|
|
Post by holaadios123 on Jan 28, 2011 22:49:09 GMT -5
DBACKS GET: Denard span 1$(4), and John Danks 5$(but angles pays 4$ for 2 years, and 2012)
Angles Get: Matt Holiday 17$(6 years left)
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 22:52:04 GMT -5
Angels accept this trade, because although I take on a lot of cap, my roster is filled now except for my bench and very minor stuff, I add an elite OF which I was planning to go after in FA but got here, although I give up a great pitcher in Danks and a solid, cheap OF in Span I needed to add another big bat to my lineup and plus I recently acquired Buerhle who I think will cover a little for the loss of Danks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick(Cubs) on Jan 28, 2011 22:56:55 GMT -5
Veto. Holiday is a top 20 player while span is good, but no holiday. danks is an above average SP at best. I know DBacks is trying to cut cap but that shouldnt mean downgrading this much.
|
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 28, 2011 22:58:19 GMT -5
I didn't think I'd see the day where I'd veto a trade. Here it is. Veto, and it's not even close IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:04:47 GMT -5
Danks will develop into an ace
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Jan 28, 2011 23:08:40 GMT -5
Veto. And not in the AL he won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 28, 2011 23:13:44 GMT -5
Danks will develop into an ace Says the man trading him |
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 28, 2011 23:32:40 GMT -5
says the one who cares more about contract years than the base of a deal and considers Seth Smith a great player Before I get into the "base" of the deal I check the accuracy. Just doing my job as a member of our beloved TC. If not trading Smith for Pineiro means I think he's a great player in your eyes then so be it. That's not relevant. The years and salaries are very much so. Bryan/Pirates. |
|
|
|
Post by cmill78 on Jan 28, 2011 23:33:46 GMT -5
No reason to take shots. This deal isn't very good. Danks has been consistent but his consistency is slightly above average. Span is okay. Holliday is far too god a talent to only give up to slightly above average player.
Veto
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:35:00 GMT -5
we have come to a more fair deal
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:42:05 GMT -5
@pirates
y do u care if I'm trading a 2011 or 2012 pick I will clarify that with White Sox and Yanks in the future but that shouldnt judge your opinion on a deal
|
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 28, 2011 23:46:27 GMT -5
@pirates y do u care if I'm trading a 2011 or 2012 pick I will clarify that with White Sox and Yanks in the future but that shouldnt judge your opinion on a deal You're asking me why I should care about the details of a trade? |
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:47:53 GMT -5
no im saying a 2011/2012 pick shouldn't uphold your vote
|
|
|
|
Post by cmill78 on Jan 28, 2011 23:49:46 GMT -5
It should if you don't own one or the other. You can't trade something you don't have.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:50:18 GMT -5
i agree with you on that but I had previously told him the picks were double checked by all three teams
|
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 28, 2011 23:57:26 GMT -5
no im saying a 2011/2012 pick shouldn't uphold your vote Nor should it cause this much back and forth. I'm just doing what I think everyone on the TC should do, inspect all aspects of a trade. Years, salaries, position eligibility, whether a team actually has what's been offered and accepted. It's for your own good really. It's an easy fix. |
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 28, 2011 23:58:11 GMT -5
ok sorry for the remarks I made, could you please vote on the revisited version
|
|
