|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 25, 2007 12:27:05 GMT -5
THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!! I QUIT!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Doug Melvin on May 25, 2007 12:30:32 GMT -5
Sorry. Nobody has threatened that in a while (CIN), so I thought it'd be fun. I AM KIDDING!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cal Ripken Jr. on May 25, 2007 12:48:59 GMT -5
I'll consider this without the throw-ins, because Krynzel is Rule V eligible right now and there's nothing stopping you from picking him up there instead. He's 26 and in AA, so his so-called "good numbers" are pretty much voided. He's too old to have much of a future in ML if he hasn't even proven himself against AAA pitchers yet. His slugging is horrible for an OF, he doesn't have a good BA, and his high walk numbers are basically nulled out by his high K numbers. The fielding percentage isn't too much of a concern because that only comes out to about 10 errors, but he's not worth anything to 90% of the teams in this league.
As for the Machado, he's much of the same without being Rule V eligible this year. Decent average, decent OBP, horrible slugging. He gets too few doubles, no home runs, and only gets on base as much as the next guy. Both players are still in AA at higher ages, so MIL, who's one of the better managers in the league, obviously discounts their value completely and doesn't see any future for them on his team. Neither of these two players will amount to anything more than journeyman if they don't get stuck on FA for life.
It basically becomes a trade of Broadway vs. Teixeira. Mark's been in a slump all season but he still has the pace of 40 HR with a good SLG. Broadway has no hopes of touching Mark's power numbers, and Teixeira is one of the more consistent HR hitters in the league. He's only 27 so he still has 6-8 very good years ahead of him where he might end up with another 50 HR season or two. Broadway has potential to get similar power numbers, but potential isn't performance. If Teixeira gets out of the contact slump he's been in, he could be a career .275 avg, .550 slg, 500 HR club player. Broadway won't be anywhere close.
Oakland, why is OBP 3x as important as SLG in your value? Depending on the team format, total bases tend to matter slightly more than times on base unless you have a really deep high OBP team, which you honestly don't. In the end, most GM's in real life and here believe that a high OBP is just as good as a high SLG.
And a good fielding % does matter for 1B. If you have a 1B who has a .980 fielding %, that's about 25 errors a season. If they're the ones making errors, your team's defense can be in trouble because they're used in a lot more plays in a game than any other defender.
Veto
|
|
|
Post by Billy Beane on May 25, 2007 15:56:40 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 you're stupid if you think this is a bad deal.. broadway is better than teixeira PLUS i get two STARTER QUALITY OFs sorry if you think Tex is sexy.. but he sucks (in this game)
|
|
|
Post by Billy Beane on May 25, 2007 15:58:43 GMT -5
you guys are stupid.
that's all i have to say
you should have let me just get Youkilis and Giambi when I could have..
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 25, 2007 16:39:47 GMT -5
your starter quality OF'ers shouldn't see the ML's ever, you might consider an OF'er with a .966 fielding% a starting quality OF'er but again go ahead and call ME stupid. at least Machado might start as a defensive sub in RF if your CF'er has 10 OF range, but I mean that bat is so amazing he should start everywhere. Also for you to value OBP 3X as much as SLG%(which is more important for generating runs then OBP) is ridiculous, but you call ME stupid.
NOW you can put up any kind of formula you want, you can call me stupid, but when it comes down to it, you just traded a guy that has 100 runs and 140+ RBI's the last 2 straight years, for a career bench 1st baseman and 2 OF'ers that are 25 and 26 and have never seen AAA. Considering Machado has done amazing in AA for 3 straight years, but has now started declining his numbers there, showing you he is now ruined, even though he wasn't that good in the first place. the other guy is just as worthless.
You can call me an idiot as much as you want, you can value OBP as much as you want, but when it comes down to it you are trading an All Star player for a decent bench player and 2 shit spects that haven't made it out of AA. So continue to call me stupid, and gawk at my amazing team.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 25, 2007 16:40:58 GMT -5
and Teixiera sucking in this game. I wish I could suck enough to hit 40+ HR's 40+ doubles 100+ runs, 140+ RBI's for 2 straight seasons. Man would THAT suck.
|
|
|
Post by Jose Canseco on May 25, 2007 17:17:06 GMT -5
COL and OAK please take this to trash talk...you have just made this thread longer then needed...
thanks
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 25, 2007 17:19:03 GMT -5
not a problem sir Cin
|
|
|
Post by Dirk Nowitzki on May 25, 2007 23:28:41 GMT -5
Atlanta - Sustain Veto
This is just a terrible deal for Oakland. Krynzel can be had for free in about 48 hours. Plus, his bat isn't all that great. He is a classic AAAA guy, and a fringy one at that. The same can basically be said for Machado, except he is a year away from being Rule 5 eligble. Those two players are irrelevant to any discussion on the trade because they just aren't good.
The trade comes down to Teixeira versus Broadway. Tampa Bay and Baltimore laid out the reasons to why Teixeira is better than Broadway, and I agree with what they said. No reason to beat a dead horse on the subject.
Finally, Mil pointed to the Rules on the proper reason for a veto, basically claiming that the veto's were improper because, in his opinion, the trade doesn't do more harm to the league than good. The problem is that is such an subjective standard that more than likely there are thirty different standards to decide what constitutes "more harm to the league than good." Further, the final sentence in the rule says that "[t]he committee should only overturn bad deals..." thusly rejecting any "more harm than good" standard as being the only applicable standard for vetoing a trade. The trade at hand is a bad deal.
Atl - sustain veto
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rizzo on May 25, 2007 23:40:12 GMT -5
the vote is 3-0, this has officially been vetoed...
no more posts in this thread!
|
|