+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General Manager's Office (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Forum: Trade Central (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Trades In-File (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=35)
+---- Thread: CLE-DET Trade (/showthread.php?tid=32452)
CLE-DET Trade - mattynokes - 07-29-2015
Gets:RF Brad Lamp 84 (Age Not Old, But Not Young) $8.6M thru '56
$1.4M Cash
:det2: Gets:
Nothing
----------
Nostalgia
RE: CLE-DET Trade - Geaux Blue - 07-29-2015
I hate Lamp.
RE: CLE-DET Trade - jhc54 - 07-29-2015
But gb you just signed him. I need a bit more of an explanaton here. It's a weird sign and trade example...
Update:
JPS alerted me to the fact I am an idiot. Should be good on my end for an approval
RE: CLE-DET Trade - mattynokes - 07-29-2015
(07-29-2015, 05:10 PM)jhc54 Wrote: But gb you just signed him. I need a bit more of an explanaton here. It's a weird sign and trade example...
Lamp was signed to a one year deal and dealt at the trade deadline. This is a common practice in the real major leagues and the furthest from a S&T. S&T's are when a well sought after player is signed to a big contract and quickly flipped for assets. Not a 1 (or even 2) year deal where the team gets little or nothing in return.
RE: CLE-DET Trade - jhc54 - 07-29-2015
Right I get that. But lets say I'm skeptical of the fact you won't spin him as well for assets before the end of the trade deadline (which you have every right to do). Or are you gonna keep him?
I also modified my vote to approve. JPS talked sense into me. I also think everyone will approve.
I just don't want to set a precedent where a team is willing to take a one year deal and then spin them for a new set of assets. It is rather clever. I get it you might be able to squeeze value out of Lamp, just tastes bad that's all.
RE: CLE-DET Trade - mattynokes - 07-29-2015
(07-29-2015, 05:34 PM)jhc54 Wrote: Right I get that. But lets say I'm skeptical of the fact you won't spin him as well for assets before the end of the trade deadline (which you have every right to do). Or are you gonna keep him?
I also modified my vote to approve. JPS talked sense into me. I also think everyone will approve.
I just don't want to set a precedent where a team is willing to take a one year deal and then spin them for a new set of assets. It is rather clever. I get it you might be able to squeeze value out of Lamp, just tastes bad that's all.
I hate to break it to you, but these type of deals have been happening since the league's inception. And again, they are a realistic part of real world baseball. You're thinking way too far into this.
Think Juan Uribe. He was dumped to the Braves, who were able to flip him for a decent prospect after he started hitting. It's simply something that happens in baseball and doesn't hurt the league. When I said "assets", I meant actual, good, prospects (certainly 80+ peak). Anyone thinking straight would not give up more than a high 70s prospect if Lamp were hitting well and more likely to only net a mid 70s (a 5th or 6th round type) prospect.
For how Lamp honestly plays out with me, he goes to the DL, since he'll miss at least half of the games for sim 9. Then, I'd be hoping for good numbers in sim 10 to be able to get anything off of the waver wire. It's a long shot to get anything and even doing so, for only a month I bet I only get a small cash offer at best.
RE: CLE-DET Trade - Geaux Blue - 07-29-2015
My excuse is I needed a right handed RF for this year, he's been abysmal for me so I upgraded the position through other trades during the year. It's a one year deal and the dude has little value if any. These types of deals happen every year and its largely insignificant. Am I unaware of a new rule where every deal im in gets messed with?
RE: CLE-DET Trade - AndyP - 07-29-2015
Approved