Earl Weaver Baseball League

Re: Trade Possibilities

March 19th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

I will not comment on the Intradivisional trade, as far as Houston I think with Hicks it would work for them.

 

Jimmy Garrett is on the trading block. 

 

Reasoning- His contact is up after this year and I will re sign Punk Perez over him so I would be interested in any IF position so let me hear what you got.

 

Trade Possibilities

March 19th, 2009 by Admirals GM

As I've mentioned, I originally thought this offseason was going to see a lot of big moves for us.  This hasn't happened yet, but I'm thinking about a couple of trades that could make it happen.  I'm not at all sure I want to do these trades yet.  However, before investing a lot of time and energy in them, I thought I would float them.  Unfortunatley, both trades are with teams I control, so I need everybody's input.  Also, these trades may (probably) depend on one another, meaning that if one gets nixed, I might not want to do the other one.

 

1. CHICAGO

 

Paul Sims <--> Michael Bowden

 

So, it might seem unrealistic to trade Sims immediately after signing him, but I think that can be explained away: it's sort of (not exactly) like the sort of sign-and-trade deals you see in the NBA, or like the sign-and-trade deal between the Yankees and Tigers over Gary Sheffield a couple years ago.  Basic justification: Chicago has super SP strength, but very little offense (multiple starters with negative VORP last year), and an especially horrible OF situation.  Plus, Chicago has a huge age problem.  And, while Sims is no spring chicken, his age of 32 is much younger than Bowden's 38.  Their contracts are nearly identical in terms of salary.  Frankly, from Chicago's perspective, I think this is the sort of free agent they should've pusued last year, instead of getting Bowden, which didn't address a weakness.  Similarly, from our perspective, we probably should've gone all in for Bowden last year, rather than saving the money for Sims this year.

 

2. HOUSTON

 

Joe MacGregor + Jose Garcia <--> Aaron Ellis + Lloyd O'Neal OR Dan Hicks

 

Houston's biggest weakness is SPs.  In their 5 man rotation, they have 1 9 pt. pitcher and 4 8 pt. pitchers (including Scott Riley, who has fallen a ton).  So they should certainly want MacGregor.  However, there is no way they can take on MacGregor's contract unless they ship Ellis.  I'm of mixed thoughts about taking on Ellis.  On the bright side, his ratings still look solid:4-4-4-3-4.  On the other hand, he really fell off in 1994: .273/9/51, and a VORP of just 3.7 in 91 Games and 348 ABs.  Also, he has fallen a good deal in the position rankings: down to just the 11th best 2B in EWB now.  Plus, as is well established, his contract of $11M is way over the top, it's from the days when we didn't know how FA's worked and so Mike just offered him what he requested.  Now, both O'Neal and Hicks were backups in 1994, and project to be backups in 1995, but they're both very talented.  O'Neal has 4-5 actual, but is stuck behind Juan Bravo at 1B.  One bad rating that O'Neal has is eye: 2 (actual and potential).  To my mind, that's almost a good thing, given that I want him to be a run producer.  But in the computer's mind, that's a major weakness.  I suspect that's at least part of why Bravo still plays ahead of him.  Hick also has a lot of talent, but he's still more potential than actual: 5-4 potential, but 4-3 actual.  Last year, Hicks was the #7 prospect in EWB.  Right now, he's stuck behind veteran Geoffrey Barnes, who went .323/11/67 last year.  Now, if Barnes were the only issue, then I think Houston would probably just want to stick with Hicks: maybe make him a backup for another year, and then let him take over full time starter duties in 1996 or 1997.  *However*, another factor here is that Houston also has top notch C prospect Robert Bryant down in A ball, and Bryant has 5-4 potential and already 3-3 actual.  In terms of overall potential, Bryant is ahead of Hicks.  In terms of actual, Bryant is only a little behind.  In light of this, Hicks is kind of getting squeezed: he has Barnes ahead of him for now, and Bryant rearing up behind him.  That might make Hicks available.

 

Here are 3 more points to help you think about this trade.

