LAD/LAA

[Angels GM (Derrick)]

Dodgers receive:
SP-John Danks-CHW (13:$10M)
3B-Alberto Callaspo-LAA (13:$3M)(14:$3.5M)

Angels receive:
1st round pick
5th round pick

The Angels cut some cap, and help to build for the future. While the Dodgers gain two more pieces to help them compete this season.

Dodgers to confirm.

[Deleted]

Accept. I like Danks as a building block to my SP staff and Callaspo can start at 3B short term

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

I hate to do this, but I veto and its not really close. I wouldn't call Danks a building block to your SP staff when he's gotten worse every year and has a one year deal. Callaspo is mediocre at best. You're giving up the number 4 pick here!! You should use this to rebuild, not get crappy players who won't even help you gain probably one win this year. You can do better Dodgers. VETO (0-1)

[Deleted]

I am going to veto, for a rebuilding team, a top 3 draft pick is not worth JOHN DANKS!

(0-2)

[Deleted]

Not worth a top pick. 0-3

[Deleted]

I approve. I wouldn't make this deal, but both teams want it, and I see no signs of collusion. One team gets a few major league level players and the other cuts some cap and if they get lucky one of the picks will get to the majors in 3 - 4 years.

[Deleted]

The only reason I will ever veto a deal is clear collusion. It's not my job to place a value on another team's assets, only to ensure that each team is thinking in its own best interests which I believe both teams are doing here. Good trade or bad trade this is not a vetoable deal.

Approve.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Approve

[Angels GM (Derrick)]

Nov 16, 2012 16:52:20 GMT -5 Jacob (Former Tigers GM) said:

I hate to do this, but I veto and its not really close. I wouldn't call Danks a building block to your SP staff when he's gotten worse every year and has a one year deal. Callaspo is mediocre at best. You're giving up the number 4 pick here!! You should use this to rebuild, not get crappy players who won't even help you gain probably one win this year. You can do better Dodgers. VETO (0-1)

I hate to have to do this....but Danks was a 15 game winner as recent as 2010. He was recovering from an early season injury for the majority of 2012. So I'm not quite sure how you can say a 27 year old left handed SP has "gotten worse every year". The fact that he's got one year left on his contract shouldn't really matter all that much given our leagues yearly tag options, and the Dodgers currently rostered players. He could be a middle of the rotation starter for LAD for the next 4 years.

While Callaspo isn't a top of the line 3B, he's still a quality piece. Given the fact that he scored 339.5 points in 457 ABs last season. A nice addition to almost any roster. He would be the Dodgers starting 3B this season.

Dodgers were one of the tough luck teams last season. Due to their record not being a true representation of their talent level. They were 22nd overall in last seasons power rankings. I can see at least a three win improvement for them this season. Possibly more depending on what further moves they make this offseason. They do have $80M in cap space to build with. This trade just helps them accelerate the process of competing now.

Vetos should be reserved for rediculously lopsided deals, or suspected collusion. A mid-rotation SP, and a starting 3B for a gamble that could take 3+ years to contribute is neither. Since when did "You can do better" deals become veto worthy.

[Jeff (Former Rangers GM)]

I agree with what Ray and Derrick said.

Approve

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

Nov 17, 2012 6:15:05 GMT -5 Angels GM (Derrick) said:

Nov 16, 2012 16:52:20 GMT -5 Jacob (Former Tigers GM) said:

I hate to do this, but I veto and its not really close. I wouldn't call Danks a building block to your SP staff when he's gotten worse every year and has a one year deal. Callaspo is mediocre at best. You're giving up the number 4 pick here!! You should use this to rebuild, not get crappy players who won't even help you gain probably one win this year. You can do better Dodgers. VETO (0-1)

I hate to have to do this....but Danks was a 15 game winner as recent as 2010. He was recovering from an early season injury for the majority of 2012. So I'm not quite sure how you can say a 27 year old left handed SP has "gotten worse every year". The fact that he's got one year left on his contract shouldn't really matter all that much given our leagues yearly tag options, and the Dodgers currently rostered players. He could be a middle of the rotation starter for LAD for the next 4 years.

While Callaspo isn't a top of the line 3B, he's still a quality piece. Given the fact that he scored 339.5 points in 457 ABs last season. A nice addition to almost any roster. He would be the Dodgers starting 3B this season.

