Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 13:00:45 GMT -5
Athletics Acquire:
2B Robinson Cano (35M)(35M)
OF Robbie Grossman yr2 (800k)
Yankees Acquire:
OF Nick Swisher (31.5M)(31.5M)(31.5M)
SS Zack Cozart (5.8M)
SP Jeff Locke (.8M)
SP Ryne Stanek (.3M)
SS Jorge Polanco (.3M)
|
|
|
|
Post by Yankees GM (Jerry) on Mar 7, 2015 13:03:30 GMT -5
Yankees accept, in dire need of some everyday players and this help add to roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Mar 7, 2015 13:17:24 GMT -5
Veto: The Yankees are actually taking on more money in this deal and aren't getting a whole lot in return for a top player. Not to mention the extra year of Swisher's contract at a horrible 31.5M.
(0-1)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Former Rangers GM) on Mar 7, 2015 13:21:33 GMT -5
Approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Mar 7, 2015 13:59:02 GMT -5
I'm gonna veto as well. Locke is a good pitcher, but Cozart is all defense, and the prospects are okay. But to get a player like Cano and send back a player like Swisher with no cap covered you'd have to overpay for cano with swisher in there... and Noah doesn't overpay for Cano at all, moreso underpay. So yeah, nothing personal at all, I'd just like to see Yankees get more especially if they're taking Swisher. (1-2)
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Jared) on Mar 7, 2015 15:20:56 GMT -5
Approve. Valuing a deal is not a reason to veto. Collusion is a reason to veto.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Mar 8, 2015 5:52:18 GMT -5
Veto. My reasoning is very similar to that of Alex, so I'll save everyone having to read a lengthy explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Max) on Mar 8, 2015 8:39:16 GMT -5
Veto
A top 10-15 player with a max contract loses value. But when dealt for a guy with a worse contract based on #s alone and who is hovering around a Top 200 player (generously) along with a couple throw ins and only 2 pieces of remote value (the two mid-level prospects) this is the easiest veto in quite some time.
2-4
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (Zach) on Mar 8, 2015 10:09:13 GMT -5
veto-for all of the reasons that have already been stated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 10:26:57 GMT -5
Veto, I really agree with Max here, Cano looses some value because his contract, but swisher is way over paid
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Mar 8, 2015 17:40:52 GMT -5
Update: Voting sits at 2-6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 18:08:17 GMT -5
Approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris (Former Cardinals GM) on Mar 8, 2015 19:47:15 GMT -5
Veto. To give up Cano would require multiple above average players in return or a big drop in salary cap. Neither is achieved with this trade in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 23:19:25 GMT -5
If A's ate some of swisher's contract I would approve it, for cap, and depth reasons. I don't really veto any way, but Swish is high wow. I'm nuetral now
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Mar 9, 2015 10:31:09 GMT -5
Deal is cancelled.
|
|
