|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 24, 2007 14:28:39 GMT -5
Milwaukee sends Larry Broadway, Dave Krynzel and Alejandro Machado to Oakland for Mark Teixeira and 2M this season.
Good Luck to Larry and OAK and hope he gets his chance to Start. We welcome Mark on board and hope a change of scenery does him some good.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Cashman on May 24, 2007 14:31:54 GMT -5
Veto not nearly enough for Tex Krynzel and Machado are avgerage at best and Broadway is just above average Tex can net alot more than that
|
|
|
Post by Billy Beane on May 24, 2007 14:35:01 GMT -5
accepted
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 24, 2007 14:38:21 GMT -5
agreed, I don't know what you mean by change of scenery does him good? he is doing really good on the year. .276 and .336 may be slightly below avg. but he has 18 HR's, a .573 SLG% and a .999 feilding%.
Broadway is doing worse offensively and defensively, and the 2 spects are shit. Machado is at best a 4th OF'er for all but maybe 3 teams in the entire league and Krynzel is horrible, 26 meaning he is eligible for Rule V and won't get picked. Deal is terrible and I agree veto
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rizzo on May 24, 2007 14:46:00 GMT -5
as OAK's sponsor, i'm going to narrowly approve this.
i think it does favor MIL, but it's ultimately OAK's decision on what to do with his players. Broadway is a solid 1b, and has a past 3 years line of .289/.382/.471 in comparison to Teixeira's .271/.335/.562. Fieldingwise, Broadway's FLD% is higher (.992) over the last 3 years than Teixeira's (.990). When talking about this year's stats, you have to realize that Broadway isn't starting this year and hasnt had the number of AB's to fully show how good he is. Broadway's contract is also 1/2 as much as Teixeira's and for one extra year.
Throw in two speedy, high OBP guys and it balances out to a respectable trade.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Murphy on May 24, 2007 14:52:12 GMT -5
Veto I agree with what NYY said Tex can net alot more than that was offered.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 24, 2007 14:58:41 GMT -5
as OAK's sponsor, i'm going to narrowly approve this. i think it does favor MIL, but it's ultimately OAK's decision on what to do with his players. Broadway is a solid 1b, and has a past 3 years line of .289/.382/.471 in comparison to Teixeira's .271/.335/.562. Fieldingwise, Broadway's FLD% is higher (.992) over the last 3 years than Teixeira's (.990). When talking about this year's stats, you have to realize that Broadway isn't starting this year and hasnt had the number of AB's to fully show how good he is. Broadway's contract is also 1/2 as much as Teixeira's and for one extra year. Throw in two speedy, high OBP guys and it balances out to a respectable trade. so you are counting Teixiera's .985 fielding% at 3rd base in 2007 in his .990 fielding% ? lol Teixiera is easily a better defender then Teixiera, when he has a .979 and .985 fielding% at 3rd base(Broadway played there for 4 games in 2008 and had a .727 fielding% lol) , and now a .999 at 1st Broadway's past 3 years at 1B, he had 714 AB's hit 32 HR's 3 triples and 28 doubles. Last year over 1 season in 609 AB's Tex had 44 HR's 4 triples and 43 HR's. to say that Broadway is even CLOSE to Tex is ridiculous, and the 2 shit spects don't come near closing the gap. For approving this you should be fired and have your hoagie stripped.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Van Slyke on May 24, 2007 15:22:26 GMT -5
Veto Veto
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rizzo on May 24, 2007 15:57:20 GMT -5
jeff if you have a problem, it belongs in trash talk, not here.
as for the trade, it will face TC and it's not worth discussing anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 24, 2007 19:18:17 GMT -5
This is what is wrong with our league...How does this justify a veto. Does one team come out ahead of the Other? A little. But... Section IV: Miscellaneous Trade Committee The league will have a Trade Committee. If a trade is turned over for review to the trade committee, the 3 member (with 2 backups in case a team on the TC is involved) TC must vote to either rescind or approve the trade. There are two ways a trade can be put up for review by the Committee: 1) Either the commish or one of the league presidents protests the trade. 2) If three (3) owners object to a trade within 24 hours of posting. [glow=red,2,300]If a trade is made that does more harm to the league than good, owners can speak out by posting their protest to the trade[/glow]. Once there are three owners who have objected (or a president/commish protest) it will be voted on. After a trade is put up for review and before the members vote, each owner has 24-hours to post their reasoning as to why they made the deal, making their case as to why it should pass. Owners objecting as well as committee members MUST also justify their votes with a reason. The committee should only overturn bad deals, not deals where one team comes out a little ahead. ------------------------------------------------------------- The highlighted part is what I thought Veto's were to be based on. Not one teams ability to "get more for" a player. So if Thome was in the deal, it would have gotten vetoed because Thome is past his prime. Mike, Who is in the trade Committee? We need it done soon, cause I leave in less then 48 hrs, and I'd like it resolved before another Sim. It's only fair.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 24, 2007 19:39:05 GMT -5
to clarify my veto- This trade is a TOTAL ripoff. Teixiera is a year younger, and a ton better. Dealing a 1st baseman that would be a mediocre starter with AT BEST a 4th and 5th OF'er for a stud 1st baseman that hit 145 RBI's 40+ doubles 40+ HR's and is MORE than capable of playing decent-above average defense at 3rd base with Gold Glove defense at 1st base, IS RIDICULOUS. For anyone to think that this is being vetoed just because Oakland can get MORE, is not right in the head. This trade is being vetoed because it is 2 MAYBE bench players and a mediocre to below average starting 1st baseman(that is a year older then Tex) for an All-Star 1st/3rd baseman. I mean 40+ HR's 40+ doubles with 4 triples, 99 runs, 145 RBI's. The year before he had 36 doubles 45 HR's 102 runs and 143 RBI's. To even think that one of the BEST PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE, Mark Teixiera is worth 3 bench players is totally ludicris.
