Trade Committee

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

for 6 years I have been an advocate for No trade committee. Will propose an alternative once again to the Trade Committee format.

While on the trade committee I was involved in a veto that kept the Rangers from getting Miguel Cabrera for Eric Hosmer. Rangers ended up keeping Hosmer and went on to win the League Championship. Hosmer was the much better value and proved it and we just saw Triple Crown, MVP player as the better player, based on his PAST numbers, which he didn't come close to replicating. We were wrong to veto that deal, actual results that have happened since proved we were wrong to veto it. You can look through the trade history and put actual numbers to all trades and see how they panned out in reality.

There is a rule currently that states if 10 non-veto committee members veto a deal, it can be vetoed. If it is bumped up to 15 or (50 percent of the teams) want a deal veto it happens. A "veto committee" of any 15 owners at any time. Owners have 72 hrs to send a veto in, if not it passes and trade decisions are compeleted in 72 hrs, consistently, every time.This would allow more view points and more accuracy in veto/approvals.

Have to keep trying, as more facts/statistics about trade results as they build up to show others its effectiveness.

Again, not worried about it being shot down with any comments, Andy Dufrane wrote letters after letters but finally got a library, lol.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Example veto

Jan 25, 2013 at 7:40pm

Milwaukee Brewers trade:

SP - Kris Medlen - ATL - (13) 2.6M, (14) PROT
SP - Gaby Hernandez - KC - MiLB - 400K

for

SP - Tyler Thornburg - MIL - MiLB - 1.5M
SP - Luis Heredia - PIT - MiLB - 400K
MI - Ryan Gennett - MIL - MiLB - 1.11M
OF - Slade Heathcott - NYY - MiLB - 400K

The Brewers are giving up an ace-type pitcher to help re-stock a farm system in need of talent. Noone in this deal grades out as high as Medlen, but the overall quality return make this a good deal for me.
Angels will confirm.

Angels confirm
well, I got my front end starting pitcher but I had to give up some great core prospects...this is one of those trades that could be a great deal for one or both of us. I have Medlen in another league and had him for 3 years. I love the guy, but I really like thornburg...but he is a brewer along with scooter gennett...how can the brewers team not like getting the brewers top prospects.

******Very fair for both in actual results, trade committee wanted more

2nd veto example

SP - Kris Medlen - ATL - (13) 2.6M, (14) PROT
SP - Gaby Hernandez - KC - MiLB - 400K

for

SP - Tyler Thornburg - MIL - MiLB - 1.5M
SP - Luis Heredia - PIT - MiLB - 500K
MI - Ryan Gennett - MIL - MiLB - 1.11M
OF - Slade Heathcott - NYY - MiLB - 500K
C - Greg Bird - MiLB - 510k

Adding a young catching prospect to complete this trade, Bird hit very well in his first minor league season to prove that he has the bat to potentially grow.

I still don't believe Medlen is an ace, the numbers, his draft position, MLB scouts have never confirmed that he is a MLB ace in his entire career. I am not willing to part with much more for a prospect ace who has never started more than 15 games in 3 years in the majors, when I have included a prospect ace in Herreda, a very solid SS prospect and a very highly regarded Thornburg who could be a #1 or a #5 but will definately be a major league pitcher.
brewers to confirm.

Brewers confirm.

I still think Medlen doesn't have enough of a track record to justify ace status. Never have believed in him. 1/2 season doesn't make a career.
While none of these players has fast-track-to-superstar written on them, they all should be viable big leaguers with the potential for much greater. Considering the shape of my roster, this is what I need. 1 or 2 players isn't going to do it.

