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

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Off Season Trades and Compensation

The proposed cure is worse than the disease. There are many more "unfair" examples bearing this out, the most recent being Hudson for Cruz.

God knows we will never understand why some teams trade who they do. To free ourselves from this tyranny BU was created where our league would be guided by reason and freedom. Unfortunately, we can't stop those a-holes from trading our players in the off season. But we shouldn't be influenced by their perceptions of value! Many more factors go into MLB value that prevail in these trades such as contract status, no-trade clauses, team outlook, drug usage, even clubhouse chemistry for chrissakes.

BU player value is determined at the draft. If there is an opportunity to determine a player's value we should take it. In-season trades don't afford this opportunity. In addition, a BU team has lost services of a player he has paid for in the present year. Therefore he is compensated with the services of the player coming over. A team hasn't paid for the contract of a player lost in the off season. One could argue there is not necessarily a loss of value as that BU player had his contract value fairly determined in a prior draft.

Obviously if there were no long term contracts we wouldn't have an issue. In a radical proposal we could eliminate long term contracts. Is that an uproar I hear? I think allowing us to speculate on a player’s future adds enjoyment to BU. I think we all agree that this is good. But with the enjoyment comes a cost, the risk of losing that prospect to the AL. The trade off is worth it IMO.

Comments:
FROM RAMROD: While I may agree in principal to some of what you say, our current system doesn't take into account the last place team who traded away his team to try and compete the following year, only to have that player(s) yanked away. Maybe a compromise would be to say that the only signed players who would carry rights would be on team's who finished out of the money spots. Another idea would be to say these players are on team's out of the money AND under 10 dinero, or something. That is the main reason I feel that a team should be compensated. They made moves to compete, possibly selling out for the next season, only to lose that guy. I know I was counting on Paul Byrd to be a contributor, but I won't get to see that happen now.....
 
I agree that we leave well enough alone. I can't think of a method that could be anymore fair and simple than what we already have.
 
Byrd signed as a FA.

The trades/players in question this year would be: Cruz for Hudson, Haren for Mulder, Rivera for Guillen, and F-Rod for Lofton. I'd estimate Hudson would go for 40, Mulder for 25, Guillen for 15, and Lofton a FA. So it would be a +38, +23, +12, and -4 result. How is this more fair!? It is a huge potential bonanza for teams with signed guys making signings even more desirable. I would bet that historically 3 out of 4 of these trades of signed players net more value in return! I challenge anybody to name a contrary example. (I did lose Roberto Alomar signed for 12 when he was traded to Toronto for Fred McGriff before the 1991 season, but geez, 14 years ago!)
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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