and to Hoagie- my remarks to you were jokes, hence the "your hoagie should be stripped" comment....
|
|
|
Post by Jose Canseco on May 25, 2007 1:51:49 GMT -5
going to give mike a hand here and assign the TC...mike if this is overstepping then please by all means reassign the TC after this post...simply trying to help out...
the TC will consist of the following...
CLE, BAL, TB, ATL with the tiebreaker being ANA....
both GM's please post within 24 hours your reasoning for the trade...
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on May 25, 2007 4:00:06 GMT -5
TC assigned, see CIN's post (I updated it since his post).
|
|
|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 25, 2007 6:20:56 GMT -5
My Reasoning...
I looked at the numbers: Teixeira: .290 AVG, 36-2B, 6-3B, 40-HR, 67BB Broadway: .284 AVG, 29-2B, 3-3B, 37-HR, 97BB
Teix has a higher average and better power numbers, but not by that much at all. It is VERY close.
Then I looked at performance.
Teixeira: Has a career .270 AVG (just like Richie Sexon). The closest he has came to the projected .290 AVG was .284. Every other season he has been BELOW .280. He has hit more then 40HR on 3 occassions...but 2B and 3B have been below editor #'s in all but 2yrs. And he is a career .986 Fielder (yes I take 3B into consideration b/c thats were I need him). He only played twice in a season, over 150 games at a position, which was 3B, and highest FLD was a .985.
Broadway: Is a career .286 hitter, but has never really had a chance to play regularly. FLD is career .989. The only time he played over 150 games at a position, his FLD was .993 in 160 games at 1B.
So as you can see, they a very similar players when you break it down. I gave him the 2 other guys he wanted. Broadway was a better choice then Thome, because he is younger (in his prime) and he has a great contract at a guarenteed 3yr, 3M. It will be close to Teixeiras, only if he performs at a higher level, so he saves money.
And...When Teixeira was playing, it was in a Hitters park. Broadway was in a Pitchers park his first 3 seasons, so his power #'s were low. But his AVG was still respectable and his BB were very good.
With that said, How is it bad for the league?
|
|
|
Post by Billy Beane on May 25, 2007 9:10:35 GMT -5
first of all I'd like to point out that my last "unfair" trade that got vetoed was Teixeira for Youkilis AND Giambi, and would ya look, Youk AND Giambi are both outperforming Teixeira.. THANKS FOR VETOING IT.
Mark Teixeira does NOT get on base at the level needed to play on my team. By my measure he's probably my 5th or 6th best player. Secondly, a .999 fielding is nice.. but it's first base, you don't need a stud defender there. Thirdly, everyone here says I can get more for him, but I"ve been shopping him since the moment I joined this league (because he's terrible) and the best deal I could have ever gotten Giambi AND Youkilis got vetoed (because it's not fair for me??!?!!!!) So basically, I don't really care if this gets vetoed or not, vetoes aren't used correctly in this league or any other league that I have found. People like to try and "teach" people how to trade or how much they think one player is worth through vetoes. I say if it's not a ridiculous trade where one person is purposely trying to stock another team, then who cares?