****Now getting very Brewers heavy, trade committee thought Angels heavy, actual results - Brewers heavy.

trade approval

CI - Matt Carpenter - STL - 13: $0.5M (1/5)
SP - Tyler Thornburg - MIL - MiLB - 1.5M
MI - Ryan "Scooter" Gennett - MIL - MiLB - 1.11M
OF - Slade Heathcott - NYY - MiLB - 500K

for

SP - Kris Medlen - ATL - 13; $2.6m (4/5)
SP - Gaby Hernandez - KC - MiLB - 500K

*****not much said, why? pissed the trade committee has made this a very lopsided deal for the Brewers. Results - heavily favored the Brewers. Angels nailed all 3 assesments.

example veto

Angels trade

Luis Heredia 13; $500k (0/5) #46 top 100
Ravel Santana 13; $1.2m (0/5)

to the Brewers for

Duane Below 13; $800k

nothing, brewers to confirm

Brewers confirm. I just really wanted Heredia. I add another talented young arm to a minor league that is starting to look respectable.
While Below will certainly be missed with the way RP's were snatched up in the free agency period, I am more than willing to risk it.
Good luck to the Angels and thanks for easy negotiations to get one of the players I really wanted.

***** results Below was better than both.

Angels trade - approval

Luis Heredia 13; $500k (0/5) #42/100

to the Brewers for

Duane Below 13; $800k

My reasoning that, well, now I think I am underpaying for Below, but happy to do so, don't know if the Brewers will be, but should since he won the Medlen trade after the rework.


Heredia is 18 years old and 5 to 8 years away from getting any significant MLB stats if he actual gets significant MLB stats...

Below is currently a major leaguer who will be fine in ERA, Holds and maybe whip and still learning the majors at 26 years old. OH yeah, and the bonus of being a LEFTY reliever, think Darren Oliver can tell you about that.

*****results - a lose-lose trade. Nailed why I thought a top 100 guy would fail, his k/w ratio SUCKED but forgot to look at Below's k/w ratio. both were destined to fail. Trading Heredia with that high of value for a good player would have been a crime. Trade Committee was trying to force me to get more value for Heredia, it would have screwed a team over.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I understand your argument. At its core though, we value the trade panel to protect league integrity. It isn't going to be perfect, but a system without a check has proven to be far more problematic for a league of this type; the best, most active teams continue to get better while the weak get even weaker, leave, and become vacant. Imagine a league of 3-5 Red Sox rosters (looks like we finally found a keeper!) - I've been in some that have gone that way and fold shortly thereafter. I'm happy that everyone has been able to make this league strong for over eight years now. With that said, we are still working on having a fully committed, active, and competitive 30 team league. I hope we can get to a point where there is no turnover in the offseason. We're not there yet.

Of course, as you provide, a veto isn't necessarily a permanent block on a trade between two teams. We have plenty of examples where teams have been able to come to new terms after consult with trade panel members as to why their deal was vetoed. Often, teams have been able to articulate their rationale for making a move and have been provided the benefit of the doubt on a subsequent agreement. This system has worked well for us and I believe it is the best way to continue to protect against the downside discussed above while still enabling teams room to make the deals they want to make, provided that each side demonstrates they have appropriately considered the pros and cons for their teams.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I question the assumption that the statistics back up your proposal. In any event, I at least appreciate your recommendation to how you see the league improving.

Going off my post above, however, I don't believe requiring GMs to each be proactive is effective at managing the risks. By being voted in to the trade panel, teams adopt a responsibility to consistently check the board and engage in debate. They also are elected by their peers and their judgment is considered strong to not only be able to evaluate the merits of the trade and the concern for the league, but also to limit their personal biases. The discussions in the trade panel are consistently strong and well-thought out. I believe dedicating a group of GMs voted on by the rest of the league to this task is a better solution than requiring all GMs to vote on trades. Inactivity (day to day life in the middle of the year can get in the way) and biases may threaten the system. Further, a public debate on the merits of a trade has often caused more friction and discord among members in other circumstances. Thus, the trade panel as currently constructed appears to me to be the best approach.

