STMZoots Guest Posted: 14 Dec 2003 10:57 am Post subject: Stamford/Litchfield Complete Deal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Litchfield sends Jerome Williams, Carlos Baerga and Sean Casey to Stamford for Jim Edmonds, John Olerud and David Aardsma. Neither team was available for immediate comment. Back to top Shark Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1520 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posted: 14 Dec 2003 11:02 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I would have moved Colon over Williams, salary would have been similar, $10m +/- is a big hit to take IMHO. Back to top Law Dogs High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 223 Posted: 14 Dec 2003 12:10 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It must be nice to have close friends to dump all your unwanted trash on, but even better to pick up another young ace for 100K. Geez _________________ Believe Back to top Shark Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1520 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posted: 14 Dec 2003 12:46 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The big hit here is Casey $7m, $8m and $9m the next 3 years (till 2005). That is a big contract. Back to top STMZoots Guest Posted: 14 Dec 2003 01:52 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $7M 2004 $8M 2005 Nothing in 2006. But your general analysis is correct. He gets rid of a hideous contract for an absolutely useless guy (Casey) for 2005 to the tune of $8M. The 2004 salaries for Olerud and Casey are a wash at $7M each -- though he improves slightly as Olerud was significantly better against RHP and is a better fielder. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 03:25 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow - I wasn't sure whether or not this was another one of Geisel's lame practical jokes until I just read this thread. This is so typical. So typical of Geisel and so typical of Marazita. Heaven forbid times ever change and Geisel ever gets a clue. At this point, I think it would be in the best interests of the league if the BDBL takes control over the Lightning (and Blazers for that matter), just as MLB has done with the Expos. This is just a stupid, stupid trade in every way, shape and form. Stupid even for Geisel. And that says a LOT. Back to top skizm Triple-A Joined: 12 Aug 2003 Posts: 734 Location: Chicago Posted: 14 Dec 2003 03:37 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Completely concur with the sentiments of the Commish. And I'll suggest that this ongoing "situation" is one of the reasons at least one good owner has left the league. Back to top Shark Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1520 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posted: 14 Dec 2003 03:53 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: And I'll suggest that this ongoing "situation" is one of the reasons at least one good owner has left the league. Huh??? Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 03:56 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow - that's news to me, too. I assume he means Brian. In which case, I am somewhat aware of that. I've put a new poll on our home page. I'm still debating whether or not I'm serious about it. But I think the issue should at least be discussed seriously. Back to top Shark Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1520 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posted: 14 Dec 2003 04:00 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike, I voted NO. I don't think that is the way to go. Either an owner runs the team the way he sees fit, is kicked out of the league or he leaves the league. You can't go having teams run by committee. I have no opinion on Phil or anyone else being in the league but I would definately have an opinion about having "Assistant GMs" - I think that is a bad idea. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 04:15 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it's a worse idea to have Geisel remain in charge of that team. He's clearly incapable of making decisions that are in the best interests of his team. Assigning an assistant would be like putting Geisel in a nursing home. He needs some help getting around, and doing the little things that are needed in order to function. Let's put it this way. He clearly doesn't know a fair trade when he sees one. He's never been very good at drafting (and usually doesn't even bother to draft his farm club himself.) And in five years, he's never once picked up a mid-season free agent. So, if we simply stripped all GM responsibility from Geisel without installing any assistant GM, who would notice the difference? I'm still holding out hope that this is a practical joke. We have about six hours left. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 04:55 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sitting here with this nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach, wondering whether this trade caused it, or whether I've caught that killer flu going around, and the thought occurred to me: the only thing that could make me feel worse is if Johnny Fairplay wins Survivor tonight. Johnny Fairplay and Paul Marazita: separated at birth? Back to top Law Dogs High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 223 Posted: 14 Dec 2003 05:03 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this trade is not in the best interest of the league. It happens every year. Paul takes from Phil and Bill and there isn't a thing anyone else can do. If you want to do something about it, I think you should elect a trade committee to decide what is right and this just isn't right. _________________ Believe Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 05:26 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I definitely think we're heading in that direction, Chris. I actually thought about employing Rule 9.3 with this deal, but I know it would be taken the wrong way. But I do agree that trades like this are not in the best interests of this league. The rest of us work too hard to have it all undone with one ridiculously lopsided trade. Assuming we give this "trade committee" idea some serious consideration, how would it work? I would recommend we have a three-man committee, with the provision that each man is: a) not involved in the trade (obviously), and b) not in the same division as either team involved in the trade. Last year, I recommended that we have open trade negotiations here on the board, but that idea was shot down. I wonder if that idea would get more support now. Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 14 Dec 2003 05:43 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No way I would ever support or participate in open trade discussions on the board. At least in my humble opinion, the asst gm isn't the way to go either ... either replace the owner or live with him. Frankly, this trade doesn't look that much worse to me than some others ... suppose it depends on your division. The trade committee concept has been brought up before. The last time I made some mention I don't recall it even getting a followup comment. I don't mean I'm the only one to mention it, but I recall putting together a quite lengthy post some time ago and it didn't get any comments whatsoever. A lot of thought has to go into it before you just throw it together. There needs to a system of formal protest of a trade to send it to a committee, and there needs to be a penalty assessed if the committee upholds the trade, or some would simply protest everything. Then you have to think of guidelines ... what is the best interests of the league? Equal salaries, dumping salary for prospects, etc ?? I'm afraid you would have as much diversity on the committee as we do in the league. Not saying it's not a workable idea, but it wouldn't fix every "bad" deal overnight. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic STMZoots Guest Posted: 14 Dec 2003 05:56 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Big surprise. Geisel gets the big bat he desperately needs in the middle of his lineup -- a Type H free agent in his walk year so that if he falls out of contention he can shop him to a contender for an excellent return. He also rids himself of an $8M albatross next year ($4M to cut him). And he doesn't touch his best asset -- Loaiza -- and also still retains a very nice #2/#3 in his rotation (Colon and Pavano). Edmonds had splits of 897/1036. He is a terrific player. If I wasn't so desperate for bodies and lefty-heavy, I would have kept him. If everyone is to believe the doomsayers on the board, prices are going to be at least as high this year as last with tons of guys with bottomless pits of money. Phil has the "one in the hand" to put in the cleanup spot in his lineup after Jeter. Williams is a nice player. I wouldn't have traded for him if he wasn't. But he is a young pitcher with all the warnings that come with that (injury). His strikeout rate is too low, his walk rate is too high. He pitched 131 innings. He is projectable and cheap. If Bagwell gets the Commish a #1/#2 starter (Wood), Edmonds should get me just as much if not more. He plays a more "premium" position (CF vs. 1b) and has EX power vs. both LHP and RHP. He had WORSE numbers in real life last year and hit 3, 4 or 5 for me all year. He will be a horse for Geisel. As I noted before, Olerud and Casey are a wash this year and I have to eat Casey's contract next year. Baerga is a nice one-year, part-time rental, but he is REALLY part-time -- to the tune of 207 AB's (can't even be used full-time should a miracle happen and I somehow won the wildcard). But whatever. If some of you want to wring your hands and complain, I have learned that there is nothing I can do about it. It comes with the territory. Absent additional direct personal attacks (and, let's be honest, it is only a matter of time should history be our guide) you will hear nothing further from me on the subject. Merry Christmas. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 06:30 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's simply no justification for this trade, no matter how you look at it. I don't think we really need to break down this trade in order to fully understand just how lopsided it is, but what the hell. I'll do it anyway. Edmonds is $11 million, and his numbers against lefties (.225/.320/.577) tell me he's a very expensive platoon player. Perhaps some wouldn't view him that way, but that's certainly the way I'd use him. And with fewer than 450 AB's, he can't even play full-time against righties even if you wanted him to. For $11 million, I'm pretty sure Geisel could have gotten either Trot Nixon (671/1058 splits), Jim Thome (796/1028), Jason Giambi (718/1022), Bobby Abreu (708/949) or Steve Finley (770/905) in the auction. In fact, I'd bet all five of those guys go for $11m or less. So there's really no reason to trade for Edmonds at all, when you can get a comparable player for the same salary - or, more likely - less. So right there, even if the Zoots traded Edmonds for a bag of potato chips, it's a GREAT deal for Stamford. They automatically free up $11m for the auction/draft while losing an easily- replaceable player. Olerud and Casey are two of the most overpriced players in the BDBL right now, and swapping them really doesn't benefit either team in terms of this year. Next year, Litchfield rids themselves of $4m in penalties. So if Litchfield's goal with this trade was to take on salary for this year in order to free up salary for next year, mission accomplished. Once you take that into consideration, trading Casey for Olerud and Edmonds makes a tiny bit of sense from Litchfield's perspective. Not much, mind you. But it's not that bad, especially if Geisel doesn't plan to be competitive this year. What we're left with, then, is this: Jerome Williams and Carlos Baerga for David Aardsma. There's simply no justification for that. Williams is one of the top young pitchers in