|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 6:37:11 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 14, 2011 6:37:11 GMT -5
Kevin has nothing to do with this trade. He is not on the trade committee, and is just 1 of 30 GM's.
I am in Real Estate and have some ocean front property in Arizona!!
BTW Harris, respect is earned, not given. So far I have seen the TC hide behin a generic "Please respect our decision" post with absolutely NO accountability for their decisions. Please lets start getting a reason behind their actions since we as "GM;s" have to do the same.
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 15:26:21 GMT -5
Post by wilchiro on Jan 14, 2011 15:26:21 GMT -5
I agree 100%. I believe most of us are qualified GM's who care about the game and the league as a whole. If this were Pujols for LaPorta then we'd have a problem. But he acquired four young pieces who can help in the long run and shed some salary to go after another big piece. We don't need people to babysit our move by move-if it's lopsided, it's lopsided, we see those trades all the time (Cliff Lee to Seattle, Matt Garza to Chicago). I do respect the decisions of the Trade Committee but we need to start getting responses to why it was vetoed. Explain you're reasoning. This might not be the best example, but if you get an answer right on a math test in college but don't explain yourself, you get little credit. I think we have a similar situation here. (I'm not creative so that's probably a sucky example but I think you guys get my point.)
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 16:13:40 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 14, 2011 16:13:40 GMT -5
Those are my main points and thank you Stephen for speaking up; I wish more GM's would. The point is that Pujols' value has been taken entirely out of my hands and now has handicapped me from trading him at all. I know one of the complaints is that I ONLY had him on the block for 3 days. What the FRIG does THAT matter? If I like the deal I like the deal I don't care if it's 10 minutes after I post him. Harris mentions I have 3 months before the season starts but STILL refuses to flip that coin to the other side.....WHAT IF those interested GM's have now moved on and found their starting CI's elsewhere. I truly think this is just a simple case of tunnel vision by the TC. They get focused in on ONE thing and refuse to look at the whole picture.
P.S. Where is all the "chatter" now from the ones on the chat box bitching about the trade? We haven't heard a friggin squeek out of ANY of them about this since it got vetoed and Harris is to think that they have nothing to do with the voting process. Yeah, right.
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 16:55:27 GMT -5
Post by Braves GM (Nick) on Jan 14, 2011 16:55:27 GMT -5
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. Comments like that are just silly.....NOBODY woulda vetoed if you took Stanton and Gaby ALONE....promise u that 1
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 17:03:00 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 14, 2011 17:03:00 GMT -5
Nick, that would depend upon if Kevin liked it or not. If Kevin approved of it then it would surely pass, if not then yes that deal would have been vetoed as well.
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 17:04:13 GMT -5
Post by Braves GM (Nick) on Jan 14, 2011 17:04:13 GMT -5
This is getting REAAALLY old already....shits honestly the reason I havent been coming to this site as much. I'll go on record saying I approved this deal...so the 2 "TC" members who vetoed SHOULD post why they vetoed....agree...I'll see how quickly I can make this happen but it's turned into whining now...childish shit so please lets just MOVE ON....have Mets add a piece if he rly wants this deal done and call it a day!
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 17:06:05 GMT -5
Post by Braves GM (Nick) on Jan 14, 2011 17:06:05 GMT -5
Nick, that would depend upon if Kevin liked it or not. If Kevin approved of it then it would surely pass, if not then yes that deal would have been vetoed as well. It has nothing to do with Kevin....everyone voices opinions....i'm done talking about this tho...I just know this wouldn't of gotten 1 veto.
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 17:13:29 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 14, 2011 17:13:29 GMT -5
I diagree Nick. You'd be talking about 2 second year players for one star. I truly don't think that they would let it pass. Stanton has UPSIDE, but at this point that is all it is, upside. Gaby would be nothing more than a filler at the CI spot for the loss of Pujols. Gaby/Laporta's Projections with Gaby's being the first ones.
21/22 HR's 88/70 RBI's 75/62 Runs .288/.256 AVG. 6/0 SB
So JUST Gaby and LaPorta aren't that much off, so you mean Stanton hold more value than Matusz/Allen and a #3 prospect?
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 18:07:55 GMT -5
Post by Braves GM (Nick) on Jan 14, 2011 18:07:55 GMT -5
Gaby > Laporta and yes...if I got offered that for Stanton I would reject sir....dunno about anyone else...
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 14, 2011 18:40:09 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 14, 2011 18:40:09 GMT -5
Still say it would never fly with the TC from the actions they've shown.
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 15, 2011 15:34:13 GMT -5
Post by Braves GM (Nick) on Jan 15, 2011 15:34:13 GMT -5
The "TC" looks bad because Harris was the ONLY 1 to defend his veto...so it made all 5 (6?) of us look bad!!! The other 2 should have def posted in here and explained why they vetoed... But lets all just move on as a LEAGUE here
|
|
|
Vetoes
Jan 15, 2011 16:44:04 GMT -5
Post by whitesoxgm on Jan 15, 2011 16:44:04 GMT -5
Keep in mind that at the beginning of this thread that is what I asked Harris for was for the TC to be accountable for their actions as we have to post the why's of our trades. I think that is only fair.
|
|