 

FIRST: What exactly would happen to Houston if they agreed?  Garcia would start at SS, while presumably current SS Paul Ellison would move over to 2B to replace Ellis.  Garcia over Ellis is an ugrade.  They lose O'Neal/Hicks, but neither player started last year.  Offensively/Defensively, then, this trade would make Houston better as compared to last year.  And then we move to pitching, where it's obviously nothing but a huge improvement.  Again, right now their ace Scott Riley is an 8 pt. pitcher.  That's not enough to compete.  MacGregor is still 11.

 

SECOND: Remember how for years Houston had the top mL system in EWB?  Well, those prospects like Hicks/Bryant/O'Neal/Bravo are now either in the majors or close.  Because a number of these players play the same position, Houston really does need to make trades if they're going to make the most of their talent.

 

THIRD: Here is how I originally thought of the deal.  Remember, a prior deal that was on the table was Urive+Hearn for Garcia+MacGregor.  Well, Hearn is better than Ellis at this point, and a much better contract too.  In terms of ML accomplishment, Urive is better than O'Neal.  Now, I like O'Neal better, but I'm not sure the computer would agree, given that O'Neal only has a 2 eye while Urive has 4.  In light of that, a plausible case can be made that both components of this trade from Houston's side are worse than the 2 components from Boston's side.

 

3. ???

 

George Banks <--> ????

 

What I'm looking for in exchange for Banks will depend in part on whether these other trades happen.  If they do, then these other trades will lead to an increase in payroll for me, since Ellis makes more than MacGregor.  To offset that increase, I will want to trade Banks for either a mL prospect or, at most, someone making the ML minimum.  If these other trades don't happen, then salary won't be as big of a factor, and I'll be looking at Detroit's Logan Elmore among other possibilities.

Formal Invitation to GM MikeG and GM JTT

March 18th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Clear your calender on Wednesday April 5th, 1995 because I, GM Rob M, will be flying back to Omaha.  The South Omaha Vacqueros will be hosting the Council Bluffs Yellowjackets for a 7:05 pm game.  However, this is no ordinary game, in fact the community of South Omaha would like to thank and honor me for my baseball contributions to the community.  To honor me they will be renaming the old home of the Vacqueros, Buzzard Ballpark (seriously, that's what it was called).  It will from here on out be named ROB M FIELD.

Thank you, thank you.  Hope to see you there.

Re: '94-'95 Human Rule 5 Draftees

March 21st, 2009 by Banditos GM

I don't have a problem, in this instance, with returning him for the reasons stated.

However let me say this, every action in our league sets a precedent which always seems to be brought up again in the future.  So I just want to state that losing a player to Rule 5 doesn't mean automatic claim back because we did it this one time.  That might seem obvious but trust me, I guarantee this issue will come up again.  In fact since a mistake has happened I would think we should all be on guard about our Rule 5 eligible players from here on out.  It shouldn't happen again.

Re: '94-'95 Human Rule 5 Draftees

March 18th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Chris Martin needs to be returned to Washington.

 

He was no small part of why we were willing to do the Robinson trade in the first place.  If the computer is "protected" from its own stupidity, in that we prevent ourselves from claiming players off of waivers or preventing certain rip-off trades that the computer itself would agree to, then human owners should be protected from this sort of error.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have agreed to do my Draft 5 protections over Yugma, I would have demanded that Yugma stop, that I be sent a list of my unprotected players over e-mail, and that we would start the offseason back up at a later date.  If Martin wasn't protected, it's not because I otherwise had too much talent to cover with my 40 man roster (as might be the case with some of the other drafted players), or that I gambled that he wouldn't be taken and lost.  No, Martin is good enough that he *will* start the season on our ML roster, very possibly in our starting rotation (depending on how other trades go).  The only reason Martin was left unprotected is that I was trying to be accommodating and do the Rule 5 Draft quickly, over Yugma.

 

So, here is our trade offer to Dallas

 

Martin <--> $1.

 

That's 1 dollar, not thousand or million.

 

Also, let Dallas know that there are consequences if they don't return Martin.  As their assistant GM, I can sign off on trades.  Trades that will send their franchise back years.  Decades even.  If Martin is not returned, here is our first trade offer, to Omaha...

 

Omaha trades Dallas non-prospect P James McCann (SA), Dallas gives up $7 Million, cash.

 

Speaking as Dallas's assistant GM, I can report that we love this deal, and so if Mike gives the green light we agree as well.  IF Martin isn't returned, that is.  If Martin is returned, we'll re-think the McCann offer.