Johan Santana wasn't around long enough to be fitted for his Kenndoza Line uniform, as the Line sent him to Steve's Stones as part of an 8-for-8 trade.
Along with Santana (.48-10+), the Stones received catcher Russell Martin (.10-08), first baseman Albert Pujols (.41-10), second baseman Kaz Matsui (.01-08), outfielder Randy Winn (.24-10+), and pitchers Jorge Campillo (.06-10+), Luis Ayala (.02-10+), and David Riske (.02-10+).
Going from the Stones to Kenndoza are outfielder Matt Kemp (.05-09+), infielder Geoff Blum (.10-10+), catcher(?) Mike Rebelo (.01-10+), pitchers Tim Lincecum (.10-09+), Yovani Gallardo (.10-09x), and prospects Ian Stewart (.05-10x), Alcides Escobar (.02-Mx), and Pedro Alvarez (.05-Mx).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
What a load of BS. Are you two just going to keep giving each other the title every other year?
What courage it must've taken to write that post, anonymous.
I would attempt to respond but the sheer stupidity and ignorance of your implied accusation and prior experience tells there is little chance that I could convince you that you’re wrong.
Almost as much courage as it took to make two completely ludicrous deals in back to back years to make sure you both win titles. Bravo. And don't worry, you'll get back Lincecum, Kemp & Alvarez next year when you dump everyone back to the Dozers.
You're opinions and conclusions are just as flawed as your need to hide!
If you really want to talk about this, I'll be here.
Can't we all just get along?
M.Coulter
GM-CCC
Ok, well, I'll give this a try. I’m going to respond bluntly, but I mean only to express my frustration with this deal. I’m not going to put this into any historical context, like our anonymous poster. This is not a personal attack on the owners involved, whom I've made trades with in the past, and enjoy competing against and joking with on Draft Day. I write this only to start a conversation about the role of trades in the CFCL.
Trades are funny things. We take on some degree of risk regardless of the players we swap. Maybe Pujols falls in the shower and has his long-rumored shoulder surgery tomorrow. Maybe Johan has some ligament damage we’re unaware of that helps explain his lousy outing last night. Maybe Martin is so exhausted from his All-Star experience that he is about to endure a two-month slump. Moreover, maybe Escobar, Lincecum, Kemp, Stewart, and Alvarez form the Hall of Fame Class of 2033.
This all might be true, but I doubt it. I’d conservatively put the probability at 90 percent that the CFCL pennant race ended with this deal, despite the fact that, at present, we’re in the midst of a historically close race. Three players who are arguably the best at their respective positions, plus four other players with varying levels of positive value, go one way for one excellent young pitcher, one injured young pitcher, one nice hitter, and prospects. My quick and dirty VORP calculus puts this trade at 147.4 VORP going to the Stones, 55.6 going the other way, with Lincecum by himself responsible for 75% of the latter number. Now, VORP is an imperfect measure for fantasy purposes for all the obvious reasons. (Although, it likely most undervalues Matsui's SB's, which makes the trade even more lopsided.) Moreover, maybe we look at this trade two years from now and Kenn “wins” it based on his stash of keepers. In fact, I’ll even stipulate that he does – eventually – win this trade. (Although I think it’s no sure thing.) Martin and Matsui can’t be kept; Winn shouldn’t be kept; Santana, in combination with Pujols, is getting pretty expensive; Ayala has been pretty terrible. So let’s say the Stones keep Pujols, Campillo, and Riske for next year. Kenndoza keeps Kemp, Stewart, Lincecum, Gallardo, and the minor leaguers. Maybe Campillo and Riske crap out, Kenn’s guys play to their potential, so in year two, the deal is Pujols for a bunch of really good, young, cheap guys.
So what’s the problem? My frustration with this trade – and I respect the fact that others may make some excellent counterarguments – is that it doesn’t represent the kind of league for which I signed up long, long ago. This kind of trade completely deemphasizes Draft Day itself and the preparation for Draft Day. David puts it well in the section of the Constitution that deals with dump trades:
"While this strategy makes sense for both clubs, extreme cases can potentially undermine the results of the auction draft, which should always be the primary indicator of an owner's ability to put together a successful team … Even with [in-season salary caps and HTD’s] in place, it is still expected that each CFCL owner will consider “the integrity of the league” as well as the good of their own team when considering trades [emphasis mine]."