I do think Donavan's suggestion of voting in 7 members, with the first 5 votes counting, has some merit to expedite the review process.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

I agree with a lot of what Preston said. I'm generally against vetos except in extreme cases, but do feel they really are vital in dynasty leagues such as this one. With no vetoes a team can easily come in, trash a team for years, make them completely unmarketable to be filled by good owners, and just lead to bad league equality and less serious owners taking over the teams. You're idea of a league vote is interesting, but both of Preston's points are important. If a trade is just posted, it would be extremely easy to just pass by, be on vacation and have no cover, assume 15 others will do due diligence and look at it, etc. I also agree it would be much easier to be biased when being 1 of 28 votes on a trade. Borderline unacceptable trade gets posted near the deadline with 6 teams competitive teams voting sounds like a good way to introduce unrecognized bias into the equation. Also, you constantly pick out the same deals. Yes, there will be some deals that don't work out. It's still an extremely small % of total trades and total vetoed trades. Picking out the extreme examples will also make any opinion look like the valid one, the deals you pick out are extreme outliers and half a dozen of hundreds upon hundreds of trades.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Nov 6, 2017 12:36:18 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

I understand your argument. At its core though, we value the trade panel to protect league integrity. It isn't going to be perfect, but a system without a check has proven to be far more problematic for a league of this type; the best, most active teams continue to get better while the weak get even weaker, leave, and become vacant. Imagine a league of 3-5 Red Sox rosters (looks like we finally found a keeper!) - I've been in some that have gone that way and fold shortly thereafter. I'm happy that everyone has been able to make this league strong for over eight years now. With that said, we are still working on having a fully committed, active, and competitive 30 team league. I hope we can get to a point where there is no turnover in the offseason. We're not there yet.

Of course, as you provide, a veto isn't necessarily a permanent block on a trade between two teams. We have plenty of examples where teams have been able to come to new terms after consult with trade panel members as to why their deal was vetoed. Often, teams have been able to articulate their rationale for making a move and have been provided the benefit of the doubt on a subsequent agreement. This system has worked well for us and I believe it is the best way to continue to protect against the downside discussed above while still enabling teams room to make the deals they want to make, provided that each side demonstrates they have appropriately considered the pros and cons for their teams.

I completely understand your reasoning, but the results say something different.

The current condition of the Red Sox team, Yankees team, Dodgers team was created WITH A TRADE COMMITTEE in process. These 3 teams were better 4 years ago. The trade committee did nothing to prevent this and actually allowed it. Your theory of the trade committee is just wrong.

Teams stealing the young protectable MLB with all star stats ,while under protection, are the reason, not teams trading their High value big names, with big contracts or ones you have to use your tags up on.

after the Bellinger trade was approved, almost every trade should be approved. The value/stats ratio is just SICK in that deal. I didn't see the trade committee protect the Mariners team giving up one of the best value/stats guys for the next 5 seasons. Mariners will be a weaker team for the next 5 years and will not get the value/stats with the return he got. The trade committee allowed a team to get significantly weaker. BUT it was His choice and he was allowed to make it. That is the way it should be for every team.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Just like the veto's 6 years ago and seeing their results. In another 6 years, this trade veto will show how terrible the idea of a trade committee is using actual results. As well as how it works against fair competition. You can't have competitors deciding who is on their oppositions, under the premise of "its what's best for the league". There was 3 approved deals that had more impact, pro and con for the teams involved, that were approved.

Angels trade

RP - Nick Burdi, AAA (Min) 17;$0.5 (0/5) MIN #10, Top 100 before TJ (will be a closer or 8th)
SP - Brusdar Graterol Rk (MIN) 18;$1.1m (0/5) MIN#12, (min 8th inn or closer, should get a shot to be a #3 sp)
RP - Paul Sewald (NYM) 18;$0.535m (1/5) in MLB (will be a 7th inn guy)
MI - Delvin Perez, Rk (STL) 18;$0.5m (0/5) STL#7, top 100 (will be ss for STL for 6 years)
CI- Samir Duenez, AA (KCR)18;$0.6m (0/5)KC#13 (will get min 4 yrs part time 2 yr full time)

Yankees trade

SP - Madison Bumgarner (SFG) franchise tag (1 yr;$12m) potentially (1 yr;$12m) if I tag him '19
(will be value for 1 season, have to use a tag the following 2 seasons)

I haven't had any suggestions made again so I am going with my own.

