Master Index of Archived Threads


Trading (Split from Minaya's Head)

Benjamin Grimm Jul 07 2009 01:59 PM

I don't understand the blanket hatred of trades. Did you not like getting Santana? Keith Hernandez?

Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 02:03 PM

You don't? It has nothing to do with the quality of the players. It has everything to do with the ethics of treating players like property, to be sold off without their consent, and what message that sends to society. I only cite it now because my feelings about Minaya saving himself or the 2009 team with in-season activity is another issue.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 07 2009 02:09 PM

Oh... I thought it was because of an attachment to the departing players.

Nymr83 Jul 07 2009 02:15 PM

i dont understand the excess sympathy you seem to have for guys making millions of dollars. if you found a job that would pay you 900k to work 6 months out of the year and have fun doing it wouldnt you happily go wherever the heck they wanted you to? they arent anyones property, they're entertainers making a HUGE amount of money and getting sent to work in another city is part of the job, they're more than welcome to seek employment in a field where occassional relocation isnt part of the job.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 07 2009 02:19 PM

I'm with Namor on this one. Sure it sucks for a minor leaguer to have to suddenly move from Peoria to Idaho Falls, but he's paying his dues for the potential, however slim it may be, to get those big pay checks and to be part of the big league lifestyle. And also, there are plenty of guys who are happy to be traded.

bmfc1 Jul 07 2009 02:21 PM

Don't forget that Curt Flood helped see to it that players cease being property after a certain amount of service. In-season trades must stink, both for the players and their families, but they can live wherever they want, even PSL!, for four or five months every year.

metirish Jul 07 2009 02:25 PM

="Edgy DC"]You don't? It has nothing to do with the quality of the players. It has everything to do with the ethics of treating players like property, to be sold off without their consent, and what message that sends to society. .

Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 02:27 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 07 2009 02:33 PM

I don't mean to change the subject, but I completely disagree with every word of your first sentence. 1) Most guys getting traded aren't making the big money. 2) Who decides when sympathy is excessive? 3) There are families involved. 4) Sympathy is not something folks should reserve for certian tax brackets. Let's move on to sentence two. 1) No. 2) They didn't find those jobs. They earned them through decades of sweat. 3) They're washed up by 40, most by 30, having put all their work in preparing themselves for that one job. 4) Again, families are involved. Sentence three: 1) I didn't say they were property. I said it was treating them like property. 2) Being entertainers has nothing to do with anything. 3) Again with the money. 4) I understand it's part of the job. It shouldn't be. 5) I understand that they are free to seek other employment. What am I --- six?

Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 02:28 PM

="metirish"] ="Edgy DC"]You don't? It has nothing to do with the quality of the players. It has everything to do with the ethics of treating players like property, to be sold off without their consent, and what message that sends to society. . Why? Football players in Europe don't get the same deal? There are a lot of things we accept because it's always been that way. Quite a few --- the draft, trades, territorial exclusivity --- we shouldn't.

metirish Jul 07 2009 02:33 PM

I see your point Edgy and Roy Keane the former Manchester United and Ireland captain famously said that players are nothing more than pieces of meat to be bought and sold after one of his team mates got sold of to Europe not long after signing a contract , Japp Stam is the player and was arguably one of United's best but he upset his manager and they sold him.

Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 02:57 PM

="Benjamin Grimm":3s3l4g6k]And also, there are plenty of guys who are happy to be traded.[/quote:3s3l4g6k] There are plenty. And I imagine they would give their consent. In a new order where trades are outlawed, I'd expect the majority would. I don't see why this is relevant. The issue is trading players without their consent. Benjamin Grimm Jul 07 2009 03:17 PM It's relevant because you said (in a post that's still in the original thread) "I hate trades period." That implied, to me, that you hated every trade, without exception. holychicken Jul 07 2009 03:19 PM ="Nymr83"]if you found a job that would pay you 900k to work 6 months out of the year and have fun doing it wouldnt you happily go wherever the heck they wanted you to? I don't believe this to be true. They may only be traveling with the team for 6 months of the year (and that really only applies to the people who make it to the top, the rest are often with other teams during the offseason) but in the offseason almost ever player is working out regularly. I am not sure how fun it is. I am sure there is fun to be had, but how many other jobs require you to be under such constant and close public scrutiny? Where, really, your performance cannot be hidden anywhere. It is right there for everyone to see. Even just bad luck can be viewed as bad performance. Not to mention traveling all the time, living out of hotel rooms away from your family. Honestly, it doesn't sound like a very fun job to me, just a very lucrative one. ]they arent anyones property, they're entertainers making a HUGE amount of money and getting sent to work in another city is part of the job, they're more than welcome to seek employment in a field where occassional relocation isnt part of the job. Doesn't mean they aren't being treated like property or that it doesn't suck. Vic Sage Jul 07 2009 03:37 PM As long as its ok to trade entertainers, could we trade the Michael Jackson memorial for the celebration of a pedophile to be named later? Nymr83 Jul 07 2009 04:35 PM or we could, you know, just not celebrate the lives of pedophiles. Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 06:24 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xww8r3y4]It's relevant because you said (in a post that's still in the original thread) "I hate trades period." That implied, to me, that you hated every trade, without exception.[/quote:xww8r3y4] Well, then please allow me to humbly clarify that I dislike trades as the answer to player procurement while not disliking as a rule the players procured through them. I particularly dislike the right of teams to execute trades without the consent of the players involved. G-Fafif Jul 07 2009 09:39 PM It is weird, when one steps back, to consider the concept of trading individuals to new jobs and work environments. But everybody signs off on the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Donald Fehr and crew were on such a hot streak there for a while I imagine they could have negotiated trades largely out of existence had they been so inclined. Edgy DC Jul 07 2009 10:04 PM Let's remember that the beginning to the end of the supremacy of the reserve clause ---- of which the broad right to trade a player is a vestige --- didn't come in the form of a player demanding the right to negotiate with another team, but a player (Curt Flood) refusing to accept a trade. With players getting such an absurdly small piece of the revenue pie in return for the labor of their lives, the freedom to negotiate has naturally been the greater issue for labor. And certainly has supremacy for union lawyers, who get a piece of that windfall. And, over the years, they've only negotiated protection from trades for the rare player with 10-and-five status. That doesn't mean it's not an issue, it's just a lesser one than the right to sell their labor on an open marketplace, and they're less interested in whittling a team's right to trade a player down from 10-5 than they are in whittling a team's right to control a player --- regardless of his contract guarantees ---- down from six years in the bigs to zero. Iit's a lesser concern to the union. Doesn't make it right.