baseball, and he alone could have netted a ton of talent in trade. Sharky told me he was prepared to offer Jorge Posada for Williams, straight-up, but didn't bother to ask Geisel about Williams because he assumed Geisel wouldn't think to trade such a valuable commodity. Granted, Sharky's probably talking out of his ass, but I'm sure someone would have offered something a hell of a lot better than David Aardsma for Jerome Williams. Baerga is one of the best offensive middle infielders in the game, at-bat for at-bat. As we've seen all too often in this league, a 200-AB middle infielder with an 850+ OPS can be a HUGE weapon. He, too, could have netted a ton in trade. There's not much to say about David Aardsma, a college reliever. Suffice it to say, Williams and Baerga probably have 100 times the trade value of ten David Aardsmas. Like I said, there's no doubt that this was a VERY lopsided trade. For once, I'm not the lone voice of dissent, complaining about the inequity of a Stamford trade. I think it's been a pretty universal opinion that today's trade was extremely lopsided. The issue going forward is whether we do anything to prevent something like this from happening again. I think that is something worth exploring. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 14 Dec 2003 06:40 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know, in thinking about this, I'm wondering if Marazita would be willing to step up to the plate as I did back in 1999, do what's best for the league, and restructure the trade. Back in 1999, when there was a universal outcry over the inequity of my Ray Lankford trade, I gave Lankford back to Virginia in the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship. I'd like to ask Paulie to do the same. Give Jerome Williams back to Litchfield. The trade would still be a great one for you, but it wouldn't be so unbalanced as to be hurtful to the morale of the league. I think this would be a huge step toward rebuilding your image as a fair and honorable competitor, which I know you are. I ask you as a friend and a fellow competitor: come to the Light Side, Paulie. It's nice and warm over here. Back to top Lightning Guest Posted: 14 Dec 2003 11:48 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just for the record this is the first time the Lightning and Zoots have ever made a deal together. Nothing was ever said when I sent Driefort to Glander for Berkman. As far as finding someone to be the Lightning GM no deal. I feel for Mrs. Glander the amount of crying in that house has doubled this past weekend. Be interesting to see which baby stops crying first. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:05 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So your defense is that this trade was just as bad as the Berkman trade?? I'm sorry to break this to you, but there's no comparison. Berkman was an unknown at that time, which is why no one said a word about that trade when it happened. It was the biggest non-trade of that winter. You needed a pitcher to help you immediately, and gave me a prospect for him. It seemed like a fair trade at that time. This is completely different. You've taken on ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS in salary - AND gave up a promising young pitcher to do it. I'm still trying to figure out how you benefitted from this trade today, tomorrow or any time down the road. Unlike the Berkman trade, no one - and I mean NO ONE - thinks this was a fair trade by any stretch of the imagination. I've been hearing complaints all day long about this trade, and a lot of people are calling for your head on a platter. So if that makes us all "babies", then so be it. But I'm running out of excuses for you. At some point, you need to buy a clue. Back to top STMZoots Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 09:15 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since silence will be incorrectly interpreted as refusing to answer a direct question... I already offered Phil the opportunity, pre-deadline (last night after hearing the wailing from our always vocal minority), to quash the trade or work out something completely new. He said no, he is very happy with the trade. Rather than post that last night, I simply did it, behind the scenes, to make sure Phil was still happy with the trade. I only post this now to respond to your question. This matter is now closed. Let's move on. Back to top SeaCats Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 661 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 09:59 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bigdaddy wrote: Unlike the Berkman trade, no one - and I mean NO ONE - thinks this was a fair trade by any stretch of the imagination. I don't get this trade either, but obviously Phil thinks this was a fair trade. And it seems that he's intent on keeping it. I think it's a shame if Brian Hicks did leave because he felt Paul was exploiting his friendship with Bill and Phil to work out trades. I don't believe it's true other than the possibility that they are more likely to respond quickly to Paul's emails (though Phil responded astonishingly quickly to my inquiry on Baerga, so I don't know if that is the case with him). Paul has made plenty of huge trades with others in the league (Jim Doyle and myself come to mind) that have met their share of controversy (and to be honest this one doesn't touch Chipper Jones for Ryan Dempster in a walk year IMO, sorry Jim - maybe the same could be said for my Clemens-Edmonds trade? Bad trades are a part of baseball). Paul is VERY good at what he does. Maybe Phil (though he has some division championship(s) to prove differently, and Bill (and myself for that matter) just aren't as good at it. Does that mean we just cut off the guys that don't perform as well as expected? I personally think that the only trade worth banning is the one which is deliberately done to hurt the integrity of the league. I said much the same thing when you (Mike G.) were facing the music on your Ray Lankford trade. I don't think that is the case here. I think that it's sad that the idea of removing Phil and/or Bill from their franchise is even being considered. Why stop there? I freely admit that this last year, the Sea Cats were criminally neglected by me. I certainly wouldn't feel right about removing Phil or Bill from their position while I get to keep mind. So, no I don't like the trade, but that's usually the case when I see a Zoots trade. He does an outstanding job of never (or seldom) coming out on the short end of a trade. Maybe we should just get rid of Paul and Tom, and restore order to the BDBL In case it isn't abundantly clear that is sarcasm. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 10:52 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The big difference, Tony, is that you seem to care about your team and this league. Geisel can't be bothered to draft for himself, he has never picked up one mid-season free agent in five years, and he couldn't care less about how his actions affect the league. In fact, he thinks it's hilarious that we're all so upset about this trade. If Geisel cared at all about his team, he wouldn't have just given the main competition in his division an extra $11m to spend on Draft Day, and provided him with a great young pitcher to build upon. Back to top FireAnts Major League Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 1071 Location: McDonough, GA Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:09 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not going to comment on the "trade" because I've done nothing to prove that I'm any sort of genius when it comes to running my team. However, I do think that it is shameful that in a league of this quality, a league so highly imitated, a league that has sooo many active members, that we have a couple members who have almost no interest what-so-ever. I didn't realize how little involvement Phil has with his team. Back to top SeaCats Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 661 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:18 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your right that I do care about my team and the league. You obviously know a lot more about the Geisel situation than any of us. I thought he always drafted for himself, for instance. His lack of mid-season pick-ups, maybe a bit troubling, but it doesn't bother me all that much. I think we all can admit that the fervor behind alot of the trade announcements in this league is in fact hilarious...in the gosh, we're all a bunch of geeks sort of way. However, if you think Phil does stuff like this just to stir up shit (cover your ears Bobby), than that is a problem worth addressing. I think it's possible that Phil made what he thought was a good trade, and he's not seeing it the way you (and alot of us) do. If this is the case, then IMO there's no problem. If he's just screwing around than we need to address it...I guess only Phil knows the answer to that. Maybe he'll post here sometime in July and let us know Back to top Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:32 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STMZoots wrote: This matter is now closed. Let's move on. That's funny. We might as well just remove 9.3 from the rulebook. Back to top skizm Triple-A Joined: 12 Aug 2003 Posts: 734 Location: Chicago Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:33 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above was from me. Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:35 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tough one. I think it's probably too late in the game to start looking at 9.3 on trades. A committee might be a way to go. But all of this stuff is so difficult to break down. We can (and do) argue for weeks and months on what is a good trade and a bad trade. If this owner is removed for not picking up mid-season free agents, does that mean that all owners who don’t pick up mid-season free agents are subject to disciplinary action? Or any owner who makes a bad trade, etc. Or any owner who makes a bad trade with a contending team? I personally get pissed off when someone bails out a perpetually contending team by taking on their bad salaries rather than making them take the hit - but that’s just me. A lot of gray area and many different perspectives. I guess the issue here is compounded by a few things, and certainly some personal issues that don’t involve all of us. I think the thing that would annoy me the most (and as a former commissioner this was about the only thing that would drive me to suspending an owner) is the lack of involvement. If someone isn’t drafting and isn’t actively managing their team I don’t think they are good for the league. I can’t say I am fully aware of the extent of this issue - maybe many of us are not. But if it is a problem then address it. An arguably bad trade isn’t grounds - but I think an owner who is not sufficiently involved with his team is. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:35 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I think the fact that Geisel refuses to consider restructuring the trade speaks volumes in and of itself. Why not restructure if it means you end up with a better team in the end? Doesn't make a lot of sense. But then again, nothing ever does in Litchfield. I agree that the fervor over some trades is excessive, but that's part of the fun of this league. I seriously doubt that other leagues get so worked up about each and every trade. That's one of the many reasons I think our league is better than any other out there. I think Geisel believes he made a good trade, because he's clueless, he doesn't know any better, and he completely bought in to Marazita's sales pitch hook, line and sinker. But his reaction to our reaction is, "get over it." He thinks it's hysterical that he just put the Zoots back in position to win the BDBL championship for the fifth time in six seasons. I've advised Geisel (and Billy) to seek outside opinions the next time they consider making a trade, and I'd like to ask you all to help out in that regard. Just be honest and provide them with an honest opinion should they seek your counsel. If neither one of them will accept an assistant GM, we can give this a try for a while and see how it works out. I'd even go so far as to recommend that advice to everyone in the league. There's nothing wrong with getting a second opinion. Hell, I asked for one myself before the Matsui trade last night. It's a way to validate that the trade you're getting is fair. And I think we all agree that it's a helluva lot better solution than forming trade committees or overemploying Rule 9.3. Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:40 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just curious Mike - has 9.3 ever been used in history of the league ? Understanding it's a tough call - especially when the commissioner has the power and is an active owner. Bad position to be in. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Mike S./Rocks Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1517 Location: Cleveland Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:44 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can tell you that Billy has asked me my opinion on guys he has been offered from Paul. When both Paul and I were battling for Millwood last year, Billy asked me what I knew/thought about some guy (Whisler?) that Paul was offering him. I told him I never heard of the guy and that my offer was better anyway. Of course, that turned out to be a different trade, but at least Billy was asking! Back to top Ridgebacks Major League Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 1429 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:50 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I would NEVER vote to reverse a trade unless I thought that there was blatant collusion taking place. What is "good" and "right" to one person may be completely ridiculous to another. What if an owner has a completely different way to evaluate players? Is he wrong? What if someone values defense or speed more than another owner, is that incorrect? It's all personal opinion and approach. There are 2 issues here: 1. Trades that are perceived to be "bad". 2. The possibility that some owners are making bad trades because of lack of involvement with their teams. #1 will NEVER be rectified and I'm glad of that. It's what makes these kind of leagues fun. If we were all robots who valued the same players the same way, it would be boring. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 11:51 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're right, Mike. Billy does deserve some credit, and he has gotten better at trading through the years. He also made a few in-season pick-ups this past year. For the record, I offered B.J. Upton and Brandon Lyon to Billy for Millwood and J.C. Romero. If he had accepted that offer, not only would he have gotten better players for Millwood than he did, but he could have traded Randy Winn and Wil Cordero for other players, AND he would have saved himself quite a bit of money by not having Romero this year or next (or the year after that, I think.) But that's all water under the bridge. Quote: Just curious Mike - has 9.3 ever been used in history of the league ? Yes and no. In 1999, I made a trade with Virginia where I sent Chad Curtis and six draft picks (back when trading picks was legal) to them for Ray Lankford and Todd Stottlemyre. It was the first trade ever made in the BDBL, actually. I thought it was a dumb trade for Virginia at the time, but he's the one who offered it, and I took him up on it without thinking of the consequences it would have on the league. A bunch of people complained about it, and challenged whether I'd ever use Rule 9.3 on myself. I took the challenge and restructured the deal, adding two prospects to my side of the trade. When one of those prospects became injured for the year, I then traded Lankford back to Virginia for Curtis. In the end, he ended up with those two prospects and six of my draft picks in exchange for Stottlemyre. Rule 9.3 is a very, very tricky rule that must be employed with great caution. Once we set the precedent, it's hard to turn back, so I've been very hesitant to use it. Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:30 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh I agree - was just curious. The rule is very difficult -- especially when salaries are factored into the mix. I tend to agree - collusion or a complete disregard for the game or the league are reasons to veto a trade. What is a bad trade is certainly too difficult to define. Quote: There are 2 issues here: 1. Trades that are perceived to be "bad". 2. The possibility that some owners are making bad trades because of lack of involvement with their teams. Agreed - issue #2 is the problem. We should strive to have owners who are active to some degree. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Back to top Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:32 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: If Bagwell gets the Commish a #1/#2 starter (Wood), Edmonds should get me just as much if not more. He plays a more "premium" position (CF vs. 1b) I didn't get this part. I traded Carlos Guillen and Orlando Hidson to Mike for Bagwell. Are you talking about a few years ago? Back to top STMZoots Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:35 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, with the 700 trades a year he makes, I can't keep them all straight. That was just a mistake. My memory isn't what it used to be. Back to top Law Dogs High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 223 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:44 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess the problem I have is that Phil really doesn't care about his team one way or the other and Paul took adavantage of him. You won't see another trade in the league that basically