Addition of Burdi/graterol over gamel/enns, is an upgrade with potentially 4 more years of protection involved.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Nov 7, 2017 14:55:24 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

I haven't had any suggestions made again so I am going with my own.

Have you reached out to the trade committee members to get their thoughts? That is on you to initiate, not them.

Also, if you would like my views on the players involved here, I am willing to provide them in public or private, whichever you may prefer.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Nov 7, 2017 15:01:28 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

Nov 7, 2017 14:55:24 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

I haven't had any suggestions made again so I am going with my own.

Have you reached out to the trade committee members to get their thoughts? That is on you to initiate, not them.

Also, if you would like my views on the players involved here, I am willing to provide them in public or private, whichever you may prefer.

I asked them exactly for suggestions after first veto, they wanted to player assess the vetoed deal instead of give suggestions.

2nd time, I asked them exactly for suggestions again, got zero response.

Sure, I would love to here your assessment of this trade offer, I used the Cody Bellinger deal as reference just to make sure I would be putting a fair deal out there.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I love the passion shown in this league, its why this league doesn't just survive, but thrives.

So many of the 30 GM's have contributed to discussions like this thread over the time, and all of them have added something to this league through both the opinions that they provide, and the passion they exhibit for the league.

My opinion it that the trade committee works fine, I have been in other leagues that require a certain number of teams to veto a deal, otherwise it passes. That system requires all owners to view the proposed trade within a time frame, and offer their opinion (PASS or Veto). The trade committee system ensures that a selected panel weighs up each trade, it doesn't make trades easier to pass in the off-season when less GM's may log-in daily.

Because both systems rely on the opinions of humans, some bad trades (in hindsight) will be approved, and some fair deals (in hindsight) will get vetoed, but if we all saw the value of players evenly, we wouldn't trade at all.

Again great discussions, but trade committee for mine.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Hollar, he did message us numerous times trying to work things out. I definitely could have chimed in more but I think we made our stance pretty clear. Mike I sent you another PM with my thought line.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

You made the stance clear on the 1st veto, with no suggest on how to make the rework work.

nothing on the 2nd and 3rd other than Yankees are not giving up Madison for anything. Reworks were pointless, minds were closed.

6 yrs ago at least the Committee made "suggestions" on how to make it work.. Suggestions tend to not work because they don't care if they work or not.. reality the members care about their own team over other teams involved in a trade that doesn't involve them. That's just life.


Its been 6 years since I ranted about this but the same holds true.

You can't rebuild a competitive team if the competition blocks trades to make you competitive.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

As I stated to you in a PM, Mike, I view the majority of the players in this trade as non-tender candidates. I don't think I'm alone here. Why would this trade happening improve the Yankees, short of them having a crystal ball?

I have serious doubts the members of the trade panel have impure motives.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

Nov 7, 2017 15:06:21 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

I used the Cody Bellinger deal as reference just to make sure I would be putting a fair deal out there.

Let's get one thing clear - I paid a hefty price for Bellinger, especially compared to what you offered for Bumgarner. And before you make a comment, I was the only one to NOT veto you this last time. I abstained, but did not veto.

Soto is rapidly climbing the prospect lists this offseason. Razzball puts him #24 in all of baseball. Fangraphs has him at 49, so a bit lower, but still top 50 in all of baseball. Has Yadier Alvarez as #54, Abreu at #69, and I know you're a Royals homer, but Tellez was a better 1B prospect than Duenez EVER has been - making quite a few top-100 lists last year (let's compare: Duenez OPS'd .706 as a 21-year old at AA last year. Same age, same level, Tellez had an OPS of .917 two years ago).

Would you have traded Bellinger for that? Maybe not, but don't keep dragging me through the mud. Alvarez was a top 20 prospect in 2016 many places, Soto was one of THE breakout minor league bats this year, and Abreu is no chump change either. Tellez was a top-100 until this season and Dustin May is a lottery ticket with huge upside. I'd love to see your rational comparison to this deal.