In my opinion, this trade undermines that integrity pretty egregiously. Now, if we want a league that minimizes the importance of Draft Day in relation to highly unbalanced short-term/long-term deals, fine. You come in March with some keepers, throw together a team with some live bodies, and buy or sell come July. But we should come to that decision as a group. As the paragraph from the Constitution makes clear, we’re not (or shouldn’t be) that kind of league as currently constituted. And speaking as someone for whom getting to the draft is an expensive, time-consuming, and inconvenient endeavor, I don’t want to be in that league.
David,
That was a well articulated response, without the personal attack. I appreciate that more than you know.
I will write a more appropriate response later. But in the interim, Thanks for being fair in your response.
David,
I can write a long post providing many points where we disagree and in the end we will be nowhere closer to agreeing. One thing we do agree on, however, is the need to have a long overdue discussion about the state of trading in the league.
Suffice it say, I didn't sign up for a league that seeks competition, but then discourages it at the same time.
If we want to play by some long established "gentlemen's rules" that have been a part of the CFCL since its inception, then everybody needs to be onboard with that. And everybody needs to agree with how the gentlemen's rules are interpreted and defined. Not just the long term owners. This is now my league too.
In business there is an old saying that proper method of establishing pricing is determined by the point at which some people are unhappy and won't buy and others seemingly will continue to buy without complaint. A lot like gas prices nowadays, I guess. So we have a few complaints but then again not that many. So who knows?
Any way, I am looking forward to the discussion and airing a few of my own nits!
Steve -
I have yet to comment on this trade, although I side very closely with The Professor's view. It's no surprise that you and I disagree in trade evaluations as the last two years have proven.
There will be a dicussion on future trade rules. I was planning in starting a thread shortly. You're free to start it yourself if you want.
The only thing I care to make ABUNDANTLY CLEAR at this point is that I am not the anonymous blogger.
Whenever I have had an issue with an owner I have always had the courtesy to put my name behind any comment I make.
I don't know who is on your list of suspects, but mine can be removed (if it was ever on the list to begin with).
Rich, I was fairly certain it wasn't you. You're a better writer than anonymous!
And I wait with bated breath for the trade discussion to begin.
Thanks for the invitation to start the discussion, but unfortunately, I may have started it already!
Steve wrote: "So we have a few complaints but then again not that many. So who knows?"
I know. The fact that "not so many" complaints have been posted here should not be misconstrued to in any way indicate that people don't have a problem with this type of trade.
As with the Kenndoza Line – Stones trade at this time last year, most of the complaints about this year's exchange seem to have found their way to my e-mail box rather than to the owners involved or being posted publicly. I'm not going to name names (correctly or not, the e-mails were sent to me privately), but Dave H. and Mr Anonymous are not the only one crying foul about this.
I encourage anyone who has feelings on this to make them known - with full attribution as Dave has done. It does little good to complain to me - the Constitution makes no allowance for vetoing trades - and it's only by adding your voice to the public outcry that the true majority/minority thoughts on this will be known.
Rich has started a thread on the Forum regarding trades in general, so please visit there to add your thoughts.
As it is, I can only speak for myself. I had held off on posting here in the hopes that Kenn would chime in here. When he e-mailed me to report the trade, he included a lengthy and pre-emptive defense of the trade. BTW, when reading that original note I was not encouraged by the fact that Kenn spent more of the e-mail trying to justify the trade – before anyone even knew about it or reacted to it – than he did reporting the trade and associated moves.
However, rather than risk that my silence be interpreted as being in support of the trade, and I will add my voice emphatically to that of the Professor.
IMO, this trade is in direct opposition to the "integrity of the league" clause that Dave referenced in his comment. For a non-contender to send such a disproportionate package of talent to a contender changes the entire landscape of the season and indicates an utter lack of respect for the pennant race. That clause is there because we expect dumping owners to consider the impact their actions will have on the pennant race and respect the right of the contenders to compete something resembling an even footing. The only way we’ll have an even footing now is if other non-contenders decide to make equally outrageous trades with the other contenders, and I’m not sure that spiraling out of control is something we want to go through.
Post a Comment