PIT/NYM

[gillyd]

:PIT:

Gets:

Eric Rheinweiler (66/88) - SS, 19 y/o, $draft day

:NYM:

Gets:

Miguel Martinez (84) - 2B, 29 y/o, 2y9m

I get another prospect for the middle infield and clear some cash from my obligations for next years FA.

Accept.

[mike]

Let it be known that this deal needs special approval as Martinez was just signed this past offseason on a and heres the key part "multi" year deal and not simply a one year or arby deal. The special circumstances are supposed tobe for legit reasons not simply wanting to clear room for your fa spending next year.

[mattynokes]

Let it be known that (even if it didn't already go through) these deals are very realistic. The only type of players that are going to raise a stink anymore are top FAs that are given big contracts or key re-signings given big contracts as well and look like a pure decision to avoid the open market.

['PR']

This deal is fine, although because of Pittsburgh's lack of desire to compete this past offseason, it does make it a borderline sign-n-trade issue. If Pitt was trying to compete and failed, there is absolutely no problem with the fire sale, no matter how many years he gave any player. However, Pittsburgh was fire selling themselves in the offseason, which leads me to believe the signing of Martinez was for the purposes of getting value in a deal for him, not the purposes of winning. Now there's no problem with that, but in that case you should have to follow the hard one-year guideline because you blocked a potential contending team of signing that player.

For this reason, and the fact that Pittsburgh clearly stated they made this deal with the intentions of getting prospect value and clearing cap space, like all strictly rebuilding teams with no intention of winning do, this deal should be canned. It will further create the "But you let that PIT-NYM deal go through" situation when a veto is decided on the same type of trade.