Vetoes

[whitesoxgm]

Ok, I truly think the vetoes have gotten out of hand. Before I go any further please let me state that I understand WHY there must be a TC in these types of leagues with so many GM's coming and going and bad trades could leave a team in bad shape. Having said that though it also appears that the TC has and will continue to hamper any trade activity for a GM trying to better their team. Unlike the previous GM of the Cardinals who traded off most of the veterans to build something (Why he bid and won even older players I'll never understand) I had to continue in the same direction. Albert Pujols while being the best player in the game is also 31 with a $16 Million contract that expires aftert his year. Why on God's green Earth would I try and keep him? I keep hearing value thrown about a lot? I assume that it is the TC and ONLY the TC that determines that value? I'm confident now that each of us GM's cannot determine the value of our own trades/players. The sad part is that once ANY trade is posted on Pujols you see all the rhetoric in the chat box and you cannot tell me that this negative chatter does not influence the TC. The sad part is that most of the ones doing the negative chatter are the ones that sent the silly ass offers that are causing these vetoes and want it vetoed so that they can add one more grade B prospect hoping I'll accept this time. The deal that was vetoed was a solid deal in anyones eyes (Except Kevin, he's always right). Mets win the deal by too significant of a margin? By getting one player? So he wins the league by getting Pujols? It's all over let's all go home? Come on guys, please get a grip on the responsibilities handed to you and lean on your (hopefully) years of experience doing this. If there is no collusion involved and each GM is a solid GM that knows what they are doing then PLEASE let them make trades.

[whitesoxgm]

On another note Harris, you implemented a rule stating that we had to give a brief description as to why we are making the trades. Now we have still have to do that even though we are NOT allowed to value players on our own. Can we as GM's at least have the same respect in return and have the TC (anonymously) post as to why they feel a trade should be vetoed because I would LOVE to hear some of the reasons these trades have been overturned.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Ok, I agree with you that you should get some type of a response as to why they have a issue with your trade. Also, Im not on the trade committee, but I assume that the issue with the trade is that the only thing of real value in that trade is Matusz. Ya Laporta has some value still, but his value was alot higher 2 years ago. Of course hes still young and can turn it around but hes looking more and more like a bust. .220 with like 10hrs last year I think?? Allen has some power upside still too but were talking Pujols here.

I know you are looking to rebuild, but that dosnt mean you need to trade for all specs or first year guys. I assume the comish office is looking for a deal where you are getting atleast 1 established and elite player along with those specs, considering how good and consistent pujols is. Idk why you wouldnt want someone like that anyhow. I wouldnt trade someone like pujols who is a guarantee for a bunch of maybees. Instead Id be looking for Some one like a Tullo, Longo, Wright etc. and If your stuck on the real young guys, atleast someone like a Heywood.

Then it comes down to the offers. As you said the offers havnt been there which means you have to get what you can. If thats true then fuckem. Keep pujols, he is a guarenteed piece that you know you can build around and it wont cost you 50m if you franchise him.

Think about Pujols as a hundred dollar bill, and your trying to break that $100 (make change). You ask several people but they only have $50 on them. Are you going to say fuck it and give them a $100 for their $50 because thats all people have?? I dont think so, or atleast I hope not. If you would, give me a call I have alot of $50s, lol. Although its a weird analogy, I think it gets the point across. Your only getting partial value for Pujols; and just because thats what people can / are willing to offer dosnt mean you should take it. Some one will offer you full value, Its just a matter of finding the right deal and being patient.

Hope this helps, and although Im not part of the TC, I assume this is their reason for vetoing the trade, if not this is my interpretation.

