League Vote : Melky Cabrera Vs. Arodys Vizcaino
If you would prefer to carry Arodys Vizcaino on your roster going forward please vote A.
If you would prefer to carry Melky Cabrera on your roster going forward please vote B.
If you would prefer to carry Arodys Vizcaino on your roster going forward please vote A.
If you would prefer to carry Melky Cabrera on your roster going forward please vote B.
WTNY Votes A
DMB votes B
EE Votes B
A
B
I do think this league needs to revamp compensation for minor league guys lost in these deals. I look at this deal similar to the Jair Gorkys deal. Gorkys was not even 20 and 3 years later is still with out a major league at bat and currently sits as the BA #10 prospect in Pittsburgh. The compensation that went to Gorkys (Renteria) was in hindsight, incorrect. I think Hairston Cunningham falls in line with Street Cargo for Holliday. Cargo is very close and turned it on at end of season. Street was a candidate for team MVP though on a team that went to the playoffs. TRC got Holliday (Wallace) and I never heard Si7 complain once cause at the end of the day, Cargo is the guy we’d want most on this team.
When I fist commented on this deal a few weeks back I wrote it was a “no brainer”. I admit, research on Arodys was very slim and the quick reaction was prob wrong. At this point I feel it is a lot closer but I still think Melky gets it done. Atlanta is a contender in the NL and has landed themselves a young starting OF that fits into their budget scheme. Arodys is a nice add but at 19, there is just to much guess work involved.
I would be in favor of revamping the minor league compensation at this years WM and including guys like Arodys who may have been traded this past off season.
SOrry, rambled on. This is a vote for B.
Pat, I agree, we should adjust compensation and it was brought up in one of the many rule changes proposed.
As for this deal, I know every team thinks differently as far as philosophy goes, and some teams play year to year like EE, and it’s worked out great for him so far. Others put more emphasis on the farm – DMB has used it to his advantage. That’s why I think all of these should go to a league vote. The one downside obviously is teams voting based not on personal preference but on personal gain. But hopefully those will be canceled out.
TRC- A
I’m sorry, but the guy just wasn’t good for an OF’er last year and should have zero SOT value. A vote for Melky is like a vote for Coakley, sleep on that one tonight Pat.
Tier I – no doubt better
Ichiro
Granderson
Cruz
Abreu
Matsui
Rajai Davis
Choo
Markakis
Bay
Ellsbury
Guitierrez
Adam Jones
Quentin
Cuddyer
Span
Damon
Juan Rivera
Crawford
Lind
Kubel
Swisher
D Murphy
Podsednick
Cust
Dejesus
Tier II – slightly better
Rios
Wells
Tier III – same production
Ryan Sweeney
Melky
Hairston
Not included – Sizemore, Vlad, Bourbon, Hamilton
We must assume 101 Wins votes A in favor of WTNY. With that being said, that leaves us at a 4-4 tie. I believe the rule states we go back to the original decision by the Commish.
Someone please double check. If this is the case, JV remains on Soxin7 squad.
Thank most of you for your timely response.
So the Commish’s vote counts twice here? How does this make sense, especially when you had no idea who Arody’s was the day of the trade. Why would we have an uninformed individual make the final decision.
How else would you like to break a tie? Oh ya, split the player. Right! Isn’t that what you want.
I just got home. I should have my answer shortly. I dont answer all willy nilly.
I just spent the last 90 mins researching these players. Almost a complete tossup, but my vote is for A. Vizcaino is the player I’d rather.
Unfortunately it doesn’t look like we have a better idea for a vote on al/nl trade tie breaker then to default back to the commish. Anyone have an idea to improve this method?
With regards to DMB’s Constitution reference for the tie-breaker on this ruling, our league rules state,
“If a Rotisserie League team loses a player to the “other” league in an interleague trade, then the team losing the player has the first right to acquire the player moving into the AL, as long as the added player’s salary stays within the salary cap limitations. (When multiple teams are involved, the Commissioner decides which team gets first priority)”.
Well it makes no sense to have one guy in this league have a vote that counts more than others, especially when that guy has shown he knows less than others about the prospect in the deal, freely admitting he had no idea who Arodys was three weeks ago. How does the “commish” tag = “I know more therefore my vote counts twice”?
