.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, December 17, 2004

#8 Player value in a trade

Cooney suggested a rewriting of the current paragraph regarding rights to players. Say Player A is signed for 3 dinero through 2005, and Player B is signed for 2 dinero through 2006, and they are both dealt for Player C. Under the current rules, Player B would have rights as his net worth is 2 dinero times 2 years or 4. Player A has a net worth of 3. Is this fair? Should it be changed?

A) Player A would have rights as he is obviously worth more as he was paid more

B) Leave it as is

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/6/2005

The league has decided that the current system is flawed. We will begin to use a method of determining rights of players traded to the AL during the season, as current salary ONLY. The higher paid player gets the guy PERIOD.

Comments:
Thanks for remembering Bob.



A of course. Value is determined at the draft. The fact that a BU team added contract years doesn’t necessarily increase his value!
 
Option A sounds go to me as well.
 
keep as is
 
Seems like A is the better option since player A is the higher paid player.
 
Blinded by Cooney's brillance, must vote for A.
 
Option A. Length of contract should not be used to determine value.
 
Leave as is however modify position that total value is length of contract x dinero (regardless of whether player is in 1st, 2nd or 3rd year of contract.

Contract length s/b is a factor in valuation
 
It seems like the vote (if there was one taken) would be 6-2 in favor of changing valuation to current year value only. We need to hear from more people. Huge, Bambinos, Low Life, Shaggers where are you??
 
B of course. The trading of promising prospects in exchange for aging superstars has clear parallels in MLB, and the prospects are hardly the insignificant part of that equation. Back to what I know (and YES, BOSTON WON THE FUCKING WORLD SERIES!!), the team would not part with rookie Kevin Youkilis (read Moneyball) unless they get the world in return. So whoever held the contract of such a player in BU should in my mind be entitled to Player C if the money and the years add up.
 
Alternatively, set a default value for all players in non-signed years. Arbitrarily picking the dinero value of 5, we could say that 2 years @ 2 is really 2 years at 2 and one year at 5. A non-signed 10-dinero player would be valued as 10+5+5. So the deciding factor in the case of this issue would be the sum of the next 3 years calculated using this default value. If 5 is a bad default number (and it probably is), we could all agree on a more appropriate value.
 
Okay - I'm a little upset here.
I responded to every one of these questions - in fact, Bob can probably confirm that I was the first to respond to everything. Of course I did it directly to the commish, as we hadn't started this blog thing.
Now - here I am, having to respond to everything again. Hey Bob - why are some of my comments posted and some aren't ??? Anyways - I don't remember how I voted on this one...I'm sure I said "A" - but did I mention I was on brownies ???
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?