|
|
Post by New York Yankees on Jan 14, 2022 23:06:10 GMT -5
Bos recieve Gleyber Torres
Nyy reciece $5 cash 2023 only
By posting I accept gives me future money when I need it
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 14, 2022 23:21:06 GMT -5
I accept.
I am talking to some teams re: Corey Seager so I wanted to get a SS. I needed a 2B as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDP - Jere on Jan 15, 2022 0:58:13 GMT -5
Approved
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Blue Jays on Jan 16, 2022 11:37:47 GMT -5
I vote no
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Dodgers on Jan 16, 2022 11:52:52 GMT -5
I have been holding my vote to see what the others say. If the other 3 passed it, I would not have made an issue of it. But my initial thought is also no.
Torres had a bad year. But he's still young and has shown he's capable of big #'s. Plus he's 2B & SS eligible and has 2 more cheap years of control. In my opinion that's worth more than $5 a year from now. He would go for 2 or 3 times that much in auction next year if available.
So I have to vote NO on this one also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 14:27:02 GMT -5
Just casually posting gleyber's stat line from last year
.259 .331 .366
Would you even give a qualifying offer to this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Blue Jays on Jan 16, 2022 22:34:36 GMT -5
Gleyber Torres is also the same player who hit 96R 38HR 90RBI .276AVG at 23yrs old. His stats took a big hit at the same time as he had a position change, and began to revert back as soon as the Yankees came to the conclusion at the end of last year he would do better at 2B.
Projections for next year have him having dual 2B/SS eligiblity while hitting 20 HR 70 RBI 12SB .265AVG. These projections are just a touch bit better than the projections for Chris Taylor who has the same eligibility. Chris Taylor was just given $15/4Yyrs by NYY. So the premise of this trade is that it is better to pay way more for a comparable player than have the cost certainty for another at a way lower price.
Every year, teams end up wasting countless $ that goes to waste. $5 in theory should be able a lower end draft pick, not a low priced multi-position player, that costs a $1, with an option to either get a lower price in auction if one weren't going to extend an offer. The ceiling for a player like this is high, with a high level of variance. If BOS wasn't inclined to offer Torres a qualifying offer, they would still be the beneficiary of an advantage for bidding on that player in the auction.
$5 of future money for Torres to me was a veto. It was as close to giving away a solid player for free as I can think of. How many teams end up with the end of the year with swaths of $$ unused?
The value in/out was enough of disparity, and a bad precedent moving forward that I took the unenviable action of voting against it.
During the time the trade was posted I was contacted by Boston to make a decision on the deal, then followed up by NYY insistence to make a decision, so I posted quickly my verdict. At the time I was mulling over the decision as I took the action of voting against it seriously.
I will not be getting into debates with anyone about these trades, so if someone is going to give a rebuttal here I really have no inclination to continue on with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 16, 2022 22:51:22 GMT -5
TOR, thank you for taking the time to explain.
There is a lot of subjectivity in assessing trades and I have seen trades I disagreed upon but always approved because there was no evidence of wrongdoing. And I thought that that was the standard.
Anyway, I respect your decision and again, thank you for your explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Jan 16, 2022 23:40:00 GMT -5
This trade has not been approved.
|
|