Here's the difference: I offered GOOD prospects. You're trying to sell Burdi as a future closer - guy JUST had TJ surgery. Value is way down. Trying to make Delvin Perez out to still be a top-100 prospect. On whose list? No one's I've seen posted so far. Graterol and Duenez aren't about to make any lists either. Sewald is a holds guy who doesn't appear likely to ever be THE answer at closer. So, please, I'm really anticipating how you're basing this trade for one of the top 10 pitchers in baseball to the one I made for Bellinger.

[Former Dodgers GM (Andrew)]

I have no dog in this fight but it's fairly clear to me that was an underwhelming offer. In your reasoning for your trade you said that Burdi was a top 100 prospect before his TJ but on what list? MLB.com for example hasn't had him on their end of season list in the last three years. They actually had him closer to 30 than to 10 on the 2017 mid season twins top 30 prospects update so not sure why you tried to sell him as a top 100 prospect. Graterol is an intriguing prospect but he's also a good 4-5 years away. Perez was very underwhelming this season but it's too early to write him off. I'm not on the TC and I had no say in this deal but the last three deals have been pretty much the same with a few players switched around here and there. If you want to get a Madbum deal done I think the best course of action might be to offer quality over quantity. As for the Bellinger deal that Dan made I believe it was fair value for him and he gave up some good assets. However if you're talking about the other Bellinger deal then you might have a case but even then hindsight is 20/20 and nobody can truly predict the future.

[Royals GM (Mac - Retired)]

Sorry but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.
This was my trade for Chris Sale
KC Royals trade
Eloy Jimenez $500k (0/5)
Tyler Glasnow $800k (0/5)
Wellington Castillo $13.1m (17)

LA Dodgers trade
Chris Sale $12.0m

I think this was an even trade. Eloy Jimenez is most likely going to turn out to be the #1 prospect in baseball in 2018. Glasnow just needs to find control and with will be very good. Castillo was only there for salary cap but with his offense could have been very good trade value had the dodgers chosen to trade him. At the end of the 2016 year, Sale was ranked 8 and Bumgarner was ranked 11. My trade was for a pitcher with one year left on his contract as is Bumgarner. Even though Bumgarner was injured, he came back and played really well, showing that he still has a lot of value with many years left. I can’t see how what you were giving to the Yankees equaled what I gave to the dodgers for a premier pitcher. I think you should look at yourself and revalue some of the 24, 25 and 26 year old prospects in your system. As for as the trade panel, I have a tough time voting for you to be in the trade panel as you are so anti trade panel. If you were the deciding vote, I would be afraid that you would just push a trade through rather than look at it for it’s true value.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Had all these same discussions 6 years ago, argued against half the league. ACTUAL results. I was correct on every assessment and half the league was completely wrong. It comes down to being able to assess players OUTSIDE of the top 100 and you have to be able to see deep into the stats. I can switch approaches to go after just the Top Prospects and Top MLB players if that approach is easier for you to make sense of, it works, just got BORED with using that approach. Wanted a Challenge.

Yes, everyone thinks THEIR trades are even and fair. That's completely normal

Actual results are what matters. Because someone thinks where a player is ranked in Top 100 is the bases of fairness are the ones not looking into the stats that matter.

Royals - Did you know Eloy has a season like Delvin Perez just had around the same age? Naw, just judging by "prospect rankings" You have used the easiest rebuilding approach in the game. you have sat back and intentially thrown games for 5 seasons, collecting, top prospects. I have tried to rebuild while staying within striking distance of the post season every season. While rebuilding with non - Top 100 players. Why because its a challenge, and ITS MY CHOICE. I have done it the easy way before, it works and boring. You were one of the one's arguing against the 3 deals 6 years ago, you were dead wrong about Greg Bird, Matt Carpenter, Tyler Thornburg, Scooter Gennett, who were not highly ranked, and Luis Heredia who was highly #42/100 ranked. I would be scared if you were on the trade committee because the only "stat" you see is prospect ranking.

