|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Nov 14, 2011 17:57:33 GMT -5
Some guys value prospects as gods, others see em all the same as guys who all havent played a big league inning yet. This makes it impossible to get trades passes since some people see the trade differently. Can we sort of establish what prospects are worth so that they can be traded without conflicting viewpoints getting in the way? I feel (especially recently: see; Mets/Orioles, Cardinals Orioles, Angels/Yankees) that I've seen cases where people veto because of the prospects, but for Opposite reasons. So, let's please solve his problem that has gone on since Day 1.
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Jared) on Nov 14, 2011 18:27:07 GMT -5
Good luck figuring that out. Its hard to even quantify what a major leaguer is worth. Fantasy Points help but depending on who else is on the team it might not even matter.
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Nov 14, 2011 18:37:38 GMT -5
Yeah I mean not sayinbits easy, but it's impossible to make trades when one guy sas I'm tradin too much and another says I'm trading way too little. I figure if we can try and atleast narrow the gap a little than hopefully the situation will slowly improve.
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Jared) on Nov 14, 2011 18:43:39 GMT -5
Thats just hard to do. Thats why I almost wish there were no vetos and trades could just go through. If a GM made a terrible mistake then its his fault. They dont vote on trades in the MLB...
|
|
|
Post by philliesgm on Nov 14, 2011 19:37:04 GMT -5
I cannot agree with Jared more and I have ALWAYS stated that. These are our teams to be the GM's of and we should be able to run them as we see fit. Having said that, there is a flip side to that coin and that is GM's coming and going, destroying teams and then leaving. There are ways to handle that as well. I value prospects A LOT, but when you are trying to win or in a win now mode then your prospects take a back seat to winning now. We've ALL become a little trigger happy with the vetoes lately and just wish we could come to a happy medium. What happened to Mike was just crazy, some vetoed for the prospects and some against, damn the dude couldn't win either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2011 19:53:25 GMT -5
You two are spot-on here. If the owner can't make a deal themselves, why are they an owner? I mean, with the trillions of resources out there, with Cockcroft's fantasy rankings and Jon Sickels organizational top 20 prospects and all of the overall prospect lists, there should be ample information to make a halfway-decent deal. Here is my proposal: All posted and accepted deals automatically pass. However, some can be called on for a vote (by an LM, but can be reported by any owner to an LM, within, say, two days). Here are possible reasons for a trade to be called on for a vote: 1) The owner is VERY new and cannot be trusted to make good trades for his/her team's future. 2) The owner has been angry recently, for whatever reason, or any other behavior is occuring that raises suspicion about the owner's membership in the league (AKA he may quit soon) 3) The owner has made numerous bad trades 4) Collusion is suggested I'm making this sound like court haha...hopefully I'm not taking it too seriously! Please add on
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Nov 14, 2011 19:55:33 GMT -5
Okay, with Mike's trade, the people that vetoed because they were against that many prospects didn't look up the players. A bunch of bad prospects and ONE good 2011 draftee for a top prospect who's going to be starting in the Braves rotation. Oh, and Fukedome who sucks and has an awful contract is thrown in there.
I value prospects as POTENTIAL stars... it's all on what rankings you use. I think the team that's dealing for prospects should get SOME form of insurance back. Not Zach Lee and a couple draft picks for Michael Bourn. How about dealing Carlos Quentin back to give him something w/ value?
Just a thought, not trying to pick on your deal specifically Phils.
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Nov 14, 2011 20:04:55 GMT -5
Great. So how we fixin this?
|
|
|
Post by philliesgm on Nov 14, 2011 20:09:51 GMT -5
Prospects are ALL speculation. Alex thinks Delgado is going to be in the Atlanta rotation. Who's spot is he taking? Hanson? Hudson? Jurrjens? Beachy? Minor? Teheran? Unless they are going with a 7 man rotation I don't see him being in. Well they are going to trade someone, again it's speculation. Delgado....COULD get stuck in the pen and never return. How many times have we seen that happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2011 20:18:23 GMT -5
Rule of thumb: a prospect's rank should count as about 1/2 of the MLB player that he's traded for. A 60th ranked prospect is worth about 120th ranked MLB player (and maybe even lower).
Truth is, a lot of you overrate prospects. There's a reason it takes 2 or 3 high ranking prospects to get a top 50 player. That reason is more than half of the top prospects don't pan out. Guys below 50 are even less likely to pan out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 9:11:44 GMT -5
I agree with Jared and Slava, theres no way we can put a price on a prospect, its impossible and too many factors to consider. Personally, i don't value prospects as much as others, too much risk. But, i also like Indians suggestion for trade review. Ive always been an advocate of letting the GMs make trades and veto only when theres collusion, there is absolutely no way to make a completely fair trade every time, and people always veto because the trades aren't exactly equal
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Nov 15, 2011 18:15:55 GMT -5
I mean obviously we've all agreed to disagree, but my point is if everyone tries to give just a little I think that would help establish SOME sort of common ground.
|
|