“Split the player.” – you sound like a 5-year-old. Are you incapable of having an intelligent conversation on this or do you just prefer to keep it low brow?
EE – where’s the part about the commish breaking the tie with his vote? This rule states that the Commish decides, but I don’t see anything about the tie-breaker scenario, unless that’s included somewhere else in the constitution. I looked, couldn’t find it.
JM – how is the “revert back to the commish” the best idea here? Why not flip a coin, or use some other random method. Saying one individual should have a vote that means more than the rest doesn’t add up, there’s no reason to believe anyone of us should have superior voting power.
Make a proposal to change it. I’d be interested to see sensible alternatives.
WTNY – “5 year old” That really means a lot coming the guy who continually acts as the biggest bitch in the league. It’s unbelievable how transparent you are. From complaining about getting screwed in the hairston deal to then voting against Hariston. Why? To try and prove to the league how consistent you are. We all know how you consistently finish out of the money every year. The consistency stopped there.
“an intelligent conversation” about what? The fact you asked for a league vote 3 weeks after the trade happened. Is it just a coincidence you asked a league after you realized you lost two players from your team? I doubt it.
I’m sorry you lost a 30 year old 4th OF and a dime a dozen 19 year old pitcher coming off back to back 44 inning season in rookie ball. Maybe it’s Karma. That’s what I attribute all my luck in SOT to.
This should be interesting. Nice to see the acknowledgement of luck.
AG- a coin flip is more fair than giving any owner two votes. So what happens if DMB has players involved? Is he making the final decision? Other than Si7, there isn’t an owner in this league that would trust him making a decision based on the players involved and not how it would affebt his team. There isn’t a rule in place that gives him the tie-breaking vote, so where are you making this one up from mike?
WTNY – This may “high-brow” for such simpleton as yourself. But stay with me here. Because you seem to be the only person here not understanding how this works. Commish rules on trade. If a team feels there is an error, they may ask for a league vote. If the league vote is 4-4, then the commish’s original ruling stands. Isn’t this the logical resolution?
Not sure you need to question to integrity of the commish coming from the guy asking for a league vote 3 weeks after the fact.
Remember the last time the commish’s team was involved in a decision like this? maybin/miller I believe. It went to league vote and Maybin won. So i’m fairly confident we have a system in place to take care of this.
“It’s unbelievable how transparent you are.”
- You do realize transparency is a good thing, right? So thanks, that’s my goal. And it probably makes sense that I’m the only one bitching here since, well, I’m one of two teams involved in this Melky/Arodys situation, and the other one has been told he gets first choice even though the vote was 4-4. Follow? I’m pretty sure TRC doesn’t have anything to bitch about in this deal, and neither does Tillman, 101, EE, or JM.
“The fact you asked for a league vote 3 weeks after the trade happened.”
- I sent you an email the day the deal went down, to which you replied, “there’s no doubt Si7 gets JV.” No doubt? How does 4-4 sound. That email was the day of the trade, so why lie about it?
“I’m sorry you lost a 30 year old 4th OF and a dime a dozen 19 year old pitcher coming off back to back 44 inning season in rookie ball.”
- For now the 2nd time, it wasn’t rookie ball, and since when did Top 100 prospects become “dime a dozen”? We all know you don’t believe what you’re writing, and 4 star prospects who are ranked in the top 100 in baseball are not “dime a dozen”.
“Commish rules on trade. If a team feels there is an error, they may ask for a league vote. If the league vote is 4-4, then the commish’s original ruling stands. Isn’t this the logical resolution?”
- I’ll avoid the simpleton talk and try to use common sense in telling why it’s not logical.
1) The written rule does not cover a tie-breaker, just the original trade scenario. It’s also pretty silly, because in cases where it’s not a no-brainer, why wouldn’t an owner want all eight teams voting instead of just one? So shouldn’t we just put it out to vote? But fine, if you prefer to state your case then have everyone else vote, go for it, just seems redundant.