Dodgers were one of the tough luck teams last season. Due to their record not being a true representation of their talent level. They were 22nd overall in last seasons power rankings. I can see at least a three win improvement for them this season. Possibly more depending on what further moves they make this offseason. They do have $80M in cap space to build with. This trade just helps them accelerate the process of competing now.

Vetos should be reserved for rediculously lopsided deals, or suspected collusion. A mid-rotation SP, and a starting 3B for a gamble that could take 3+ years to contribute is neither. Since when did "You can do better" deals become veto worthy.

Any time you have to write 4 paragraphs defending your trades, means your clearly self-conscious about it. Look at Dodgers roster, he clearly can not compete and with Danks on a one year deal, he is not a building block. I dobut Callaspo will have his job past this year. If Danks had a longer contract, I may approve, but its still a crappy deal.

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Sorry, but I think these are the type of deals that keep champions young and at the top and that shove teams like the Dodgers farther down. Agreeing with Jacob here, anytime you have to prove that you're getting a bad side of the deal, it's probably not worth it. It's the number 4 pick in the draft, and Danks was good... 2 years ago. That's like dealing Scott Baker for the top pick...

Veto. (4-4).

[Deleted]

The top pick took Skaggs and Volquez

[Jeff (Former Rangers GM)]

prospects are prospects, last time i checked their success rate isnt all that good. Danks is at least proven and Callaspo is a good piece. Also what have Skaggs and Volquez proved in the majors yet? id much prefer Danks to a Volquez.

[Deleted]

Volquez performed much better than Danks.

This team is terrible. You don't trade the 2nd overall pick for a half decent rental.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Just to help out here...Danks scored 95 fantasy points last year and Volquez scored about 404.

I don't think Danks is worth a first round draft pick but apparently someone does so let them make the trade!

Don't forget that Sean Burroughs, Brandon Wood, Matt Bush, Josh Vitters, Ryan Harvey (need I go on?) are all first round picks. The pick gives you the CHANCE to get someone good but does not guarantee anything. Just like John Danks is not guaranteed to do well next year, but at least he already made it to The Show and has a starting job!

[Deleted]

I feel a comparison coming on.....

Name	Age	IP	K	BB	WhiP	ERA
John Danks	27	971	744	323	1.31	4.12
Edinson Volquez	29	679	653	372	1.48	4.52

Danks was hurt last year, so last years numbers are not comparable. That was the first time Danks has missed much time in his career. Volquez has only been healthy for 2 full seasons in his career. Danks has a much better track record than Volquez.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Who cares about the comparisons though? It about fantasy points and value. Some people value draft picks more than other and some people value MLB players more than others. As long as there is no collusion the trade should be allowed.

[Deleted]

I got SKAGGS too...

The point is, why is a 2-17 team trading a top 2 pick for a rental, the point is Angels is stacked and Dodgers is terrible, this hurts the balance of the league.

[Jeff (Former Rangers GM)]

Is their suspected collusion in this deal?

All i have to say is that I think you should let managers make trades that they want to make. I dont see how this is a bad trade. I see it as being very even actually, but even if it wasn't even as long as theirs no suspected collusion, i'll approve all trades.

I also dont understand what Volquez and Skaggs have to do with this conversation. Skaggs is unproven and Volquez has proven that he can't hit the strike zone.

Danks is a solid pitcher and Callaspo is a very good depth/utility infielder. Prospects are so volatile.

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

So if TAB only vetos if collusion, what is the point of a TAB?

[Deleted]

What is TAB?

[Deleted]

Some of these posts are hilarious. Because Derrick explained his logic he clearly feels self conscious about the trade? Haha. Wow.

[Deleted]

The fact that this deal is going through is ridiculous.

1 year of Danks @ 10M = 7 years of Skaggs for cheap & 3 years of Volquez for cheap on a bad team is absurd.

Dodgers is notorious for making bad trades, and Derrick just traded an injury prone starter who is on an expensive one year deal and half decent depth to the Dodgers, a terrible team that is not close to competing, in exchange for a potential superstar, and another draft pick, who could also turn out to be a stud with a little research. My 5th round selection in 2011 was Kevin Quakenbush, who is looking like he will become a very good reliever for a long time. My point is, the value in a good 5th round selection has the potential to yield more value in the long run. The point is, the Dodgers, who are DREADFUL should not be acquiring bad rentals for their 2nd overall selection in the draft.

[Deleted]

Veto (4-5)

This trade is pretty bad. The #4 pick for a mediocre starter on a one-year deal?

How did the Angels talk you into this?

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Hours are up. Deal is vetoed because of majority.