|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jan 12, 2011 13:54:31 GMT -5
Blue Jays Receive:
3B Casey Mcgehee (3rd year)
RP Zack Braddock (2nd year)
3B Mat Gamel (1st year)
Brewers receive:
3B Jose Bautista (6th year)
C Carlos Perez (1st year)
Blue Jays 2012 1st round pick
|
|
|
|
Post by latvab16 on Jan 12, 2011 13:57:10 GMT -5
Deal
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Jan 12, 2011 13:58:54 GMT -5
Following the vetoed trade (im not veoting this one either) but really? - this is basically 1 year of bautista and a draft pick for three young good players - the cather is stuck behind JP acianda (spelling error) - I can see why Nats would be pissed off.
Can you guys explain this deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jan 12, 2011 14:05:54 GMT -5
Ok I can explain it. This deal is 1 year of the reigning major league home run leader, the blue jays #5 prospect according to jon sickels (Carlos perez), and a first round pick (which is essentially equivalent to a top 5 prospect on an average team) for a young 3B, a minor league player who has had limited success in the majors and has no starting position on the major league roster, and a non-closer relief pitcher. The major difference between this deal and the nats-cardinals deal is that I am not crippling the brewers long-term ability to compete by taking away his best prospects and a good young player. In this deal the brewers is gaining two good prospects in addition to the 1-year player, as opposed to the nationals trading a 1 year player for a good young player and 2 top prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Jan 12, 2011 14:07:32 GMT -5
Thank you for the response!
|
|
|
|
Post by latvab16 on Jan 12, 2011 14:11:14 GMT -5
Im not going by who he is stuck behind because from what I saw perez is highly regarded even over arencibia. Im sure they will move him. Braddock is a reliever for MLB. and Mcgehee is an above average 3b for tops 3 yrs for him. Bautista can put up better numbers for this one yr, and i can get a decent player with a first rounder for the future, and Gamel really hasnt proven much at this level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Jan 12, 2011 14:12:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the response!
|
|
angels
Prospect
GM Savvy
Posts: 787
|
Post by angels on Jan 12, 2011 14:13:10 GMT -5
Ive been thinking about this for a little while, Broddock is a good reliever, which would equal Carlos Perez based on his location in the prospect list. Gamel is equal to the 1st round pick. Mcgehee has four years left on his contract vs Bautista's one year left. Opinions aside I am also curious what people have to say about this trade. Im going to veto for now and think a discussion should occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by franchise22 on Jan 12, 2011 14:14:13 GMT -5
I'm just wondering why John Sickels rankings are always used? Does Baseball Prospectus or Baseball America not carry the same weight? I also veto and would like to hear a discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by latvab16 on Jan 12, 2011 14:17:45 GMT -5
Even for the people that are vetoing, to me you guys arent giving a strong enough argument on why you are vetoing. The problem is in the long run im paying 2 mil for bautista and he will be paying 4.5 mil for mcgehee and it leaves me open so Im not locked into a to me average 3rd baseman for longer then this yr
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jan 12, 2011 14:18:09 GMT -5
I personally like Sickels because he tends to be very thorough and identify more than 10 top prospects per team (BA only does 10), plus he gives letter grades which helps compare prospects across teams which BA really doesn't do. In case you were curious, Perez is the #6 prospect on the Jays according to baseball america.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jan 12, 2011 14:25:37 GMT -5
The official rules state "Vetoes should only be used in the most extreme situations, when you think that there may be collusion or if the trade significantly upsets the competitive balance of the league or cripples a team both now and in the future. If the veto system is abused or gets out of hand, it will be changed."
Therefore I'd like to ask the vetoing gms to state why this deal upsets the competitive balance of the league. Vetoing for the sake of hearing a discussion is not a valid reason for vetoing per the rules. When I vetoed the other deal I demonstrated why I believed the deal threw off the competitive balance of the league, so I'll ask that you both do the same in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by latvab16 on Jan 12, 2011 14:25:45 GMT -5
What if the first round pick turned out to be harper, or someone taken later like a lincecum would the deal be bad then prob not. Gamel to me isnt equivalent to the draft pickthe difference betweengamel and the pick is the difference between bautista and mcgehee
|
|
angels
Prospect
GM Savvy
Posts: 787
|
Post by angels on Jan 12, 2011 14:27:28 GMT -5
Withdraw Veto
|
|
|
|
Post by dbacksgm on Jan 12, 2011 14:31:30 GMT -5
"Vetoes should only be used in the most extreme situations, when you think that there may be collusion or if the trade significantly upsets the competitive balance of the league
exactly why this trade shouldn't be vetoed
|
|