[whitesoxgm]

Finally someone responds Eric and thank you. Good analogy and pretty close to what is happening. While I agree with what you say about Pujols I do not want to "build" around a 31 year old CI no matter how good he is and pay him $25M a year (it'll at least be that) when I get younger first year guys or solid prospects. You are right in that this has come down to the offers being sent and the Mets/A's have sent the ONLY legitimate offers that I have received. It also comes down to how we all see these players and value them. Other than Kevin who knows all, we have our owb biases about who we think will rebound and who will not. Have you ever gone back and looked at "projections" from previous years players and look back and say, "What the hell were they thinking?" Same thing here, except for Kevin we don't know how ANY of these players will turn out. It's just a shame that I have absolutely NO say so in what Pujols' value is, or any other player for that matter. I think I'll just ask Kevin before I accept any offers, if HE says they are good I'll post it.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Easier said than done but you gotta get some top players in the deal for Pujols. I mean your not even geting a top 100 player in the deal, for the number 1 or 2 player in all of fantasy. Instead of trying to get 5 for 1s. Try and find a 2 for 1 (thats the best way to move a player like Pujols). Just look and hold out for a top 25 player or something close to it. If you get a top position player and a top spec I dont think that the comish would have a issue with it. But you gotta get someone that has proven themselves and dosnt have so many question marks. Why not ask for David Wright and Matusz for Pujols. The Mets get a upgrade at CI, and still hangs onto his elite SP (see below)

I mean nothing against the Mets but look at what hes offering you. It may be the best offer you have gotten but hes offering you his scrap CIs (holding on to wright) and offering you a nice upside sp in Matusz, but hes not even giving you one of his elite guys like Ubaldo, JJ, Billingsley and I suppose you could put Grienke in that group. Thats another issue Im sure is factoring into the LO decision.

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

I like many people I'm sure put out a couple opeming offers on Pujols just to gauge interest in certain players. I then made an offer with a number of choices in the deal. The first group was Billingsly/Matusz (Pick one), from the next group came LaPorta and Allen and then a group of prospects to choose from. That way I new he was aware of the types of players I was willing to give up. So that if he had no interest in them we could move on or if he did have interest maybe we could cut to the chase and save a few pm's. I suppose he chose Matusz over Billingsly because Chad will require a tag and become significantly more expensive next year (Much like Albert). I assume I'm like most gm's here, I wouldn't do a Wright/Matusz or McCutchen/Matusz for Albert. Wright is a top 10-15 player and is significantly cheaper then Albert will be not to mention younger. I think its pretty clear that young protected players with a statistical peak in front of them are of value in these leagues. Now the height of each players peak is always up for debate and I know many are torn on all 3 of the MLB guys from my side in this deal. I just happened to find a guy who like me believes they all still have a good chance at some level of success or stardom. Matusz was a can't miss prior to last year, similar to how David Price was the year before. Well Price stubled like many players do in there first full season but as we all know he was a beast last year. Look at there K rates, BB rates, FIP and xFip for there rookie years. There pretty similiar, Matusz actually had a better k rate and walk rate then Price had. So I like many people would assume a pretty big leap in year 2 for Matusz. Bucholz, Hughes, Price, Morrow, Cahill, Latos and Niese all took pretty good leaps last year in terms of harnesing there ability. Its logical to see the same for Matusz. I'll argue the others when I have more time but ultimately my point is I abandoned my philosophy of team friendly contracts when I went after Pujols, not only did I abandon that philosophy but I also gave up a number of the contracts that i covet. Low risk/High Reward guys. If Allen/Laporta/Matusz make it great if not well atleast there not making 16M a year. Pujols will be looking for ARod money next year, I don't think I've ever seen a team win with that salary on the books, so while Pujols def helps me this year and possibly beyond. He will send my cap into a pretty dire situation starting next year when almost all my young studs will be in line for raises and or new deals.....I've mostly stayed out of this because whatever its a game but to assume Matusz is not a very high upside arm or that I would give up a significantly cheaper/younger current star for an aging soon to be highly expensive tag needing slugger at the deepest position in this league is pre-sumptious. I'm clearly not alone here because if i were my offer would have never been taken.

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

I also am not saying that Matusz is any of those guys, I'm just saying its a gm's perogative to think that if he/her see's it that way. That point should be indisputable for the TC.

[Rays GM (Eps)]

Excellent points, Mets...and with all due respect to all GMs here, most of us would simply NOT offer a Tulo, Longoria, AGonz, Wright type player and a quality young MLB(s) and/or elite prospect(s) for Poo (unless we were including a nasty cap anchor as part of the deal) simply due to cap constraints (Poo is gonna cost silly money after 2011) and the longer term upside productions of the young and relatively cheap aformentioned players...frankly, to do so would be rather dumb.

