From: Glander, Michael [mailto:Michael.Glander@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:17 AM To: paul.marazita@honeywell.com Subject: Sayanara, Onan-san! Oh, man....you don't know how badly I want to post this line on the message board!!! IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA LAS VEGAS O.Masaoka (L,1-3) 4.0 12 11 11 2 2 2 11.63 From: Marazita, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marazita@Honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:28 AM To: 'Glander, Michael' Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! You know I saw that this morning and was damning the fates. Fact is, however, that the kid is a 23 year old lefty who throws hard and has already experienced some ML success. In addition, as I have pointed out previously, Tom received my 2nd round farm pick and, if history is any judge, that pick could land him a very nice young player. In exchange, I get 4 chapters of Bubba Trammell -- a platoon guy versus lefties with like 20 AB's/chapter left in him. Considering that Tom had not received even a nibble on Trammell, why in the world would he not take that deal. The alternative was playing Trammell this year and letting him go for nothing. Here he gets a young LH reliever with upside (who I again must point out is starting at AAA vs. relieving -- I'm not sure why they haven't returned him to the pen yet) for $100k AND a farm pick that he could turn into something decent. I personally would have picked Alex Graman OR Chip Ambres (both of whom are playing extremely well AND were offered), but that was his choice. In fact, at this point, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have traded Ambres and my 2d round farm pick for Trammell. But again...that's what hindsight is all about. Peace out and I outta here. From: Glander, Michael [mailto:Michael.Glander@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:22 PM To: Marazita, Paul Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! Hee hee...I love getting you all riled up! Just giving you a hard time, buddy. There is one part of your argument that I just can't let pass, though: "In addition, as I have pointed out previously, Tom received my 2nd round farm pick and, if history is any judge, that pick could land him a very nice young player." So...following your logic, if I trade my 31st round draft pick (which is the pick I used to draft Luis Alicea in the 2000 draft), I should be able to get something good for it, since - if history is any judge - that pick could land another nice, bargain player? Also, I know you're downplaying Bubba's importance, but I think you forget who you're talking to sometimes. I understand (maybe more than anybody) what you can accomplish with a good, lopsided platoon player like Trammell. That trade has already made me question my strategy against you in the future, so it did have at least some small impact on your team. As for Onan, he's probably not a bad guy. But he'll never be more than a lefty setup man. And, the way it looks now, he'll probably have to occupy a farm spot for Allentown next year while contributing little to nothing to the 2002 Ridgebacks. Whatever you do, though, don't tell me about hindsight being 20/20. I called this one the second you made that trade. From: Marazita, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marazita@Honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:41 PM To: Glander, Michael Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! No getting "riled up" on this end. I was just having some fun right back at ya. Having said that, I don't really get your argument on the draft pick issue. I think you could argue, without too much difficulty, that, on average, there are still a lot of very good farm players in the second round of any farm draft. On the other hand, if I had traded my 10th round farm pick, regardless of whether some good players had been selected in that round in the past, my argument that that is a valuable pick would be much weaker. I think you read too much into my choice of words. All I was saying is that the second round of the farm draft tends to still see some good players. I'm not sure why that argument is such a stretch. The only reason I threw in the "good players have gone in the 2nd round" argument is that I expected you to try to say that that was a worthless pick because there are never any good players left by late in the 2nd round -- which I believe is a fallacy based on prior history. The fact that someone, one time, made a great selection in the 31st round, is either good fortune or good picking or both...but it does not mean that, on average, there are good players left in the 31st round. That would be more than a little bit of a stretch...I agree wholeheartedly. As for Bubba, sure he will serve a purpose. Why in the world would I have traded for him if I did not think so? Every move I make has some purpose. In a league where I have to face Sirotka, Wells, Chen, Milton etc., I needed to do something to make people think twice about loading up on lefty pitchers. Bubba was a (small) step in that direction. Glad I have you re-thinking. ;^) From: Glander, Michael [mailto:Michael.Glander@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:56 PM To: Marazita, Paul Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! To