LDF Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 last i remembered, there was a mixed up in the compensation for fa. here is the writing. So draft-pick compensation for losing major league free agents remains in effect, and the new compensation structure for failing to sign a first-round pick–which could have gone a long way in curbing bonuses, a longtime management goal–has been tabled. so the question goes back why make the trade with oak involving durham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Because KW didn't know whether the new CBA would retain the old Draft Rules. Alot of people would have exploded if KW didn't trade Durham, and the new CBA didn't have draft pick compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 At that time they didn't think their would be draft pick compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 Originally posted by ChisoxfnAt that time they didn't think their would be draft pick compensation. my point is still this. who cares about the compensation issue. i would never have traded durham, if billy beane didn't pony up with more prospects. play hard ball and if not, then let him walk, even without any comp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Billy had all the leverage in the world. No other team wanted Durham, so KW was stuck with what Beane offered him. He couldn't really make a counter offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 Originally posted by Cerbaho-WGBilly had all the leverage in the world. No other team wanted Durham, so KW was stuck with what Beane offered him. He couldn't really make a counter offer. in that case do not trade him and let him walk at the end of the season. period Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 So, you're out of the playoffs all-together, and it's doubtful your owner will fork over 6 million a year for him. Do you: 1)Trade him for anyone you can get 2)Let him walk, and might end up with no draft picks because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by Cerbaho-WGSo, you're out of the playoffs all-together, and it's doubtful your owner will fork over 6 million a year for him. Do you: 1)Trade him for anyone you can get 2)Let him walk, and might end up with no draft picks because of it. yes if the other team, regardless of who, doesn't come up with the players to meet you demand. it beats paying almost 90% of his salary and recieve a minor leaguer who will amount to nothing. oh yeah that is good thinking here and we still have to pay this guy salary to boot. excellant trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesomefan Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Does anyone know where to go on the internet to look up the fine details on exactly how some trades went down? It's all just too much stats & stuff for me to remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by awesomefanDoes anyone know where to go on the internet to look up the fine details on exactly how some trades went down? It's all just too much stats & stuff for me to remember. alot of site, when the trade went down explained how the trade went down or the fine details. i usually kept alot of the trades and i rely on espn, cbs and BA. is there a specific question, i am sure these guys here know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by Cerbaho-WGSo, you're out of the playoffs all-together, and it's doubtful your owner will fork over 6 million a year for him. Do you: 1)Trade him for anyone you can get 2)Let him walk, and might end up with no draft picks because of it. you let him walk....because if you dont it will effect future trades...if other GM's see that you cave easily and eventually will settle for "whatever" then thats all you'll ever get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Of course you also have to remember they didn't want Ray here, they wanted to time to see where Jimenez and Harris were. Is that a reason to get too little for Ray, No, but it is a reason for dumping him. I don't know what was going on in the negotiations, only KW and Billy Beane know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by ChisoxfnOf course you also have to remember they didn't want Ray here, they wanted to time to see where Jimenez and Harris were. Is that a reason to get too little for Ray, No, but it is a reason for dumping him. I don't know what was going on in the negotiations, only KW and Billy Beane know. what you say is somewhat true, but we are talking about establishing or reestablishing one rep. kw may have shown that he can be had in some trades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by LDF kw may have shown that he can be had in some trades May have shown? That's the nice way of putting it LDF . Of course, if some of the youngsters KW traded for pan out, I'll change my opinion of KW somewhat. But I don't see that happening anytime in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by CubKilla Originally posted by LDF kw may have shown that he can be had in some trades May have shown? That's the nice way of putting it LDF . Of course, if some of the youngsters KW traded for pan out, I'll change my opinion of KW somewhat. But I don't see that happening anytime in the near future. by all acct i only see 1 prospect turning out to be somethiing and i think it that diaz kid. what gets me is this. what was pitt seeing in marte that they were going to release him, according to the sportwriter in pitt. he comes here and does real well. but i do remember seeing him that when he came in with runners on base, he didn't do too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by LDF but i do remember seeing him that when he came in with runners on base, he didn't do too well. Ding Ding Ding Ding! Marte was lights out when coming in with no runners on base. If he inherited runners, he was about as effective as a 10x10 hole in Hoover Dam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by CubKilla Originally posted by LDF but i do remember seeing him that when he came in with runners on base, he didn't do too well. Ding Ding Ding Ding! Marte was lights out when coming in with no runners on base. If he inherited runners, he was about as effective as a 10x10 hole in Hoover Dam. i knew it, i posted that statement before and got flame for it. so i am glad i was seeing things differently. whew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 with no one 157 BA against with runners on 270 what bothered me most about marte was his era was 4.74 on zero or 1 days rest..and was almost none existent on 2 or more days rest..shows he didnt do well on pitching back to back..which is the emost important quality in a reliever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Originally posted by baggio202with no one 157 BA against with runners on 270 what bothered me most about marte was his era was 4.74 on zero or 1 days rest..and was almost none existent on 2 or more days rest..shows he didnt do well on pitching back to back..which is the emost important quality in a reliever.. do you think that the report out of pit was true, about them about to let him go? either way, he did a decent job, now to make sure he comes in on the ideal situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.