playmaker8267 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Why? My general premise here is that DV discounts are steep during and immediately after the suspension, then evaporate pretty quickly once it has been completely served and the public moves on to the next guy. The posterchild here is Aroldis Chapman. So if you stop someone from being traded during the suspension, you get rid of that initial period. Making someone inelligible for the postseason would deal with the situations like this where you have a guy who's suspension ends just before the trade deadline. Maybe if you have a DV suspension on a contender, making them inelligible for the postseason would incentivize a trade as long as the player isn't a rental, but we've seen injured players not get traded from all-in clubs before (Kyle Schwarber, and he wasn't a lock for the WS at the trade deadline), so I'm not sure why this would be different. I'm open to other ideas on this for sure. Shouldn't the market dictate what a player is worth, regardless of what he's done? I don't think it's the league's place to artificially lower a guy's value outside of the discipline handed down as a result of the crime/violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 48 minutes ago, mse326 said: Does't that potentially punish the team that has him though. I mean I know that there is usually a discount but let's say there isn't. Let's say there is a team that wants to trade a Mejia for a reliever (ludicrous I know). Suspensions are to punish the player and it has an incidental effect on the team. Your proposal directly punishes the team and doesn't punish the player at all. I know why you want to do something, I just struggle to see a workable solution that doesn't hurt the team which I can't agree as being ok since they did nothing wrong. The teams are hurt either way, to use Osuna as an example he went from one of the most valuable relievers in baseball to traded for a guy who the Astros have basically benched over the last 12 months or so. Every team takes on the risk equally that a guy they are going to sign might not be tradeable in the incidence of DV. It's really not that different from other risks they take (e.g. a pitcher needing TJS). I don't want to ban anybody with one DV suspension from the league, and I'm sure baseball wants to keep the precedent of having guys plead and not appeal going given the crap show that is the NFL. But at some point they have to recognize that they have created a market where contending teams are incentivized to acquire players with these issues because they come at a discount. That is not good for baseball, full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The teams are hurt either way, to use Osuna as an example he went from one of the most valuable relievers in baseball to traded for a guy who the Astros have basically benched over the last 12 months or so. Every team takes on the risk equally that a guy they are going to sign might not be tradeable in the incidence of DV. It's really not that different from other risks they take (e.g. a pitcher needing TJS). But you are hurting them further if you say no trade at all. Getting something is better than nothing. And again you are assuming ALL will be at a discount. Even if that is certainly the norm, it doesn't mean all will. Obviously risks are always there and need to be considered but that doesn't mean we should create an artificial one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 57 minutes ago, playmaker8267 said: Shouldn't the market dictate what a player is worth, regardless of what he's done? I don't think it's the league's place to artificially lower a guy's value outside of the discipline handed down as a result of the crime/violation. It's exactly the league's place, that's what the MLB rules are for. Teams are going to act in their self-interest. It's up to baseball to lay ground rules that either provide incentives or force teams to act in a way that is also in the general league's best interest. There have been 8 players suspended under the MLB's domestic violence policy. 4 of them have been traded either before their suspension was up or immediately after. 1 was Derek Norris, who was a free agent and couldn't be traded. 1 more was Jose Torres, who's suspension is going through August of this year. The MLB should recognize that we have a trend here, and the trend is not good for the overall perception of the league. I'm open to different ways to act on that data, but what's indisputable is that baseball has a problem on it's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartica4Real Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 It's a good deal baseball wise but I don't have to like it. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, mse326 said: But you are hurting them further if you say no trade at all. Getting something is better than nothing. And again you are assuming ALL will be at a discount. Even if that is certainly the norm, it doesn't mean all will. Obviously risks are always there and need to be considered but that doesn't mean we should create an artificial one. In the case of a rental, more than likely yes. In the case of a controllable player, more than likely I'm not. The Reds virtually gave away Aroldis Chapman, and he got Gleyber Torres back 4 months later. In the 4 DV trades that have occurred, 2 were salary dumps (Hector Olivera and Jose Reyes) and 2 were legitimate assets (Aroldis Chapman and Roberto Osuna). Of the 2 legitimate asset trades, we're 1/1 in this no-trade rule actually helping the team with the player. The jury is out on Osuna, but I don't think this is exactly a great package back. I'd say we're more likely to be 2/2 than 1/2 6 months from now. More generally, we're weighing the risks of having a player with a DV suspension tank a trade value for each team versus the overall damage that this new market is doing to the league. It's not a perfect solution, but I'm more inclined to say it's better for baseball as a whole to have each team eat that risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: we're 1/1 in this no-trade rule actually helping a team How so? If they can't trade him then they get nothing. Here they got something. If he still had time (I honestly don't recall if it was a rental) then they could have held on to him if they wanted. I don't see how requiring a team to hold a player ever helps them. They are in theory capable to make the decision that best helps them. More options is always better. 4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: he overall damage that this new market is doing to the league Is it actually doing damage though? It's not like there is any media on about this. The general public and even most baseball fans probably don't even recognize or know it's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texansfan713 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, renndawg37 said: Can anyone tell me anything about Perez and Paulino? Cheers. Perez is an intruiging guy. Has the stuff to be a very good starting pitcher but he has control problems. Most likely he winds up as a reliever but he can be a very good one. I was high on Paulino. At one point he was a top 50 prospect in MLB. The PED suspensions got him and he hasnt looked like his old self. Not sure what to think of him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 34 minutes ago, mse326 said: How so? If they can't trade him then they get nothing. Here they got something. If he still had time (I honestly don't recall if it was a rental) then they could have held on to him if they wanted. I don't see how requiring a team to hold a player ever helps them. They are in theory capable to make the decision that best helps them. More options is always better. The Reds would have done better with the QO than the package they got. 34 minutes ago, mse326 said: Is it actually doing damage though? It's not like there is any media on about this. The general public and even most baseball fans probably don't even recognize or know it's happening. This is the only reason I can think of why the MLB hasn't acted. At some point, one of these guys will get traded and then have another incident after and that would be the catalyst that actually generates change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The Reds would have done better with the QO than the package they got. They didn't need to trade him. They made a decision. Making a decision you disagree with is not the same as have no trade helping them. This is basic economics, less options never makes you better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuy82 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I remember when Juan Soto and Victor Robles were being floated around last season for Osuna Shapiro and Atkins dropped the ball handling the Osuna and JD situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 @mse326 The media might be starting to wake up to this. Passan pulls zero punches in this article: https://sports.yahoo.com/trading-roberto-osuna-houston-astros-show-no-conscience-134758777.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: @mse326 The media might be starting to wake up to this. Passan pulls zero punches in this article: https://sports.yahoo.com/trading-roberto-osuna-houston-astros-show-no-conscience-134758777.html That's not waking up to the DV discount. Nothing in there about the price paid. That's simply him reiterating what others have called for; if you are accused of DV you should essentially been banned from baseball. We've had that debate before and I disagree but there is no need to rehash it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The media might be starting to wake up to this. Passan pulls zero punches in this article...... I wonder if he'll get a supportive standing O when first he's called in from the pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: @mse326 The media might be starting to wake up to this. Passan pulls zero punches in this article: https://sports.yahoo.com/trading-roberto-osuna-houston-astros-show-no-conscience-134758777.html This was terrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.