Matt Moore 14: $5.83M, 15: $5.83M, 16: $5.83M, 17: $5.83M+, 18: $5.83M+, 19: $5.83M+, 20: FA Desmond Jennings 14: $0.5M, 15: arb 1.22
LAA + 6.83M TB - 6.83M
Angels accept...we feel as moore and jennings will help give us production for the loss of trout..while that 1st will help us build a solid minor league system
Last Edit: Aug 21, 2013 3:06:05 GMT by Matt (Angels)
C: Buster Posey
1B: Anthony Rizzo
2B: Kolten Wong
SS: Jose Iglesias
SS: Hak-Ju Lee
3B: Ryan Zimmerman
3B: Kaleb Cowart
OF: Avisail Garcia
OF: Kole Calhoun
OF: Randal Grichuk
OF: Austin Jackson
SP: Justin Verlander
SP: Trevor Cahill
SP: John Lamb
We feel like a we give up one of the best young pitchers in the game (locked into a nice contract), and a nice young OF to replace Trout, and help them move up in the draft, and helps put the Angels in a better position to cut cap with multiple good cheap players. I obviously love Trout and am happy to have a deal that is fair for both teams.
Post by Brandon (Twins) (LM) on Aug 21, 2013 4:43:17 GMT
Matt Moore is pretty dang good. Dez isn't too shabby himself. Oh and a late 1st rd pick? Dang, this must be for a darn good player... oh, Mike Trout? Yeah, not that good...
Veto
C Gary Sanchez
1B Dominic Smith
2B
3B Miguel Sano
SS Carlos Correa
OF Byron Buxton
OF Austin Meadows
OF
UT
Pass. How is this vetoable? I realize he could have gotten more value but there is no collusion, he got fairly solid value, and some kind of president must be set on vetoing. Can't veto just because you offered more in your mind or because you wouldn't do it. Just a personal opinion.
Post by Brandon (Twins) (LM) on Aug 21, 2013 11:26:51 GMT
"The Council should vote on each trade with the purpose of preventing cheating / collusion within the league. The Council should also ensure that each trade is reasonably equitable. The definition of equitable is left up to each individual member of the Committee."
This is how I go about voting on trades.
C Gary Sanchez
1B Dominic Smith
2B
3B Miguel Sano
SS Carlos Correa
OF Byron Buxton
OF Austin Meadows
OF
UT
If the council is voting on the basis of, "I offered more", that's a little bit of cheating/collusion. It doesn't matter if people offer different 'better' players. If GM's want to own specific players and have the means to acquire them, why block them from the fun of owning some of their favorite players-when the trade is fair...it just didn't bring in the return some have gotten from other leagues? Every league is different, not every GM wants to be on spending 10 hours a day draining some other team of all of their resources. The find a fair deal for players they like.
All of the people who have voted on this trade have either wanted Trout or my #1. Everyone on the chat board all day yesterday kept stating, "you can't always win every trade..."
Those of you that know me from other leagues, know that I don't bitch a lot-especially about how trades are voted on, and every one of you are entitled to your opinion. I just think these explanations are weak, and based on a player you didn't get.
I admittedly was baffled when I posted my veto but ultimately it has nothing to do with not getting Trout for myself, but rather protecting Matt from himself(who suddenly was ASKING us to veto the trade last night when he realized he could have gottent more).
The fact is this is a dynasty league, not a redraft one hit wonder league. Trout is amongst a handful of commodities that should command A LOT more than you offered.
I understand you're position, but this is why we have trade commissions. Matt was about to squander his one and only GRADE A++ commodity...
That's not what I was reading in chat. He seemed pleased with his return, then got bombarded about how stupid he was-which is wrong. But whatever, it's your guys league, do what you want. Go ahead and re-negotiate the deal for us, and the rest of the trades to make sure they fall in line with how you value players.
Post by Brandon (Twins) (LM) on Aug 21, 2013 14:35:49 GMT
I've never once attempted to trade for Trout, Moore, or Jennings. I can't say I haven't tried to trade for your first, but it's not as if I was targeting your specific pick. I've attempted to get every 1st rd pick short of #3 overall.
As for vetoing, there have been 2 vetoed trades thus far. Those 2? One involved myself, and the other involved Troy. All that means is that if the Trade Council views a trade as abnormally unequitable, they will place a veto and explain why. I'm not one to veto often, and I do feel as though teams should be able to make trades they wanna make, but some owners don't necessarily value players how they should be. And for the sake of a "new league" I would say a bit more harsh voting pattern on trades will be implemented in order to establish a league-wide idea of what each TC member deems to be equitable trades. This also allows for the TC members to gauge what each owner looks for in players, what they value in a player/prospect, and the 'type' of trades each of them makes.
Maybe Matt thinks Trout is going to hit a wall, come back to earth, be .280 hitter with a 20/65/30 line instead of .330 with a 30/80/50. However, that doesn't mean Matt should trade him at the value of the former, but instead, should still be seeking value of a player who hits the latter. (This is an obvious exaggeration and I don't know the real motive for shopping Trout).
There is my little Trade Council rant for the day, and I suggest every member read it, because chances are, I won't feel the need to explain myself further once another trade gets hit with a veto.
I don't see a problem with this. Yes Rays win by a good amount, but nothing vetoable. Trout is indeed the best dynasty player, but Moore isn't far behind himself, with a cost controlled Jennings, and a good pick. I don't care if Angels was asking it to be vetoed, if he didn't want to do the deal he shouldn't have agreed to it. His own fault.