swaps a $10 + salary for a young phenom pitcher that is worth $100K. I've tried just about everyone in the league to take Sosa, Kent or Russ Ortiz. I was willing to give Mike S. Kent for Donnelly and Guiel. He laughed at me. For all of us who worked the system to try and get some cap relief, this is just a slap in the face. This is suppose to be a league that is just for fun, a place we can all go and enjoy baseball (our way). Then you have 2 teams go out and totally screw the rest of us. Maybe I don't speak for everyone, but I think I do speak for a lot of us. Paul, if you need Phil to keep stocking you with players and cap room everyone year more power to you. I use to respect you and a member of this league, but after this trade I've lost all respect. Enjoy another championship, I hope it comes with another astererik. _________________ Believe Back to top skizm Triple-A Joined: 12 Aug 2003 Posts: 734 Location: Chicago Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:44 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Voiding trades should be the last possible resort, but sometimes the alternative is worse. To me this does fall under "complete disregard for the league". In this case, I think you give the teams involved a chance to restructure the deal and if that doesn't happen you overturn it. It is a tough call, but you make it with the league's best interest in mind and that's that. "Nothing personal, just business." Back to top Mike S./Rocks Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1517 Location: Cleveland Posted: 15 Dec 2003 12:56 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris, I didn't laugh, I said "nice try " Back to top Law Dogs High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 223 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 01:01 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Mike, the got me. Mike said, "Nice try ". Which still got me the same result. With all the salaries that were thrown around to help even out trades this year, this one totally goes against the trend. It makes no sense. _________________ Believe Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 01:04 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the wording for Rule 9.3: Quote: 9.3 Any trade may be voided by the Commissioner if, in his judgment, the trade violates the "best interests of the league." So, the question is: does this trade violate the best interests of the league? I think that if you were argue this in court, the best argument the prosecution could give is: "This trade has caused a great deal of resentment in the league and has been bad for morale. It has caused the feeling that the playing field in this league is not level. Therefore, it is bad for the league, and clearly not in the bests interests of the league." The defense's argument would be: "It is in the best interests of this league to allow owners to have the freedom to make whatever trades they would like to make, as long as that trade does not involve collusion or the breaking of rules, and as long as the trade is being made with the sincere goal of improving each team by each of the participating teams. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the league to allow this trade to occur." If you were on the jury, which side would you agree with? Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 01:33 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Dogs wrote: I guess the problem I have is that Phil really doesn't care about his team one way or the other and Paul took adavantage of him. You won't see another trade in the league that basically swaps a $10 + salary for a young phenom pitcher that is worth $100K. I've tried just about everyone in the league to take Sosa, Kent or Russ Ortiz. I was willing to give Mike S. Kent for Donnelly and Guiel. He laughed at me. For all of us who worked the system to try and get some cap relief, this is just a slap in the face. I can say I tried to move Cruz and his salary - and got very little interest. Now he's not quite Edmonds is he (he's probably a better deal in 2004). I was able to finally get something done, and I'm not bitching about that at all, I was OK with the deal I was able to make, that's not the point at this time -- but all I heard was his salary was ridiculously high. I know Kansas tried hard to move Sosa, Kent and Ortiz. Their salaries were the issue I'm sure. Yes, it's annoying to see someone else able to move so much salary and actually seem to come out ahead in the damn deal. And it's annoying to see the better teams consistently bailed out in one way or another ... but that's just part of the game. I don't know what the answer is -- just something else to bitch and argue about I guess. It's hard for me to blame someone for making a good deal. I still don't think the problem is with that guy - it's with the owner who doesn't care. If we do in fact have that problem -- then that may need to be handled. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Back to top STMZoots Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 02:05 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perspective check: Traded Todd Helton, Mike Mussina and David Eckstein to New Milford for Austin Kearns, Sean Burroughs, Eric Karros and Ramon Vazquez. Made last year right before the auction draft. Helton, Mussina and Eckstein -- totaled about $22M. Kearns/Burroughs/Vazquez -- I am assuming they were all $100K guys (though Vazquez might have been a little more). Karros was a salary dump ($5M, $6M???...I dont' recall). In return, our very own Commish got two guys he now touts as the best thing since sliced bread (Kearns, Burroughs) at $100k each -- one of whom (Kearns) had 900/900 splits and 350-400 AB's for the 2003 BDBL season (the fact that he underperformed is irrelevant). Now Helton is a stud, but he is at a very deep position and Billy could have gotten another stud 1b for $10-12M (plus Helton was having trouble with his back when the trade was made). Mussina had a VERY mediocre year