me, the big issue with the farm pick is not whether any quality players will still be available (hell, I'm pretty sure that I can still find a quality farm player after ALL picks have been made), but that it's unlikely that pick will even be used at all. Allentown would have to draft three farm players (since you'll probably finish ahead of him in the standings), and I think it's unlikely that he would need to draft three players - especially after a full season of trading away his best players for farm players in order to rebuild. So, to me, that farm pick is a total non-factor. Which is why I've focused on the Onan-for-F'in part of the trade. Again, considering what you got from it (a part-timer), it's probably not a big deal (though I still contend it will be by season's end.) But the fact that you were able to acquire ANYONE for Onan is mind-boggling. This trade reminds me a lot of the John Johnstone deal last year, and that trade ended up making all the difference in your second consecutive championship. Again, my hat's off to you for being able to pull off this type of trade time and time again. From: Marazita, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marazita@Honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:02 PM To: Glander, Michael Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! Point taken (although if you take a look at his farm roster....well...let's just say that he might indeed have room for 3 farm guys). However, just like Johnstone last year, trading is an issue of opportunity. When someone has a player who is virtually useless, they often will be willing to trade that player for even a little something. I guess they figure its better to get something than give a player away at the end of the season. Johnstone was virtually useless last year. Over on usage and only signed through the end of the year -- there was not exactly a burgeoning market for his services (in fact it was limited to people who felt that they could get to the SECOND round of the playoffs). Same with Trammell. Only a contender would be interested. How many of them need Bubba Trammell? If the answer is more than one -- well then those individuals should have pursued him. If they did not, then I guess it was a smart idea for me to pursue him because I was the only potential buyer. Its supply and demand my friend. Supply and demand. As an Economics major, its something I understand. I don't feel the least compulsion to apologize for it. Its just good business. P.S. Not for anything, but statements like "I'm still waiting to see the Zoots give up one quality player in trade" are not exactly fair. If Tsao is a prospect, Kip Wells certainly is as well (Top 10 on Sickels list last year). Then, just from recent memory, we have Koskie, Helling, Mateo, Erstad, Mendoza, Dennis Cook (see how Mendoza and Cook did for their respective teams last year), Alex Graman...even Juan Pierre and Mike Cameron (regardless of what you say). Rosado was a 24 year old LH budding pitching star when I traded him. Daryle Ward is one of the better young sluggers out there (he only lacks opportunity). And that is off the top of my head. The fact that some of those guys did not work out, got injured, didn't live up to expectations etc...doesn't mean they weren't "quality players" when they were traded -- no more so then the Burroughs, Tsaos etc. have not exactly made their acquirers look like geniuses thus far and the Matt LeCroy's, Ben Davis's, Ryan Bradleys, BJ Garbe's etc. have been pretty much flops. You see, that is called "hindsight." ;^) If it kills me, I am going to get you to understand what that word means. From: Glander, Michael [mailto:Michael.Glander@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:54 PM To: Marazita, Paul Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! Okay, what do you mean by "hindsight?" If you want to judge all trades based on the players' values at the times they were traded, then we certainly can't count Darrin Erstad as one of the quality players you sacrificed. At the time you traded him, he was one of the worst hitters in baseball (a .682 OPS from a 1B/OF) and was sporting a $5m salary. In exchange you got a player (Eric Davis) who hit .358/.410/.618 for 40 games down the stretch. Koskie is a quality player, and a bargain at that, so I'll give you that. I had forgotten about him. Mendoza was a decent middle reliever for SoCal last year, but nothing to write home about. If you want to include him, too, then I'll accept that. Cook went 4-3 with a 4.92 ERA for Queensboro. I'm a little hesitant to call him a quality player. Cameron? You're not really going to call him a quality player, are you? Whether judged in hindsight or at the time of that trade, Cameron is not (and will likely never be) a quality player. Graman appeared one one prospect list this year (#100 on the Team One list), and Pierre hasn't appeared on any list for the past two years. So their degree of worth is somewhat questionable as well (at least among the minor league experts.) So I take it back. You have given up some quality in the past. Okay - ONE - possibly two - quality players (depending upon how far you want to stretch the definition.) In the meantime, over the same timeframe I've given up Roger Cedeno, Robert Person, Tomo Ohka, Mark Quinn, Alfonso Soriano, Tim