Bottom line is that it is damn hard to get "top value" for a Poo type player, especially since he's over 30 and gonna cost a damn ton annually, unless a GM isn't sober when making the deal or is forced to overpay.

[Braves GM (Nick)]

Well said...this isn't a Yahoo Public league!!!

Theres a reason we are in a "contract" league : /

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

also top 100 players are based on this years value only and pay zero attention to current or future earnings. A better indicator would be Fangraphs annual Trade Value Rankings. In 2010 Pujols ranked 22nd and Matusz Ranked 44th. Pujols Should drop further this year since its his walk year and Matusz's Value should remain static until he uses up more protection or makes a significant jump in preoduction. They take essentially every variable into account we do with the addition of defense which matters little for Pujols at 1st and nothing for Matusz as a pitcher. Either way its safe to assume when gauging player value and taking into account everything this sort of league entails that Matusz would be among the top 100 picks. Obviously Fangraphs list (like Bill James Projections) aren't be all end all facts but they do help to illustrate the point that value in this league is subject to a number of variables that make it very difficult for any of us to nail down. An Espn top 100 or 250 based on a standard 5x5, 10 team, 1 year league obscures more then it reveals.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Im agreeing with you on the Matusz part, I think hes the highlight of the trade for the Cards, but you gotta get a more proven player then Laporta (looks like the next Alex Gordon) and Allen; even if you cant get a Tullo or Longo. I mean even a couple top 50-75 guys would prob go over better than 2 unproven but more importantly struggling specs like Laporta and Allen. Go for quality over quantity. Like I said before, Im no where near the TC nor am I even interested in Pujols atm; its just my observation of the situation and honestly dont think its right to call out the TC over this,

I mean rankings arnt everything but CBS just released its top 300 overall list and Matusz is #208 (although I think he should climb up that list this year) and Laporta and Allen arnt even on that list. In fact Laporta ranks 31st amongst first baseman, not CI, and once again Allen isnt even on that list, which means hes outside the top 40 first baseman. And Matusz is ranked 67th on the SP list for 2011. Not exactly a great haul for Pujols who is not only ranked 1st amongst the firstbaseman but 1st overall. Ya age and price factors in, but comeon.....

And just so Im not being biased ESPN ranks Matusz #203 on their 2011 top 250 list and Laporta and Allen are no where to be found, and Matusz #60 on their 2011 top SP list. Alot of similarities!

One more thing, I know someone is going to say, well Laporta and Allen arnt there because they havnt done much but their value is in their potential, well I figured Id cover that too, here is ESPNs top 200 keeper rankings for 2011-2013 that evaluates a players potential and contribution over the next 3 seasons. And guess what, Allen and Laporta are still no where to be found, and despite the age, Pujols still ranks 3rd.

Once again I know rankings arnt everything but these guys get paid to do this for a living, and ya the difference between a guy ranked 50th and a guy ranked 75th could flip flop but were talking about major differences on every level here.

I assume that all the TC wants is you to get a equal return for Pujols, or at the very least some guys that have proven themselves some and not only "project" value but show promise that they will one day be worth Pujols and dont have as many question marks as Laporta and Allen do.

Although it would be nice to hear someone from the TC say this instead of me. Especially this far into the discussion.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Jan 13, 2011 18:02:22 GMT -5 Mets GM (Kennedy) said:

also top 100 players are based on this years value only and pay zero attention to current or future earnings. A better indicator would be Fangraphs annual Trade Value Rankings. In 2010 Pujols ranked 22nd and Matusz Ranked 44th. Pujols Should drop further this year since its his walk year and Matusz's Value should remain static until he uses up more protection or makes a significant jump in preoduction. They take essentially every variable into account we do with the addition of defense which matters little for Pujols at 1st and nothing for Matusz as a pitcher. Either way its safe to assume when gauging player value and taking into account everything this sort of league entails that Matusz would be among the top 100 picks. Obviously Fangraphs list (like Bill James Projections) aren't be all end all facts but they do help to illustrate the point that value in this league is subject to a number of variables that make it very difficult for any of us to nail down. An Espn top 100 or 250 based on a standard 5x5, 10 team, 1 year league obscures more then it reveals.

