agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Doc, ano presyo ni Adam Jones? Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 hate to say this but he's been playing out of his mind right now so I guess it's gonna be steep... Doc, ano presyo ni Adam Jones? Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I know its gonna be steep. :sick: How steep exactly? Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) I know its gonna be steep. :sick: How steep exactly? let's put it this way then, right now, he's got Kemp-level value and then some... he's my been my best player so far and he isn't even stealing bags yet Edited May 1, 2009 by gift_of_game Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hmm... Kemp-level value. Really selling him high huh? Cant fault you though. He has been hot. Quote Link to comment
consiglieri Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 sorry...but i have to admit...i pressed the veto button on hanley - howard... no disrespect to jongks and cali... Quote Link to comment
joshiasi Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 ^^ I was looking for a new fat 1B to replace Tabachucher kaya di ko ma-accept ang offer ni cal!Now I'll have a new-look infield which I badly need because it looks like Aramis is heading to the damn DL.Chipper will occupy 3B and Aviles holds 2B.Then there's the new catcher in Salty. Now what do I do with Bradley who just hit a homer today? joshWhat's the price tag on Bay?I have two young arms in Holland and Jordan Zimm plus Slowey and Meche available for you. bay right now is inside the top 10 OFs on my list and prolly on many peoples list... heard from analysts and fellow gms aswell... im not really sure if i want to give him up for a variety of player... for bay... i would have to go quality than quantity as he has been my best player in the early stages... Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 sorry...but i have to admit...i pressed the veto button on hanley - howard... no disrespect to jongks and cali... top 5 guy for a top 10 guy... Quote Link to comment
consiglieri Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 if picks were involved i wouldve let it pass or a 2 for 1 quality trade... but not 1 on 1 Quote Link to comment
joshiasi Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 ^^ not to mention position scarcity Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Top 5 guy for a top 10 guys isnt fair enough? So a player ranked number one (at least during the pre-season) can only be traded for err...himself straight-up, otherwise its not fair? if picks were involved i wouldve let it pass or a 2 for 1 quality trade... but not 1 on 1 Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) What about position scarcity? Wasnt the decision to forego of that particular factor made by the manager owning Hanley? Are we here to substitute our so-called better judgment to those of the managers involved? Anyway you cut it, the trade is not lopsided, especially if you factor in Hanley's rather slow start. ^^ not to mention position scarcity Edited May 1, 2009 by agentjackbauer Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) can't help but oversell, he's practically goin' Nixau-crazy. I do expect a downturn soon enough though. honestly don't think he's this good of a contact-type hitter---or at least not yet. the numbers have been a bit flukey and pitchers will learn to pitch around him the next time around.hopefully by then Wieters would be up to provide needed protection on the back end. when I drafted him, it was just about runs and maybe 15 bags but as of today, he's easily our MVP. Hmm... Kemp-level value. Really selling him high huh? Cant fault you though. He has been hot. Edited May 1, 2009 by gift_of_game Quote Link to comment
joshiasi Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Top 5 guy for a top 10 guys isnt fair enough? So a player ranked number one (at least during the pre-season) can only be traded for err...himself straight-up, otherwise its not fair? well there is an argument to that... lets say this is fantasy nba... so a lebron james can go for a chris bosh 1 to 1?? i doubt he that would look fair to many people's eyes... but thats a top 5 guy for a top 10 player.... hanley is playing in a position not as scarce as fielder is... you can find a lot of 1bs with the same numbers as him on the 2nd or even 3rd round of a draft but not with hanley... his position is not as deep so that kind of production at that position elevates his trading power... Quote Link to comment
consiglieri Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 @ manager's judgement - i cant argue with that...whatever rocks his boat is fine with me (as long as there is no colluding) as i said i veto for myself...im not convincing the others to do so...for me...this just aint cutting it... Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 sometimes I guess we just dunno what we got. Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 You know what, I tried looking for one but I failed. I couldnt find any 1b in the 2nd or 3rd round with the same numbers as those posted by Howard last year (i.e. 105 runs, 48 hrs and 146 rbis). But you say there are many.. like who for instance? If the numbers were the same, why werent they first-rounders? well there is an argument to that... lets say this is fantasy nba... so a lebron james can go for a chris bosh 1 to 1?? i doubt he that would look fair to many people's eyes... but thats a top 5 guy for a top 10 player.... hanley is playing in a position not as scarce as fielder is... you can find a lot of 1bs with the same numbers as him on the 2nd or even 3rd round of a draft but not with hanley... his position is not as deep so that kind of production at that position elevates his trading power... Quote Link to comment