Crabtree, Graeme Lloyd, Greg Maddux, Omar Daal, Doug Brocail, Joe Randa, Robb Nen, Jason Varitek, Quilvio Veras, Chin-Hui Tsao, Sean Burroughs, Dan Reichert, Javy Vazquez, Jeff Cirillo, Luis Alicea, Darren Dreifort, Dmitri Young, Danny Graves, Dee Brown, Shannon Stewart, Bartolo Colon, Tim Salmon, John Olerud, Paul Shuey, Chris Stynes, Carlos Febles and Austin Kearns (to name just a few.) Like I said, it's nothing for me to be proud of, or for you to be ashamed of. You've been able to get much better players for much less than I have given. The whole purpose of making a trade is to get as much as you can while giving up as little as possible. I just don't understand how you do it. Either way you look at it, though, you can't say that you've given up a ton of quality over the years. At least concede that point to me. From: Marazita, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marazita@Honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:15 PM To: Glander, Michael Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! I'll concede that you have given up more "quality" players from a quantity standpoint IF you concede that: (a) you have made a TON more trades than I have; and (b) I have received MUCH less in return (even counting Randy Johnson 5 times to balance things out). The core of my team is very much the same that I drafted in the inaugural draft (Brown, Palmeiro, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Vizquel, Ausmus, Lowell, Meche (farm), Kim (farm pick up first year), Nitkowski (I don't recall if it was the FIRST draft)). Do you have ANYONE from your original team??? Thus, my trades, with the exception of Johnson and I guess Smoltz and Davis/Erstad (who were traded for one another) have been pretty small potatoes stuff. Filling needs? Certainly? Groundbreaking stuff? No way. A list you ask? Why certainly: B. Trammell L. Pote B. Bohanon R. Dempster H. Rod R. Mateo (I traded him later to get Dempster) J. Paniagua J. Oliver C. Koskie D. Wall B. Chouinard M. Tucker D. Jimenez F. Seguignol G. Williams R. Bottalico R. Mendoza L. Alicea Not exactly a who's who of superstars, wouldn't you agree? And that is what I RECEIVED. I did not look at your trades -- its not like I have a month to spare ;^), but we are talking about a complete, yearly overhaul of your roster involving, just this year: Mussina Bagwell Sosa Abreu Berkman Foulke Kendall etc. etc. etc. Some of the biggest names in the game. To put that list up against mine and suggest that I should have given up as much over this three year period to get what I got is kind of silly, no? Therefore, to get the quality of players you have received, you have to give more. Not exactly shocking stuff. I trade less frequently AND for very specific niche needs (with the aforementioned exceptions). If we can agree on those two conditions, then I will graciously accept your kind words regarding my GM abilities. ;^) From: Glander, Michael [mailto:Michael.Glander@compaq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:49 PM To: Marazita, Paul Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! While the number of quality PLAYERS traded by our two teams may depend solely upon the difference in the number of trades we've made, I think you still have me beat hands-down in terms of the number of lopsided TRADES we've made. I can think of two deals that were overwhelmingly in my favor (feel free to add any of your own to this list): 1) Donovan Osbourne for Roger Cedeno. At the time, Osbourne sported a sub-.500 OPS against lefties. (That's OPS, not OBP, SLG or AVG.) But I think Cedeno (who became a .400 OBP, 40-SB, $100k player the following year) was a steal. And he was eventually traded for Salmon, who helped me a great deal more than Osbourne was. 2) Wes Anderson for Mark Teixeira. No contest. Now for your lopsided deals: 1) Rosado, Ward and two of your picks for Johnson and the two most valuable picks in the draft. We've been over this enough times that we should be on the same page by now. Even if you want to argue that Rosado was an up-and-coming stud and Ward would be a 40-homer guy if only he weren't so fat, you still can't justify those two draft picks. This trade was no "filler" trade, either. Without this trade, you don't win either of your two championships. That point, I think you'd have to concede. 2) #3 draft pick for John Johnstone. That pick was never used, and Johnstone became your closer in the OLCS and WS. Again, no contest here. 3) Cameron, Halama and a #11 pick for Smoltz and Curtis. Halama is 2-6 with a 5.57 ERA for the Spoilers so far this year, and it sure doesn't look like he'll ever be much of a productive pitcher (or a bargain.) That #11 pick was used for Placido Polanco. Curtis was a nice player for you (and still is), but as a #4 OF, he doesn't have that much of an impact. So this trade basically comes down to Cameron for Smoltz. I would gladly trade 16 starts of a 2.87 ERA and a World Series MVP for Mike Cameron any day. 4) Onan for Bubba. Again, this may not be a big deal, but you still have to admit you were the overwhelming winner here. 5) Angel Pena, Chouinard and a #2 pick for Gillette's #2 pick. Even factoring in as well as Choinard has pitched for Gillette, and as poorly as Helling pitched for you, I'd still have to call this one a win. That #2 pick you gave up was never used, and Pena was released. So it turned out to be Chouinard for Helling. That's a no-brainer. 