Ill admit that I was unfamiliar with this ranking system, and still agree that Matusz is a nice piece and dont think that anyone has a issue with him being in there. But it still dosnt change the fact that Laporta and Allen dont make up the difference between Matusz and Pujols.

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

I don't argue that many gm's wouldn't accept this deal. Nor do I really care if its overturned, I think the argument is more important. i haven't bitched to a TC member once but keeper rankings obscure the fact that salary is one of the hugest parts of this trade. Not only does he get 4 cheap protected players with significant upside but he gets 14M in money to ad players this year and significantly more savings next year. He could in theory easily add another top 100 or top 50 player with the 25-30M in savings he'll have available next year aside from a tag he would've gained in this deal. Again I'm not asking the TC to add hypothetical players to the deal but also I'd like to think they don't view players in the vacuum of Keeper rankings that don't account for current or future earnings. Both huge factors.

[whitesoxgm]

Eric, I have REALLY appreciated your input from an objective point of view so if you would, answer me this? Who exactly is it now that evaulates Pujols' trade value? It's 100% sure not me, so who determines his value now? Also, do you not think that because of the TC's 2 vetoes of Pujols that it now handicaps me from EVER trading him? I am at a severe disadvantage now due to these vetoes because not a single GM is going to send an offer due to the fact that they KNOW it'll eventually be vetoed.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Agreed, once again now would be good time for the LO to step in and give their say. Other then that Im done. I neither gain nor lose from this deal, I was just trying to give a outside and objective opinion to the Cards since no one was stepping up to do so, so I'll leave it to the LO. Hey maybe it might not be a bad idea to get Pujols out of the NLC anyhow

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

Of Course out of the NL might be better, or dare I say my hands.

[whitesoxgm]

Your input was much welcomed I assure you because I feel A LOT of GM's out there are scratching their head's over this one. Like I said though, there ain't no way I'm going to be able to trade him now due to all of this.

[Brewers GM (Eric B.)]

Jan 13, 2011 18:37:49 GMT -5 @whitesoxgm said:

Eric, I have REALLY appreciated your input from an objective point of view so if you would, answer me this? Who exactly is it now that evaulates Pujols' trade value? It's 100% sure not me, so who determines his value now? Also, do you not think that because of the TC's 2 vetoes of Pujols that it now handicaps me from EVER trading him? I am at a severe disadvantage now due to these vetoes because not a single GM is going to send an offer due to the fact that they KNOW it'll eventually be vetoed.

Ok one last response cause I didnt see your post when I posted my other one. Its a joint evaluation of Pujols value. Ultimately its the TC's call but if both GMs provide a good trade or atleast a strong reasoning then it will pass. And although in both trades the "posibility" of a good trade was there, the trade had to much fantasy and lacked enough fiction. Trading of upside but unproven players passes when were talking lesser value players because the risk is lower. If that spec dosnt turn out, oh well, the player you lost wasnt a stud. But when your trading an elite and arguably the best player in all of baseball, I assume the TC wants to cut down on that risk by having the deal based around more proven players.

As far as the disadvantage, I completely disagree. If anything your in a better position because now you can demand full value for pujols because of the fact that the TC is being such a stickler about his value. Although its not going to stop gms from sending lack luster offers, id assume that if they are genuinely serious about acquiring him they will step up their offer because they too, know that the TC will veto any trade where you dont receive good value for Pujols.

Hope this helps, and as I said before Im now done. Unless asked otherwise.

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

I agree with that Eric, Pujols is as tradeable now as he ever. I also agree with Jon in that it isn't going to be easy. I truly believe Pujols is soon entering A-Rod (the early 2000's versions).

