Post by stones on Aug 7, 2008 23:44:32 GMT -5
I'll go with it's probably a good thing.
That wasn't the complaint by the owners voicing their concerns over the trades. I don't think any of us said that any of the teams that "dumped" didn't pick up useful and good players that should help their future. It was the decidedly (maybe perceived) lopsided amount of talent that switched sides that was called into question.
While I know it is your quest to achieve objectivity, but you seemingly continue to interject your subjective opinion. The presumption in your posts that the majority of the league supports your view, I believe, is simply not true. In fact, its pretty evenly split as borne out by the responses posted thus far in this thread. The responses in which you seem to think are guilt-redden attempts to justify their respective trades. Since there was carping, we felt the need to answer.
Now I admit I might have misread someone, but I think the count is something along the lines of the Davids, Matt G and Rich squarely in the camp of the Stones trades stink. Kenn and I, as the accused parties, would undoubtedly be in our own camp. Although the Michaels and Bob are not necessarily in our camp, they appear closer to us than the other camp. Nick and Tim appear to be fence-sitters, and as such support neither view.
That leaves only Matt B, who is yet to post an opinion, but it is my learned opinion that he falls in the camp of the trade sucks!
I believe it is fair to say that the ones not in your corner would like to address and resolve your concerns, yes even me. I think we all respect that the old school owners who established this league are all in your corner and thus we want to work toward a resolution which you are all in agreement. Again, I do respect that and mean that!
Now with that in mind, I heard nary a whimper when David Mahlan traded 25% of his roster in a matter of 24 hours to two contenders, both long time owners, one of which was you! I found the silence in blogs and this board, when compared to the typical criticism of trades, almost deafening. Were they fair trades? I'm not sure. But I didn't complain. Was there a wealth of talent included? Yes, although not necessarily all the talent going to the contenders! Rich, I really think you could have gotten more for what you gave up! Just my opinion, I know! I also thought it set David M. up nicely by tilting the balance of power for next year squarely in his favor. So in some sense Kenn and Michael2 had to make deals for low priced talent just to have a reasonable chance of competing next year.
You have asked repeatedly if "we ever considered the impact of our trade" or something close to that. I am want to ask if you ever considered the impact your trade? You, of course, will respond that you did, and I suppose you did, but since it is generally presumed Kenn and I didn't, let me ask for the record, Did You? Let me tell you what you did. I believe those were your words, but their relevant here. With absolute certainty, your trade and the Davids' trade forced me to revisit the 1,000s of emails I had exchanged previously with Kenn regarding possible trades for Pujols and/or Martin.
Had those two trades not been made, I would not have gone back to Kenn again to ask for Pujols and Martin. Add to that my favorite accuser not named Rich's trade with the Clowns. I was forced to make a "lazy" counter-move to protect my place in standings. I guess attempting to deal with half the league for a first basemen was laziness. For that I apologize, I would have tried everyone, but the contenders would have likely rebuffed my offers, while other non contacted owners would have given my inquires the same rude attention of no response that they typically gave!
I was crazy (rhymes with lazy) enough to think I could wait out David on Teixeira until closer to the deadline. When I saw what you gave him, I decided I had no choice but to offer up either Kemp or Lincecum, both previously untouchable, to secure a player of Pujols' caliber. Never did I think I would give both in a single trade. Had Kenn not acquired Santana, Lincecum would not have been traded, this year or next!
Any way, some have said my trade diminished the auction day. We traded 16 players total. That is the exact number of players involved in the two trades between you and David2. But no one said a word about that, but Kenn and I received a ball kicking. If you look at the number of trades made by other owners, while they were smaller and more multiple in nature, they also turned over significant portions of their respective rosters. Did they also diminish the auction?
I get it, I get it, I understand that you think I made one large trade with tons a talent coming my way and that's what's different. Again, I get what you're thinking, but we agree to disagree.
Really? Sorry if I came off as sarcastic, but I am honestly asking, do you really think this? If you do, then yet again, we just flat out disagree. Again this supports the previously stated theory that all owners do not all value players the same.
It also makes it even clearer that you have little appreciation for the challenges of being a new team in this league. Admittedly, its been awhile for you, so I can accept that disability. But the first lesson I learned when joining the league was I had better build with young cheap prospects type guys and speculate on some high upside minor league talent. I sure wasn't going to compete with the scraps from the Supplemental Draft! Watching the established owners hold contracts on guys like Pujols, Chipper Jones or D Lee for 3 or 4 years at .02 was a hard lesson learned, but a lesson nonetheless. I thought Michael C's post addressed this point far better than I could ever hope to, so I will leave it at that.
Now to your point regarding Kenn and Michael not needing to give as much as they did to get what they got in return. All I can say is you should ask David M, Nick, Michael2, Tim, Kenn and Bob, each of whom I approached to work a trade for offense or closers, which players on my roster in which they held the most regard. It was always the same; Gallardo, Lincecum & Kemp! So I think your comment is just wrong...surprise...again!
I think I understand what you are trying to go for, but this once again goes to the question of how we all value players. Now as with every trade, unless its one for one , its hard to pull it apart and say I got Pujols for X and Martin for Y. That wasn't how the trade was made. If we pulled it apart and said Lincecum and Kemp would have or should have netted me Matsui and Martin, for instance, I would never have made that trade. Kenn wouldn't have made Gallardo and Kemp for Pujols and Martin. Believe me, I tried! So we added pieces until we finally agreed. That's how trades are made, but you already know that.
But it has been called into question. Remember when you and others essentially accused Matt of taking advantage of the new guy! There was even a grumble or two when I purportedly fleeced Michael Moore out of Kent, Rausch and LoDuca! The implication that I got from some of the outrageous analytical comments and criticisms was that Matt and I fleeced the new guys. The Michaels never saw us coming! I know, me bad, ugh, Matt good! Based on the not so objective analysis, it was apparent that you thought they had no idea how to play this crazy game. I think they know exactly how to play and you asked for competition, and that's what they bring!
Before I go too far off on this, I will, once again, refer to Michael Cs post which better addresses this issue.
OK I agree but you didn't even post the one I proposed!
1) Do nothing - this is a blip on the radar and the issue will resolve itself.
2) Move up the trade deadline to something like May 15th - that will give teams time to identify weaknesses by should be early enough in the year that no one will feel out of the race.
3) Prohibit in season trading - no trading means no dumping.
4) Establish a Trade Committee - an objective panel could look at trades in a fair light.
5) Reduce the in season salary cap - with less cap room, taking on large salaries (usually occuring in "dump" trades) would prove to be less effective.
There may be other options or variations on the above five.
As for #1, do nothing, clearly some people think there is a problem, so let's address it.
2. I am not in favor with this but if it is the consensus of all, then I could and would conform to it.
3. While I have grown to hating the culture of trading in this league, because of the great disparity in valuing players, and the general lack of response from some owners, this is clearly a huge part of what is supposed to make roto and fantasy fun. I would be against eliminating trading during the season.
4. I am not in favor of a committee of a few "trusted" owners. I still think a committee of the whole is the only fair committee. I would not vote for another 3 member EC type, as it is apparent there is a major disconnect and distrust on both sides of this argument.
5. I am open to this but I would rather limit the amount of salary that can be traded instead. Or limiting trading to a few places above or below in the standings.
Any way those are my thoughts. Not trying to pick a fight!
