing like victorino and broxton for kemp. It also looks nothing like JJ for ramos.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Feb 16, 2011 14:53:15 GMT -6
Trade Committee you must vote to allow or veto.
Cards - Veto Rangers - Allow Yankees - Allow Cubs - Vote required Phillies - Allow
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Feb 16, 2011 14:54:26 GMT -6
if someone could show me how angels will benefit from this I will change my reasoning. I just know rookies do crazy things like this. Even our greatest braves trading me little old shelby miller for 5.0 and a 5th rnd pick. He regrets that often. LOL, that is an outright lie! I got a 4th not a 5th! Lets not also forget my Kershaw for Beckham straight up with Yankees. Another classic!
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 16, 2011 14:59:21 GMT -6
haha this is literally identical to JJ for ramos, he gets rights to JJ you get a top young catching prospect , here he gets rights to Wells sox gets a top young catcher LOL
I didnt agree with that one or this but if you allow one gotta allow both I figure
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Feb 16, 2011 15:02:48 GMT -6
I think we need a more clear definition of the trade committee's purpose. As far as I can see it, it is here to approve trades except in the following circumstances:
1) Collusion 2) Dramatic league imbalance (ex. trading Pujols for 3M and a C-level prospect); also falls under collusion, but not necessarily. 3) Extenuating circumstances (the recent drive-by trade that was vetoed).
This trade does not fall into any of the above. We aren't here to veto based on the quality of trades. Personally, I think Cards is dramatically overvaluing a catcher with one (barely) full season of quality MLB performance. Angels can afford to pay the RFA price for Wells.
Approve.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Feb 16, 2011 15:06:52 GMT -6
Well that was quick. Trade is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2011 15:25:45 GMT -6
nicely said phillies....
Yanks...Ramos isn't the number 7 ranked catcher (this is a cheap price bc some aren't projecting him as a stud regardless of his one good game). JJ is worth a lot more than wells is. Giving up a small price for an potential CY is a better representation of the value of the rights.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 16, 2011 15:33:54 GMT -6
Well again that's opinion. It was just my reasoning for no veto. Ramos and Montero to me are very close in value when you take into account Ramos is still rookie status and Montero is a one year deal. JJ is a great pitcher but you had to know even with the rights you'd be spending $20+ with Wells he could get him for much cheaper. Both trades should have been veto'd or both trades allowed. They are essentially the same deal, or at the very least the same "concept"
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2011 16:08:02 GMT -6
i thought jj would go for like 50
|
|