Post ONLY trades that are effective AFTER the July 31 deadline... all trades effective now go in the other thread. Three way trade: Braves trade: Earl Cheng Tim Spooneybarger Skip Monge Dodgers trade: Henry Ahrens Onan Masoaka Aces trade: Otis Coghlan Rufino Iler Braves receive: Otis Coghlan Onan Masoaka Dodgers receive: Earl Cheng Tim Spooneybarger Skip Monge Rufino Iler Aces receive: Henry Ahrens Braves agree.
Aces trade: 1B Bobby Lao Mariners trade: 3B Lou Martinez The Aces are getting their confirm on as we speak.
Cincinnati Trades: 2B Crazy Stover CF Lefty Stover Mariners Trade: RF Johnny Arena 3B Miguel Villilo LF Grady Sizemore C Kevin Goodwin CL Taylor Perez 2B Jeremy Hunley 3B Queenie Flickinger SP Sam Villicana $10 million dollars cash Welcome STOVERS! Goodbye "Hitman", Miguel and you other prospects
Braves trade: Lew Penley Brad Penny Aces trade: Josh Girdley Joe Tarpley Bruce Nagel Castor can't tell me I have that Girdley punk on my team anymore. I'll miss that jerk... Anyway, Aces confirm.
That first trade might be cancelled. I want dbc to email me, informing me why in god's name he'd actually consent to that. I wouldn't veto this if he were still in Anaheim... but I don't like hte idea of letting someone move, then having them initiate highly questionable trades first thing.
To clarify on why this trade is so questionable for LA LA is giving up an AGB player to get a GFG player with inferior defense. In compensation for his superior 3b player, he gets 1 pretty good middle reliever 2 reliever prospects who I can't ever see becoming viable major leaguers of any value. It's easy to acquire a single pretty good middle reliever. They're not quite a dime a dozen... but any free agency offers many players of similar caliber of Masoaka. I can't see any reason that such a player and 2 nearly-valueless players would constitute the difference between Ahrens and Cheng.
Well, Spooneybarger is younger and much cheaper than Masoaka. Relievers go for about 6 mil each in free agency. If you want to veto the trade then I guess that's fine, but you should've let us know much earlier. I don't think it's fair to me, Zac, or dbc, because since then we've constructed teams for next year with the acquisitions made in that trade. If you veto this trade, Zac and myself should have the option to turn down any trades after that trade, since we did so assuming we would have the players from the original deal on next year's team. In fact, you even let me resign Masoaka a few days ago (when he was on dbc's team), and never even mentioned that you didn't like the trade. I think vetoing trades is a lousy idea anyway, since it takes away power from individual owners. That doesn't happen in real life. I could understand the situation if it were a new GM, but this is a GM of almost 10 seasons. At some point, you need to let us take care of our own teams.
The Cat: I probably won't veto it. And I didn't mention this earlier because I just read it for the first time. I also mentioned I wouldn't have thought about vetoing it if dbc hadn't just moved. DBC moved for two reasons: A. Anaheim is small-market. B. He'd made some highly questionable moves that made his position nearly untenable. I mostly allowed him to move under the B circumstance because I thought he'd learned his lesson. Now, I'm not so sure he has.
Cat: I've decided you're right. While I can't see how this deal is fair, at the same time... it's not so bad as to suggest collusion or anything. And that (and protecting new members) should be the only kind of deals I veto. It'll go through. Sorry for my interruption... just was surprised how one-sided it appeared to me. It's odd. Once, i wouldn't have considered a deal like this bad. But most deals now have become so damned fair to everyone, that even deals that aren't terrible now appear strange.
