|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 2, 2014 11:48:08 GMT -5
Our trade deadline was August 7th last year - one week's after MLB's non-waiver trade deadline.
Should we keep it the same?
Or should we make it later in the season to allow for contending teams to bolster their roster for the stretch run and allow non-contending teams the chance to build more for the next season and beyond?
I'm putting up only two options. Keep it August 7th, or make it the last Sunday in August (this year the 31st), in time to set lineups for the next scoring period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 13:13:20 GMT -5
August 31st seems pretty late, but I wouldn't mind moving the deadline back a little. Can we pick a day in the middle?
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 2, 2014 13:48:43 GMT -5
I think moving it back much more may shift the balance of the league a little too much. I thought last year's worked pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 2, 2014 21:06:45 GMT -5
4 people have already voted. Want me to delete this poll and put up another one with 8/7, 8/24 and 8/31? I'm trying to simplify things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 21:11:21 GMT -5
I agree with Drew I'd say leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 2, 2014 21:53:00 GMT -5
Only reason I even bring it up is several people last year voiced their desire to have it later in the season to allow for non-contending teams to improve for future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 21:57:26 GMT -5
I voted for later simply because having the deadline @ August 1st cuts off 1/3 of the season for activity. I know its not real baseball, but MLB has trades taking place until the end of August. If you look at last year, there wasn't any incentive for 10 or 11 teams to even log onto this site after august 1st.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 22:17:43 GMT -5
1. Baseball only has waiver trades that late
2. By having it earlier more teams are still in it so you avoid a ton of dump trades which can impact the final standings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 2, 2014 22:34:08 GMT -5
Yea, the dump trades are my biggest concern. I saw that a lot last season (and contributed to it)and I think it will have a negative effect if we move it later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 22:35:53 GMT -5
I'm voting to keep it the same, but dump trades can happen any time...
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 2, 2014 22:38:31 GMT -5
Haha, this offseason has shown us that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 22:41:57 GMT -5
Probably for a different discussion on how to do it, but the trades detrimental to the health of the league need to be vetoed. As for this discussion, there has to be a better way than shutting down any means of improvement with 1/3 of the season to play. For the sake of argument, if you lose a key piece or two in the first week of August and you are in contention then you just plug in your 16th best offensive player or pitcher and go with it. I know you will argue the same can be said for the first week of September, but it is much different trying to hold out three weeks rather than 7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 11:10:20 GMT -5
Just for discussion sake, have there been any trades that have been detrimental to the league? If not, what are some examples that you think could be bad for the league?
This is my first league like this so I'm just trying to get some insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 3, 2014 11:32:23 GMT -5
Last season I think they were all reasonable. The MIL/SD trade from earlier in the offseason is an absolute certainty to be detrimental. Yours and chucks is borderline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 14:53:49 GMT -5
So the trading of MLB Regulars for Prospects?
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 3, 2014 15:20:00 GMT -5
No, the trading of MLB regulars for non-prospects. I'm really speaking more to the MIL/SD deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 3, 2014 19:25:48 GMT -5
This is really annoying. 3 Major Leaguers for 7 prospects was the deal.
Non-prospects in the eye of the beholder. Because they're not on a Baseball America Top 10 per organization list or another top name service's radar, are they deemed a non-prospect? How do you know I'm not in touch with scouts from organizations or directly messaging on Twitter beat reporters or sources in an organization for tips/insights?
If Joseph wanted to, I'd gladly trade to get at least 4-5 of those 7 prospects back. Hedges is a legit Top 30 overall MLB prospect. Maybe he can be ranked lower in Fantasy since he's better defensively and hasn't proved with his bat yet, but he's supposedly Major League ready.
Galvez is a good IF that could make the SD team and has a chance to play in the bigs ahead of Spangenburg. He's being given that chance with an invite to ML Spring Training.
Barbato and Stites are both potential closers to be. Read up on them. Please.
Ryan Rua. Again, ask Taylor. He traded him to me last year after claiming him in season. Why? Infielder with 32 HR and 90+ RBI. Good potential. Maybe more than Gallo (who I also just traded) who strikes out way too much.
If you really want to debate this then call for a Trade Review Committee and take the Trade Approval Process out of one commissioner's hands.
I really can't believe you guys are talking "detrimental to the league." Nowhere near something like that. Guys, we have a league with upwards of 900 prospects rostered! Are these guys "non-prospects" because they're not all in the top 200? Come on now!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) on Mar 3, 2014 20:12:32 GMT -5
We may not know the true results of this for 4-5 years, and so it is probably not worth debating. The fact is, at least 3 of these guys have to turn into well above average fantasy players in order for this deal to make sense. I don't think I am the only one who would be completely blown away if that happens. I'm not going to push for a trade review committee, but I think we have the right to voice our opinions about a deal.
If three significant fantasy contributors emerge from this lot of minor leaguers, I will gladly eat massive amounts of crow and give my most sincere apologies.
|
|