6) Gookie Dawkins and a #18 pick for Joe Oliver and a #18 pick. Neither of the two picks were used, and Gookie was dumped. Which means you got Oliver (.333/.392/.653 in 72 AB's) for nothing. Note that I didn't even include the trade where you acquired Mendoza and Alicea (the eventual OLCS MVP) for the Blazers' #6 pick. I only included the trades where there can't possibly be an argument about which side got the overwhelmingly better deal. So according to my count, you're beating me 6-2 despite that fact that I've made at least five times as many trades as you. Again, this isn't a criticism at all. I'm just trying to show where my train of thought is coming from, so you don't pronounce me mentally unstable again. From: Marazita, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marazita@Honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:15 PM To: Glander, Michael Subject: RE: Sayanara, Onan-san! Let me quickly go through this (because, as usual, you have exhausted me with the same tired arguments): 1. Johnson trade: I clearly got the better of this deal. Shoot me. Nothing unfair about it, just a good deal. 2. Johnstone: you keep insisting this was a big deal. It was not. Johnstone was over on usage and could not be used for the regular season OR the first round of the playoffs. What would you expect to pay for someone like that? Would I have gone higher than a 3rd round choice? Yes. That is not the point. The point is that he was expensive and used up and there was virtually no market for him. You can't look at the deal without looking at those facts. When will you ever understand that? 3. Smoltz: Your statement "I would gladly trade 16 starts of a 2.87 ERA and a World Series MVP for Mike Cameron any day" might just qualify as the dumbest thing you have ever said...and there is plenty of competition. The Spoilers did not have the option of keeping Smoltz, making a playoff run and winning the World Series -- because I, on the other hand, had that option, it was an attractive deal for me. The Spoilers were out of the race and saddled with a virtually untradeable (due to his salary) $7M player who they would have had to release at the end of the year for NOTHING in return. No one was calling with any other offers. The fact that he got a starting CF, an under 30 starting pitcher (who, by the way, is 35 IP, 37 H, 7 BB, 22 K's 3.60 ERA thus far this year) for $100k and a valuable 11th round pick means he got something for someone who he would have had to have dropped. I personally would have floated Smoltz on the message board to see if I could have gotten any more...he didn't...different strokes for different folks. Also, there were better players than Polanco left at that point in the draft (a short list would include Franco, Swindell, Knoblauch, Tavarez, Galaraga, Stein, Osvaldo Fernandez, W. Clark, C. Holt, Urbina, Nathan, Barrett, Jeremy Giambi, Chris Richard, Reames, Conine, Kinney..need I go on???). Mark didn't draft them, AGAIN that's his issue, not mine. The fact that you STILL don't understand this DOES cause me to question your sanity. 4. Bubba: we already discussed (ad nauseum) 5. Pena/Chouinard/Pick: Yes, I got the better of this deal because John didn't use the pick. Um, if he didn't use the pick 4 spots lower in the 2nd round, do you actually think he would have used it if it was 4 spots higher? He also could have traded my pick...which he did not do. If you are trying to argue that John wasn't particularly wise about this, ok. No argument here. If you want to argue that I bent him over and reamed him...sorry, no dice. 6. Oliver: Jim was going to release Oliver. I thought he might give me some decent AB's vs. RHP. He has overachieved. No doubt I got the better of this, but, again, I obtained a player who was going to be dropped AND despite him posting Oliver on the message board as available...he got NO offers except mine. You would rather see him eat the guy than trade him to me, however, I would argue that that is a result of your never-ending desire to see my team fail. That's fine. Just get over the inner demons and admit this was a whole lot of nothing. I don't know why he didn't use the draft pick. Again, I can't make the trades AND draft for the other team. I have to leave that up to them. So, this all boils down, as usual to Randy Johnson. The same tired arguments dressed up in new pretty words. Dude, I love ya and all but this stuff is old AND tired. Give it a rest. P.S. Since your trades often involve prospects, it is VERY difficult to assess them. As we both always say re: these types of trades...time will tell...Burroughs, Cresse, Tsao, Brown, Febles, Kearns etc. If you actually adjust these trades for the risk involved, I think you could argue pretty easily that the guys who trade for your "prospects" are going to get burned more often then they are going to make out...but I guess time and hindsight (I know you majored in it in college, so I won't go and define it again) will tell. The difference is that I can say to you - good job turning "prospects" into established players while you can't help making the backhanded compliment of, "nice job AND how the hell do you rip people off and get away with it time and time again."