If your Honest, you wouldn't want me on the trade committee for reasons that have nothing to do with player assesment, because I don't look deep enough into trades? You ever used the stats "results of Cuban born players in MLB", I look too deep.

Rockies - Let's get one thing clear - I paid a hefty price for Bellinger, especially compared to what you offered for Bumgarner. AND you SHOULD have if not more, you got a ton more value years. I think your deal SHOULD have been approved but it set a standard. there is no way the players you gave up have the value/stats years Cody have. Guaranteed. In 6 years it will be proven to be one of the most devastating deal to the Mariners franchise.

Tellez - 30th round draft pick, look up the hitters drafted after the 30th round in the history of MLB, now eliminate the guys with wheels and the steroid era guys. Tellez and Samir have an EQUAL chance of similar careers. If you see it differently, your blinded by one stat a Top 100 ranking he got. The guy is a platooner at best in the majors.

Look, this is why the Trade committee concept doesn't work.

1) people play fantasy sports to manage their own team, not have other people manage their team.

2) in 6 seasons of being in the league, the Trade Committee DID not save, the Red Sox, Dodgers, Yankees teams from falling from division leaders to destroyed teams. Just 2 years ago, these teams had value players on them, you can see in the trade history how these teams were systematically picked apart.

3) there will always be teams that are on the bottom, a trade committee can NOT prevent it, everyone doesn't get participation players. Its a competition.

4) If you want new teams to survive, then teach them about the league. If you look at the trade history, there are some teams that steal value players from new teams, EVERY time.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

Nov 8, 2017 10:08:31 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

Rockies - Let's get one thing clear - I paid a hefty price for Bellinger, especially compared to what you offered for Bumgarner. AND you SHOULD have if not more, you got a ton more value years. I think your deal SHOULD have been approved but it set a standard. there is no way the players you gave up have the value/stats years Cody have. Guaranteed. In 6 years it will be proven to be one of the most devastating deal to the Mariners franchise.

Tellez - 30th round draft pick, look up the hitters drafted after the 30th round in the history of MLB, now eliminate the guys with wheels and the steroid era guys. Tellez and Samir have an EQUAL chance of similar careers. If you see it differently, your blinded by one stat a Top 100 ranking he got. The guy is a platooner at best in the majors.

I told you to stop dragging me through the mud. I didn't even veto your trade, but you always have to make things personal.

I don't know where to begin with you. Trading for prospects is ALWAYS a crapshoot, but the Mariners could greatly prosper from the deal. Alvarez has true-ace potential, and even if he doesn't reach it, should be a high-K #3, or a top-shelf closer. Abreu looks like a #3/4 guy, and in this league, they're valuable, especially with K upside. Soto's value is in his bat, and some sites have his offensive ceiling higher than Robles, who is one of the top 5 prospects in baseball. If Alvarez and Soto work out, the Mariners have franchise building blocks. Even if every single one of your prospects reach their ceilings, the Yankees have nothing in this trade to build a franchise around. They've got some decent parts, but no one in your trade has a ceiling above second-division regular. MAYBE Graterol, but he's so far off that it doesn't yet matter - he's more of a lottery ticket than Dustin May was in my trade.

And really? No 30 round pick has ever succeeded?

Mike Piazza - 62nd round
Keith Hernandez - 42nd round
Mark Buehrle - 38th round
Kenny Rogers - 39th round
John Smoltz - 22nd round
Orlando Hudson - 43rd round

I'm not saying Tellez is going to succeed, but low draft picks have succeeded. And he had top-5 round talent when he came out in the draft, he fell because no one thought he would sign. And I can prove it, if you want to keep fighting your losing battle. You are truly drinking the KC homer Kool-Aid if you don't recognize the difference in stats AT THE SAME LEVEL AT THE SAME AGE between Tellez and Duenez. Since when is a .706 OPS anything other than an utter failure for a minor league prospect relegated to 1B-only? I've never said Tellez would work out, but Duenez has MUCH LESS of a shot.