2) We have eight team owners, all with equal say in the rules and direction of this league. We don’t all think alike, but the majority rules. Under what scenario does it make sense to have one of these eight owners make a judgment call, and have that vote count more than everyone else? When we vote on rules, every owner has one vote, and we’ve never had a rule where one owner had a vote count twice. I don’t care if we had an owner named Keith Goldstein Callis Sickels, there’s just no logical reason why one owner has a vote that counts more than the next in a judgment call situation.
3) You’re right there is some luck involved in this league. So I’m proposing that in the case of a tie, we bring the luck factor back in. All team names are put in a hat, one name is pulled, whichever name comes up, we revert to that teams vote as the final decision maker. That way there’s no bias involved and no team with a higher voting authority than the next. The losing team can’t complain about the vote, and there’s no need to debate. There’s also no need for one team to gain an edge by having their vote count more than the rest.
“It went to league vote and Maybin won. So i’m fairly confident we have a system in place to take care of this.”
- Maybin/Miller was not a tie vote. It was either 6-2 or 5-3 in your favor, so what’s the point?
Stop taking this so personal, there’s no need for you to show your power, or talk about how great your team is, or assert your supreme intelligence over the rest of us. We have a 4-4 tie in a vote that you originally thought wasn’t close. Common sense says every team should have the same voting rights in a judgment call situation. If you can’t understand why that should be, then I’ve got nothing else. Continue on your current line of thinking that says for some reason you should have more voting power. At the same time though, I’ll propose this alternative rule to the league and see what all eight teams think. That’s how SOT works, all eight teams get a say in the direction of the league.
What about allowing owners who did not receive the nl player the ability to petition the league for compensation one time. If the league rewarded the correct owner this will never come up. If the league did not reward the right owner then that owner can petition the league for compensation during a forthcoming offseason.
For example, if Arodys Vizcaino turns out be a top 20 prospect next year then WTNY can petition the league for compensation or he can elect to wait to see if AV has greater success at the minor league or even mlb level and ask for more compensation. Obviously there is some risk as to when to petition the league. We could set up compensation parameters. This is obviously related to the proposed Jair Jurrgens Rule #6 but didn’t want it to get lost in the shuffle.
I would have a problem with awarding compensation based upon 1 year of performance. Owners were asked to vote on which player they would rather have on their SOT roster. We are entering a slippery slope if we are going to reevaluate every one of these deals on a yearly basis. Gorky’s could rip it up from 2011-2018 and JJ could be shut down with arm trouble. Awarding you a comp pick one year later seems unreasonable to me.
We currently have compensation in place. Top 20 AL prospects from BP, BA, and Sickels top 100. If you want to increase these parameters then I suggest we talk during the WM.
Thoughts?
Good suggestion AG, although I’m not sure we really need a petition now that I think about it. Two teams are losing players, while only one is getting a player back. I think we should keep it simple:
The team losing a player receives a draft pick in the following season to compensate. That way, even if it turns out that the league made the wrong decision (Gorkys), the owner will still receive some type of compensation. The tricky part is awarding compensation, but here’s my suggestion. All teams vote on the value of the player lost. Our current compensation is too broad, but at the same time doesn’t cover enough, if that makes any sense. My proposal allows all 8 teams to vote on compensation, and we can eliminate the high end and low end vote and take the average of the remaining 6 votes. (I may overvalue prospects, so my vote for a higher round pick will be canceled out by Tillman, who will most likely be on the higher end of these votes.)
My example:
Yanks trade Montero and Cano for Lincecum. In a close vote, Cano is voted as the more valuable SOT player, awarding Lincecum to 101. You get left with no player in return, but according to our current rule, you would receive a compensation pick after the 2nd rd (I think…or is it the 3rd rd?). I think it’s obvious to everyone that a 2nd/3rd round pick isn’t equal to the value you lost. Therefore, all teams vote. WTNY votes 1st rd, 1st pick. Tillman votes 3rd rd 1st pick. DMB votes 1st rd, 8th pick. etc. etc. Once we tally the votes, and remove my vote and Tillman’s, assuming those are the two outliers, the average would be the compensation awarded. If the Avg was 1st round 6th pick, then you would get that pick in next year’s draft (but would select AFTER the SOT team is scheduled to pick – so it would actually be the 7th pick in the 1st round.)
Thoughts?