Broadway - .282/.382/.474 (79 HR in 1655 AB) [1 in every 20.9] Teixeira - .270/.340/.547 (222 HR in 3272 AB) [1 in ever 14.7]
now we will look at edits (since a majority of pitchers are right handed, we will look at vs R)
Krynzel - .293/.381/.387 (3 HR in 604 AB) [1 in every 201.3] Machado - .299/.375/.375 (2 HR in 600 AB) [1 in every 300]
Value [OBP x 3 + SLG = Value]
Broadway = 1703 Teixeira = 1641 Krynzel = 1530 Machado = 1500 Total = 4733 Total = 1641
(for the people that said that Krynzel and Machado would be 4th starters on all but 3 teams)
ANA avg starting OF Value= 1831(RF), 1746(CF), 1827(LF), 1801.3(AVG) ARI avg starting OF Value = 1506(RF), 1530(CF), 1381(LF), 1472.3(AVG) ATL avg starting OF Value= 1667(RF), 1628(CF), 1716(LF), 1670.3(AVG) BAL avg starting OF Value= 1458(RF), 1632(CF), 1702(LF), 1597.3(AVG) BOS avg starting OF Value= 1748(RF), 1632(CF), 1699(LF), 1693(AVG) CHC avg starting OF Value= 1563(RF), 1531(CF), 1564(LF), 1552(AVG) CHW avg starting OF Value= 1730(RF), 1484(CF), 1521(LF), 1578.3(AVG) CIN avg starting OF Value= 1817(RF), 1990(CF), 1740(LF), 1849(AVG) CLE avg starting OF Value= 1639(RF), 1737(CF), 1588(LF) 1654.3(AVG) COL avg starting OF Value= 1925(RF), 1891(CF), 1966(LF) 1927(AVG) DET avg starting OF Value= 1496(RF), 1492(CF), 1589(LF) 1525.3(AVG) FLA avg starting OF Value= 1908(RF), 1618(CF), 1598(LF) HOU avg starting OF Value= 1590(RF), 1815(CF), 1575(LF) KC avg starting OF Value = 1469(RF), 1737(CF), 1538(LF) LAD avg starting OF Value= 1483(RF), 1661(CF), 1603(LF) MIL avg starting OF Value= 1550(RF), 1559(CF), 1441(LF) MIN avg starting OF Value= 1501(RF), 1609(CF), 1678(LF) MON avg starting OF Value= 1708(RF), 1505(CF), 1543(LF) NYM avg starting OF Value= 1601(RF), 1760(CF), 1794(LF) NYY avg starting OF Value= 1773(RF), 1661(CF), 1937(LF) OAK avg starting OF Value= 1608(RF), 1429(CF), 1542(LF) PHI avg starting OF Value= 1658(RF), 1731(CF), 1587(LF) PIT avg starting OF Value= 1674(RF), 1607(CF), 1586(LF) SD avg starting OF Value = 1573(RF), 1511(CF), 1974(LF) SF avg starting OF Value = 1682(RF), 1483(CF), 1443(LF) SEA avg starting OF Value= 1890(RF), 1528(CF), 1704(LF) STL avg starting OF Value= 1628(RF), 1601(CF), 1555(LF) TB avg starting OF Value = 1807(RF), 1750(CF), 1698(LF) TEX avg starting OF Value= 1440(RF), 1682(CF), 1690(LF) TOR avg starting OF Value= 1586(RF), 1683(CF), 1710(LF)
So if we're going to compare either of the two "throw-ins" then let's find players who are withing 50 VALUE of them (1580 and below)
there are 31 STARTERS in the UCSL that have 1580 or below VALUE.
That is why this trade should go through.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 25, 2007 9:51:19 GMT -5
CLE and ATL? They are never on, unless it's a Sim night! Can't it be someone like TOR, PIT or SEA who are on alot? Nothing against them, but I was hoping it would be resolved tonightor EARLY tomorrow morning.
Sorry, I just noticed who was assigned, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Lamar on May 25, 2007 10:34:33 GMT -5
Ok here is my take on this:
Teixeira: In the past 4 yrs ('05-'08) as a starter his average numbers are: .274, .346, .560 (this is not counting this year) He averages 167 Hits in 162 Games a year with 36 2Bs, 4 3Bs, 43.5 Hrs, with 108 Runs, 138 RBIs, and a 2 K:BB ratio.
Broadway: In the past 3 yrs ('05-'07) as a starter his average numbers are: .283, .384, .483 (this is not counting this year, or last year when he is on the bench) He averages 141 Hits in 155 Games a year with 20 2Bs, 1.6 3Bs, 25 Hrs, with 76 Runs, 96 RBIs, and a 1.5 K:BB ratio.
Now granted they have similar stats in HHManager, however these stats above are what really count and prove what a player does year after year. And as for the other two thrown ins OAK has plenty of guys that are at their playing level and if not a lot better than them. Now yes they have had great numbers, BUT you have to look at where. They have been in AA for 4 yrs, and both will be subject to the Rule V Draft (if anyone wants them), Krynzel this yr and Machado next yr. I don't see them making it to the ML level in time to beat out the Rule V Draft, nor do I see them making any impact on his team. If the throw ins were better or at least would make an impact on his ML roster then I would allow this, but they are nothing special compared to the power numbers and run support that Teix puts up year after year.
Veto
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 25, 2007 12:13:45 GMT -5
seriously, with TB's veto and BAL's veto coming up, you really won't need CLE or ATL, cause then Mike will post his tie breaking veto and it will be done with, so don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 25, 2007 12:21:40 GMT -5
I consider this tampering!!! Please get a new committee together ASAP!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 25, 2007 12:25:02 GMT -5
haha lmao it isn't hard to realize it's a bad deal, and I was an original veto'er so LOL at u
|
|