bubuy Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 position scarcity isnt an issue for chicken nuggets, he has furcal.. although he has an issue with his 1B platoon. btw by looking at the trade, it was the nuggz who offered. Quote Link to comment
gift_of_game Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) he probably means tiers.going in, Howard isn't even the top-tier 1B since he kills BA. Bron for Bosh may not be the best comp btw. it's CP3 for hmm...Dwight Howard (kills FT%)??? at any rate, if they really want it to happen, so be it.although I gotta say, the Nugz could've gotten so much more out of this just like that Ichiro trade. Edited May 1, 2009 by gift_of_game Quote Link to comment
joshiasi Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 You know what, I tried looking for one but I failed. I couldnt find any 1b in the 2nd or 3rd round with the same numbers as those posted by Howard last year (i.e. 105 runs, 48 hrs and 146 rbis). But you say there are many.. like who for instance? If the numbers were the same, why werent they first-rounders? There are some 1bs that can still be fetched in the 2nd round that can produce the same numbers as Fielder. Justin Morneua... though fielder can have higher HRs than him... his ave will be higher Mark Teixiera... he is a late 1st rounder to early 2nd rounder... no that much pop but ave will be higher and with such a potent lineup... the rs and rbis will be thereAdrian Gonzales.... he has that potential if only he plays outside san diegoCarlos Pena... he should be lower in numbers agains fielder... but its not that much of a difference with an improved rays offense There are more to name out there... the deal may look ok but if u really analyse it... u just have to doubt it a bit... heck... since teixiera is a top 10 guy (numbers last year say he is around that range) would trading him for pujols be a fair deal?? it still looks like an upgrade... just like trading fielder for pujols aswell... Quote Link to comment
agentjackbauer Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 You said so yourself Josh. These guys arent Howard. Cali made a choice to address his problem at 1b. If the deal isnt lopsided (and this one maybe uneven but it isnt lopsided), it is our duty to let it through coz we arent managing his team. There are some 1bs that can still be fetched in the 2nd round that can produce the same numbers as Fielder. Justin Morneua... though fielder can have higher HRs than him... his ave will be higher Mark Teixiera... he is a late 1st rounder to early 2nd rounder... no that much pop but ave will be higher and with such a potent lineup... the rs and rbis will be thereAdrian Gonzales.... he has that potential if only he plays outside san diegoCarlos Pena... he should be lower in numbers agains fielder... but its not that much of a difference with an improved rays offense There are more to name out there... the deal may look ok but if u really analyse it... u just have to doubt it a bit... heck... since teixiera is a top 10 guy (numbers last year say he is around that range) would trading him for pujols be a fair deal?? it still looks like an upgrade... just like trading fielder for pujols aswell... Quote Link to comment
joshiasi Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) im just voicing out the reason on why it could be vetoed... like gog said... he could get more out of this deal... but its up to them who they really want... but also we all have our opinions on this... we all may not agree to this but atleast we are voicing out the reason for our actions... I was just speaking on my mind there.... no offense to anyone but even though i said reason on why this could be vetoed... i didnt veto on this deal... just stating the argument of the other side Edited May 1, 2009 by joshiasi Quote Link to comment
denimhead Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 that deal reminds me of the sizemore-utley-reyes deal ... somebody was bound to lose out on the deal but ... its what the managers wanted so id say im good with it Quote Link to comment
cheeselogger Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 You said so yourself Josh. These guys arent Howard. Cali made a choice to address his problem at 1b. If the deal isnt lopsided (and this one maybe uneven but it isnt lopsided), it is our duty to let it through coz we arent managing his team. and isn't it anyone's prerogative/opinion to say if any trade is lopsided? hence the league veto option? why the need to defend "not vetoing" the trade? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.