[whitesoxgm]

But what gets me is again WHO sets the value. The kids coming my way were Allen/LaPorta who may or may not become something. What if the 2 kids were Strasburg/Harper? Harper hasn't even gotten a ML at bat yet, but yet people are clamoring all over him. That is what I mean by I'm not being allowed to value my own players. In other words I'm not being allowed to be a GM when all that I do has to pass through the "front office" so to speak. Hell at least Brian Cashman does have some say so in what the Yankees do. I have none in what the Cardinals can do.

[Rockies GM (Harris)]

I will say that I did not see this as even enough of a return for Pujols.

Your points:
- Yes Jon, you are rebuilding, and dealing Pujols puts your team in the direction that you feel your team is best headed.

- Pujols is an expiring contract, and will get expensive after next year.

My and 2 other members of the TC Points:

- 1. This trade was no better than the original Pujols deals that were vetoed, and we have to stay consistent on the Trade Committee- This had a little to do with our decision, but again was not the main reason of our veto.

2. Like you said Jon, this was the best offer you received in 3 DAYS of shopping Pujols. Why not shop him a little bit longer and get a better offer? The fact that you are selling him for a lot less than you can possibly acquire almost 3 months away from the season is never a good idea.

3. This was a big trade for the market value for stud players like Pujols. It seems like the value for stud players is down, and in effect that could be a negative for the balance of the league.

4. You are saying that vetoes are getting excessive, but there have only been 4 Vetoes out of hundreds of trades. Vetoes are not getting excessive by any means. We would like you to be able to value your players your own way, but here you did not get close to what was thought of by the trade committee as full value for one of the best players ever.

In response to the Mets:
1.) David Wright and Matusz, yes would be an overpay... but here, there were not any stand out pieces other than Matusz in the deal. If Matusz was successfully proven, that yeah it might be fine, but to deal the leagues best player for a guy who has the POTENTIAL to be good, and a few guys who have a decent, but not great chance to be solid, is just not fair for the balance of the league.

I'm sure you will argue this anyway, but PLEASE RESPECT THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE TRADE COMMITTEE and remember, we're just trying to run a fun and long lasting league, like you.

[Mets GM (Kennedy)]

I'm just playing devils advocate. I think most would agree I haven't been pushy or hypercritical of the TC. I respect it but feel an open discussion on the merits of this deal is reasonable. I've shopped many players and sold them in a day or two when surely a better deal would or could've come around. I also think each team sets the market for there star player, I offered you a deal for Wainright that you declined in 1 sec, I used that same deal to land Greinke. Doesn't mean it got vetoed or that the market changed. It was a clear cut example of a gm's valuing the same players differently in regards to moving a comparable star player. I'm not hating on this deal getting veto'd, I'm just arguing cause I'm home and my wife is watching some bullshit I'm not into. lol

[whitesoxgm]

My main point is that I'm simply NOT allowed to place value on my own players. It's not even the veto, it's about taking the ability of a GM to run their own team. Now I feel like I cannot trade anyone unless Kevin approves.

[Rockies GM (Harris)]

Jan 13, 2011 20:51:07 GMT -5 Mets GM (Kennedy) said:

I'm just playing devils advocate. I think most would agree I haven't been pushy or hypercritical of the TC. I respect it but feel an open discussion on the merits of this deal is reasonable. I've shopped many players and sold them in a day or two when surely a better deal would or could've come around. I also think each team sets the market for there star player, I offered you a deal for Wainright that you declined in 1 sec, I used that same deal to land Greinke. Doesn't mean it got vetoed or that the market changed. It was a clear cut example of a gm's valuing the same players differently in regards to moving a comparable star player. I'm not hating on this deal getting veto'd, I'm just arguing cause I'm home and my wife is watching some bullshit I'm not into. lol

The "please respect decisions..." was not directed at you.

[Rockies GM (Harris)]

Jan 13, 2011 21:06:31 GMT -5 @whitesoxgm said:

My main point is that I'm simply NOT allowed to place value on my own players. It's not even the veto, it's about taking the ability of a GM to run their own team. Now I feel like I cannot trade anyone unless Kevin approves.

Kevin has nothing to do with this trade. He is not on the trade committee, and is just 1 of 30 GM's.