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

Friday, December 17, 2004

#9 Off season trades

Every few years this one rears its head (mostly by me). I understand why, but I think the current system of getting rights to a player coming over from the AL during the season, and getting absolutely screwed in the off-season isn’t fair at all. If I had Marcus Giles signed and he was dealt for Vlad, I get nothing?? Giles would have HAD major value, and potentially worth a Guerrero. The reason our rule is the way it is, is because a guy like Jason Nix wouldn’t be worth a Vlad. So how do we make this fairer? Some argue that players need to go through the draft process to give them fair value. I agree, but still think teams losing signed players in the off-season via trades should be compensated. I have come up with a couple of proposals to deal with this.

What if, during the off-season, we expanded BU to include a 13th team called the “Free Agents”? This team would be made up of EVERY player who had value last year (not FA’s). Say you had Shitty McGee on your team signed at a buck through 2006. Let’s say Shitty, and Sosa were dealt to the Yankees for Giambi. Since Sosa had a contract of 50 last year, he would have rights to Giambi. Since Sosa is a member of the “Free Agents”, Giambi would be in the draft in 2005. I think if you have the luck or smarts to have a guy like Marvin Benard signed, and he gets dealt for some stud, you should get him!

One of the potential problems would be Shitty McGee and Shittier Wilson being traded together for Giambi. In this scenario, under the above rule, the guy who had Shitty McGee would get Giambi. This isn’t right either. I would suggest that for a MINOR LEAGUE player to have ANY rights, he would either have to be listed in the TOP 3 Prospects for his club (we would have to pick the source—Baseball America?) OR he would have to be listed in John Sickels Top 25 NL Minor League players.

These are just ideas, I would love to figure something out that is fair for everyone. Don’t tell me that if Craig Wilson got dealt to the AL, my benefit would be a return of his salary. I CAN’T REPLACE HIM FOR 4!

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/6/2005

The league has spoken and on the issue of players traded in the offseason, they will continue to have NO rights to any players coming over to the NL. Since many thought that we might be able to come up with a different solution (protecting a player, or something), I am going to start dialogue on that topic alone.

I totally agree that we need to come up with some sort of compensation system for players traded to the AL during the off-season....just not sure
what that compensation would be.
I think at times life just doles out sacks of shit. In our league, delivery just happens to be in the winter time.
I don't think we can ever come up with a rule that would adequately address all the scenarios - so leave as is.

Would it be fair if I got Tim Hudson in exchange for Juan Cruz?
My tiny brain does not understand Bob's proposal. I have always been and will always be opposed to gaining rights to players traded in the off-season. I just think that the chance of players getting into BU grossly undervalued is bad policy. If allowed, would Cooney be sitting with Hudson at 2 for 2005 or 2006? What if something happens then like the Astros trading Ensberg to the Yankees for Brown (Although the Yanks don't need a 3B they want to get rid of Brown, so I think it is a valid example)? Cooney goes into this year with Brown and Hudson for a combined 7 dinero? I would get out my minor league guides and start drafting for 2006.
I say leave the ruling as is. It seems to me that in the course of time everyone gets eqully screwed during the offseason. I see no real advantage gained by changing the rules for offseason trades.
Another anti change posting aimed at people like Rob who don't know what the hell they are talking about. If Cubs unload Sammy to an AL team but include Brownlie to grease the wheels, is it reasonable that I would get the guy coming over. I assume it would be someone of some value becasue the other team would be salary dumping as well. Sorry about the negative tone of the first sentence but I never could stand that Gordon bastard!
As an owner who has lost Renteria & Wright, wished I had come up with a new player for those guys however only way this makes sense is if you lose a player of value and dinero is not the measuring stick. Don't have the answer so best to leave as is.
Why do I care about this issue? Is it because I am looking to protect myself, or is it that I don't like seeing people get screwed? And who exactly don't I like to see screwed? The answer is simple. I think it really sucks when a guy whose team absolutely blew shit, decides to punt the current season by trading away all of his "great" players, for a guy or two he can build a team around and compete in the following season.

If you take my team as the model, I finished last last year. I traded away a bunch of guys to get Criag Wilson, Edwin Jackson, and Paul Byrd. If Wilson was to get dealt to the AL, under our current system, my team would be no better off than the guy who dumped all of his valued players to try and win! Shouldn't we try to make it so teams that weren't competitive one year, can try to compete the following season?? My opinion is YES, and after talking to a few teams, I may have stumbled onto a potential solution.

Let me first say that if you finished in the "money" spots, F-You, you shouldn't get any rights. Anything that makes your team weaker, makes it more advantageous for the underdog.

The system I came up with is very much like the NFL, in that, if you finished in the bottom 8 spots you could designate a guy (potentially 2 guys for the bottom 4 teams) as your franchise player(s). These would be players that if they were traded your team would be much worse. They might include guys like Marcus Giles, or Craig Wilson, or Chris Carpenter. A "franchise guy" would be the ONLY players who would have any rights to new players from the AL if they were traded for them in the offseason. THe AL guy would come over at the price of the guy you lost, and be on your team for ONE season.

This seems fair as it helps the little guy who is trying to build a team. In the case of Tim Harden, I highly doubt Juan Cruz would have been Stosh's guy. It would have been Cabrera, more than likely. Does this seem fair to you? I really hope we figure something out. It would really suck to set the table with Craig WIlson only to have him dealt to Toronto and not be compensated. After all, I did trade my whole team for him.

If you guys don't like this idea, I might have to go along with Cooney's radical idea of NO signed players.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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