in 2002 (thus was mediocre for the 2003 season) and was no more than a #3 type starter for the Blazers in 2003. Billy had balls for signing him to a longer-term deal and now he will be rewarded...but there was risk. Eckstein was and is a punch and judy type guy who plays solid D. And for Kearns and Burroughs and Vazquez ... Mike freed up about $15M for the auction that he then was able to use on Bagwell and others. Mike has said a million times that position players are MUCH more sure things than young pitchers -- and its hard to disagree. So while we wring our hands over me saving $11M for the draft and getting a young pitcher with 130 IP and a useful guy with 207 AB's -- in exchange for one of the top two CF's in baseball...and I had to take on an $8M contract for 2005 to do it.....why wasn't there similar outrage when Mike went to Billy and freed up about $15M pre- draft and walked away with two young hitting studs (as he surely has told any of you who have asked) for the next half-decade? This is the double standard and this is what I don't understand. I think Billy took the sure thing over the unknown in THAT trade. I think Phil took the sure thing over the unknown in this trade -- plus he has Edmonds in his walk year to float in trade if things don't work out this year and he would be able to turn him into multiple excellent prospects when salary doesn't matter. It is all about spin (which we are sure to hear in spades now in response), but when you cut through it its all about risk and reward, sure things and possibilities etc. Hey, maybe it would have been smart to take the $10M and get a Trot Nixon......and have to sign him for 2 years....or maybe not. Maybe Casey will rebound and be a keeper for 2005...or maybe not. Maybe Williams will blow out his elbow this year a la Carlos Hernandez....or maybe not. Who know? Do you? I don't. Back to top Law Dogs High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 223 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 02:14 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just noticed Paul's signature at the bottom of his posts. Quote: Winning isn't everything, its the only thing. Perfect! _________________ Believe Back to top Mike S./Rocks Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1517 Location: Cleveland Posted: 15 Dec 2003 02:21 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it should say, "Winning isn't everything, unless you beat Mike Glander!" bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 02:36 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: why wasn't there similar outrage when Mike went to Billy and freed up about $15M pre-draft and walked away with two young hitting studs (as he surely has told any of you who have asked) for the next half-decade? This is the double standard and this is what I don't understand. Once again, instead of discussing the issue at hand, we're going to rehash old trades. Once again, it's turned into a personal attack. I can't say I'm surprised. Why wasn't there outrage when Billy and I made our deal? Because Billy was getting two of the biggest, most consistent studs in baseball, plus a $100k shortstop who was one of the best at his position last year, in an attempt to compete immediately. There's simply no comparison between the two trades. Todd Helton is no Jim Edmonds. He's not a platoon hitter who hits .220 against lefties with a .320 OBP. His value last year was much, much higher than Edmonds's value this year, and Edmonds can only dream of approaching Helton's value this year or going forward. Helton is a long-term franchise player, which Edmonds clearly is not. If Helton were a free agent last year or this year, he would have easily gotten $13m+ in the auction, if not more. That makes Helton at least $3 million undervalued right now. There's no way Edmonds would ever get $11m this year on the open market. Paulie, you obviously value Edmonds much higher than I do. I realize he had a great slugging percentage against lefties, but I seem to remember an earlier post by you, stating that Chipper Jones's OPS against lefties was deceptive because OBP is more important than SLG, and Chipper's OBP vs. lefties was stellar. You can't have it both ways. All things considered, I agree with you. I'd rather have Chipper in my lineup vs. lefties than Edmonds. I'm sure 99% of the rest of the league would agree with that as well. Edmonds just isn't a great player to have in your lineup against lefties. I think you knew that, which is why you got rid of him. I'm sure you tried to shop him around and found no takers. There's a good reason for that. As for Mussina, I think it's ridiculous to call him a #3 starter last year. Because he didn't get any run support, his win numbers were down, but his peripherals were among the best in the league. And, like Helton, Mussina is a long-term keeper with tremendous value going forward. Again, there's no comparison to Edmonds. Another big difference between the two deals is that Billy got three full-time all-stars for a total of $15.1 million. Geisel got one half-time all-star for $11 million. Big, big difference. Especially in "today's economy." Finally, the other big difference here, of course, is that Billy was in a position to contend (or so we all thought) at that time last year, so trading a couple of prospects for three studs made complete sense at that time. Is Geisel seriously entertaining any notions of contending this year? If so, having $11m less to spend in the auction, and handing that $11m to a team in his own division, will sure put a damper on those dreams. Unlike the Edmonds trade, I don't remember ANYONE complaining about the Helton/Mussina/ Eckstein trade. In fact, if anything, I remember people saying I gave up too much. The fact that SO many people think this Edmonds trade is ridiculously lopsided should tell you something. No personal attacks. Just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. Back to top Triumph Geisel-like Joined: 14 Dec 2003 Posts: 1 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 05:08 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't understand what all you fantasy baseball nerds are crying about. This is a great trade! FOR ME TO POOP ON!! Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 05:11 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And another example why non-league members should not have posting privileges. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Back to top Comic Book Shop Guy Rookie Joined: 02 Oct 2003 Posts: 16 Posted: 15 Dec 2003 05:27 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greatest ... post ... EVER! Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 15 Dec 2003 05:33 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the record, Triumph is indeed a league member. I'll keep his identity a secret, though, because I think he's pretty funny. Back to top CyberSox Major League Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1131 Location: San Jose, CA Posted: 15 Dec 2003 05:39 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was waiting for that since that screen name was registered days ago... _________________ Silicon Valley CyberSox Worst to First in '05! Back to top Kidd Funkadelic Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 550 Location: Tennessee Posted: 15 Dec 2003 06:46 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bigdaddy wrote: For the record, Triumph is indeed a league member. I'll keep his identity a secret, though, because I think he's pretty funny. That's pretty phat for 1 post. _________________ Steve Osborne Nashville Funkadelic Back to top Lightning Guest Posted: 15 Dec 2003 10:00 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris, For the record, I do care about my team. As I have told others I do not pull for Marazita, Glander or Billy I hate to lose to any of those guys (I also include Jeff in there). I didn't pull for Mike last year or Paul any of the other years including this year in the world series. This trade is the first Trade I have made with Paul in the BDBL. I was and am very happy with the trade though I took on more salary I didn't have to give up my top three starters and I got rid of Casey. Outside of C. Bearga no one wanted to make a deal with me that didn't involve one or two of the three Loaiza, Colon or Pavano. I needed the bat and I think (don't care what Glander or anyone else for that matter thinks) Edmonds is going to help me this coming year, Williams is an unproven just like well........like Lance Berkman. I believe I can compete, Maybe I'm wrong but, that is for me to find out. I'm sorry you feel the way you do it's upsetting for me to see you feel that way I feel I'm a pretty good guy and I know I care about my team. Back to top Qatari_Bob High-A Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 122 Location: Al Udeid AB, Qatar Posted: 15 Dec 2003 10:48 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to throw two cents in on this. First, this is what makes this a great league--the freedom to say whatever we think about other trades and then we move on...of course only to pull back old posts to throw at each other. Good Stuff. Second, the only thing I guess that bothers me about this is I think Jerome Williams could have really pulled in some good moderately priced talent. If he was available, I'd have liked to have seen him posted as available. I bet the offers would have rolled in............ big time. Now one can say, if you like the guy go for him, but I personally see some guys as untouchables or I just think the cost would be too high so why ask. I guess Paul just has more guts to make trade offers for guys that some of us (me included) feel are untouchable. Keep up the banter.........that is why this league rules. Bob _________________ Missing the BDBL from afar Really, really, really afar !! Back to top Undertakers Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 842 Location: Los Altos, CA Posted: 16 Dec 2003 12:59 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lightning wrote: I hate to lose to any of those guys (I also include Jeff in there). I enjoy beating you too! Back to top Undertakers Triple-A Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 842 Location: Los Altos, CA Posted: 16 Dec 2003 01:07 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So where exactly are we right now? Seems like we've got a few owners very upset over this. I for one didn't think this trade was all that bad...there certainly have been far worse deals in this league. But I certainly don't like to see or hear owners that think what is going on is wrong. We all say this is a hobby...which it is. But lets face it, we put alot of time and energy into this hobby. And we have alot of owners who really care about this league and take alot of pride and joy in their accomplishments in this league. This trade hasn't affected me much...but if its affecting other owners in this leauge in a poor way, well.. that's bad. Whatever happens, I'd just like some resoultion which makes the whole league feel at peace. Back to top bigdaddy Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2003 Posts: 5142 Location: Salem, NH Posted: 16 Dec 2003 11:04 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are we right now? The same place we always are after a Zoots trade. We pick our jaws up off the floor, take a few antacid tablets, dust ourselves off, and try to figure out how to win a lopsided game. This, too, shall pass. Hopefully, people will eventually learn from their mistakes. Hopefully, history won't repeat itself again and again and again, and the pattern will finally - mercifully - be interrupted once and for all. Despite the fact that I've been waiting for that to happen for five years now, I haven't given up hope. Back to top Jim Doyle High-A Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 212 Location: Manchester NH Posted: 18 Dec 2003 11:21 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not feel competent to comment after trading Chipper Jones for Ryan Dempster