You want to keep attacking me? Fine. But you're wrong, and you're grasping at flimsy arguments to try and prove that you're not wrong.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

Nov 8, 2017 10:08:31 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

Royals - Did you know Eloy has a season like Delvin Perez just had around the same age? Naw, just judging by "prospect rankings" You have used the easiest rebuilding approach in the game. you have sat back and intentially thrown games for 5 seasons, collecting, top prospects. I have tried to rebuild while staying within striking distance of the post season every season. While rebuilding with non - Top 100 players. Why because its a challenge, and ITS MY CHOICE. I have done it the easy way before, it works and boring. You were one of the one's arguing against the 3 deals 6 years ago, you were dead wrong about Greg Bird, Matt Carpenter, Tyler Thornburg, Scooter Gennett, who were not highly ranked, and Luis Heredia who was highly #42/100 ranked. I would be scared if you were on the trade committee because the only "stat" you see is prospect ranking.

First off, how ANYONE builds their team is their prerogative alone. I chose to build my team through prospecting too, and it was far from easy. There's even more research you need to do, and it's a crapshoot that can EASILY fail. Even can't-miss prospects miss - Jon Singleton was billed as that once upon a time, and he has fallen off the face of the planet. I get you're mad at the trade panel for not passing your trade, but come on.

And did Mac trade Eloy coming off of the bad season he had a long time ago? No, he traded him as he was ascending to #1 prospect in the game. Highly touted guys fail all the time - not all of them end up coming back, especially ones who were suspended for PEDs violations. If Delvin Perez comes back next year and puts up a season that vaults him up all the lists, then you've got an argument. Right now, it's worse than flimsy - it's non-existent.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Owners I am competing with are making decisions about my team's direction as well as influencing other deals with approvals that change the competitive landscape.. The Trade Committee system byproduct does that, this is why its not a helpful tool. Teams fail even with the Committee in place, a committee doesn't stop it.

- 30th round draft pick, look up the hitters drafted after the 30th round in the history of MLB, now eliminate the guys with wheels and the steroid era guys.

Read the whole line before you use Piazza, pitchers... Hernadez sure 70's, Hudson sure, now divide that by how many drafted after 30th and see what those odds are, for fun you can even use pitchers to help your numbers. I already knew those would be the players you brought up, because I already knew the answers of who has and The odds are NOT good for CI's. Samir will get the ABs because everyone else in the KC system SUCKS WORSE THAN HIM, lol. No homer glasses, just the way it works. Whit Merrifield, Alcedes Escobar, Mark Teahan, Joey Gathwright, david Dejusus, got more of chance because they played for the Royals.

Maybe I should have said CI instead of speciality positions...You will see Tellez is going to suck, Alverez at best Closer IF he can raise his K/w ratio, he has Luis Heredia's stat that created him to fail, all over him.




I am not attacking you, attacking your trade compared to mine.. Just using your trade as a precedent. Its the trade committee system.

EVERYONE takes trade veto/approvals personal. Your proving the point, if Cody trade got vetoed, you would too, because you are now.

I am using your trade to show value/stats and what was paid to get them. Your trade was just the most obviously highest ratio. I could have used 2 others without you involved and then THOSE owners would take it personal. Because owners don't like their trades picked apart.

, especially ones who were suspended for PEDs violations. Really? So MiLBers who had PED suspensions , Grandal, Marcus Stroman, Boog Powell, Eddie Rosario, Alex Reyes...are out of baseball?

Look we can go back and forth with exceptions to rule examples to prove our points.

I am saying if the Cody Bellinger trade is approvable or Travis Shaw trade approvable, so was the Madison based on all star VALUE/STATS seasons they have without using tags. There might as well throw another example on the fire.

Sorta pointless, just like 6 years ago, you will see the results 6 yrs from now. I am very confident in my assessments again. If the trade committee approves obvious lopsided trades, stay consistant and fair for all teams, its almost impossible to do in reality.