Braves-Angels OFFICIAL

[Toy (Braves GM)]

Angels receive:
OF Steven Souza 0.6 million (3rd year)
SS Lucius Fox 0.4 million (minors)
OF Billy Mckinney 0.4 million (minors)



Braves receive:
Angels's 1st round pick (1.27 acquired from Toronto Blue Jays in David Ortiz trade )


Angels to confirm.

[Deleted]

Los Angeles Angels confirms this trade

( Thanks for another good trade, Toy. I extend to you best wishes and good luck in the season ahead. Glad to have you in the league)

[Oren (Diamondbacks GM)]

i dont get this deal at all, im going to have to veto.

Usually i wouldnt veto a deal, however , with braves being a new gm and still figuring out exactly the values in this league and with the deal being lopsided is enough to raise concern.

Souza, Mckinney and Fox are pieces that have a lot of upside and have been highly regarded in certain senses, and I think all could be worth a first rounder themselves, (mckinney has had a bad year but still has lots of upside )

[Toy (Braves GM)]

As a newbie, I appreciate your concern Oren.

I believe McKinney and Fox are second-third tier prospects; and I am trying to rebuild a leaner minor league squad in my image (these are prospects I inherited). Souza has some value but is expendable since I have Pence, Piscotty and Tilson.

As I try to rebuild the Braves franchise, I have bee trying to accumulate high picks (I now have three first rounders if this trade stands) and shed salary so I can get players I value.

I also thought Souza, McKinney and Fox had value but they have been on the trade block for a bit now...

Regardless,

[Greg (Reds GM)]

I'm in another league with Toy and can vouch for the fact that he's about as savvy as they come regarding prospect valuation and rebuilding a team for the long haul. I'm not concerned at all that Toy was taken advantage of in this trade.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

With Oren's veto, the review time for this trade is doubled to 48 hours. The trade will not become official until 10:01 am ET on Friday, January 27. 8 vetoes will cancel the trade. The teams are also welcome to re-work the trade if they feel so inclined.

I prefer this one for the Angels, but I don't think it's that bad.

David asks Toy if he'll trade Souza for picks. A first rounder for Souza alone is too much, so they agree on a couple other specs to even it out. Both specs seem like reasonable throw-ins to me (and I disagree that either would be a first round pick). The total package seems like a bit much, but not excessively so.

[Chris (Former Cubs GM)]

Honestly when I saw this trade I did think it was extremely one sided. Since I've researched I don't think it was as bad as I originally did. Still rather have the Angels side but I reserve the veto for trades that affect the leagues balance or when I think a new GM is being taken advantage of.

[Micah (White Sox GM)]

Well it's lopsided, but we've had worse to go through, including one quite recently that didn't get a mention because let's be honest, nothing here actually gets vetoed. I look at it two ways: I know I would have paid more for Souza, but I guess that's all in someone's opinion of how valuable that 1st rounder is. I also look at whether someone would be thrilled to pick Souza with that 27th pick in the draft, and generally I think most people would take an established mlb starter over a draft pick uncertainty at that point in the draft.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Jan 25, 2017 13:33:47 GMT -5 Micah (White Sox GM) said:

Well it's lopsided, but we've had worse to go through, including one quite recently that didn't get a mention because let's be honest, nothing here actually gets vetoed. I look at it two ways: I know I would have paid more for Souza, but I guess that's all in someone's opinion of how valuable that 1st rounder is. I also look at whether someone would be thrilled to pick Souza with that 27th pick in the draft, and generally I think most people would take an established mlb starter over a draft pick uncertainty at that point in the draft.

Reasonable analysis - alright, I think I agree. More lopsided than I was originally thinking. Still not a veto for me, though.

I like that vetoes rarely occur here, but I was thinking about it the other day... Is eight vetoes too many? Should we lower it to six? Five even? I feel like if a trade gets six vetoes it's probably not a trade that should be happening. I don't want there to be lots of vetoes, but I also don't want people to just decide it's not worth vetoing because there's no chance the trade would get overturned anyway.

[Chris (Former Cubs GM)]

I'm absolutely in favor of reducing the amount of vetoes required to veto a trade. I'm also not a fan of trades getting vetoed but some real bad trades do make it through often. Even if it does get reduced to 5 trades will still rarely get vetoed as I can't recall the last trade to get even 3

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Jan 25, 2017 14:25:43 GMT -5 Chris (Former Cubs GM) said:

I'm absolutely in favor of reducing the amount of vetoes required to veto a trade. I'm also not a fan of trades getting vetoed but some real bad trades do make it through often. Even if it does get reduced to 5 trades will still rarely get vetoed as I can't recall the last trade to get even 3

My trade with the Yankees in early 2015 got to three (the Hamels trade).

In 2013 there was a trade that made it to six that still ended up going through (Rockies - Diamondbacks, lots of draft picks for Frieri).

My worry about reducing it to five is that if people do in fact get a bit more veto-happy, five is pretty easily reachable. I don't want to do anything too extreme right now. But let's put it to a vote. I'll make a new post.

[Deleted]

I am new here, but what do you all use to evaluate prospects? I always research their actual stats and I look at John Sickels web site. He had Fox liked under others, so a C+ and he has McKinney as just a C prospect.
I would value the pick at about a B+ at best.

SO
B+

For
C+, Fox, who is really young and has had good things written about him.
C, McKinney, was a top prospect that has fallen hard.
Souza, who was a B+.

So , I would look at them like this and with being able to pick who you want from the draft, that makes this seem ok.

Just my 2 cents, but I am new here.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Jan 25, 2017 14:56:15 GMT -5 @oaklandgm said:

I am new here, but what do you all use to evaluate prospects? I always research their actual stats and I look at John Sickels web site. He had Fox liked under others, so a C+ and he has McKinney as just a C prospect.
I would value the pick at about a B+ at best.

SO
B+

For
C+, Fox, who is really young and has had good things written about him.
C, McKinney, was a top prospect that has fallen hard.
Souza, who was a B+.

So , I would look at them like this and with being able to pick who you want from the draft, that makes this seem ok.

Just my 2 cents, but I am new here.

Sickels was definitely the consensus ranking around here up until the past couple years. He's still my go-to, but I think a bunch of people have moved toward other sources. The best approach is probably an aggregate. I think a bunch of people use mlb.com. Some use Fangraphs and Baseball America. I'd actually be curious to know what else people use as well.

[Kevin (Rangers GM)]

I personal think the trade is all right every gm values prospects and players on there own scale. I use MLB.COM and Fangraphs and some times espn to value prospects and players. That being said Prospects can be hit or misses some times to. Ie Zack Lee comes to mind being an Dodgers fan.

[Oren (Diamondbacks GM)]

Im going to retract my veto, ive been convinced otherwise and dont think this is as lopsided as before/someone taking advantage of a new gm not knowing values in the league yet...