OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

JasonC23 · 07-22-2023, 11:32 AM

It's such an interesting situation because, on the one hand, it's not great AI for a team to resign someone to a 3-year deal and then, not even a week later, trade that player/contract. On the other hand, this situation fascinates me because I can't tell which move was most questionable:

A) The Phillies giving a 32-year-old fragile closer a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause that guaranteed him the closer role

B) The player, having parlayed a 1-year free-agent deal with Philadelphia into a trip to the World Series, the Reliever of the Year Award, and a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause and a guarantee of being the closer immediately deciding, "You know, Cincinnati seems like a cool team to pitch for"

Or C) Cincinnati, despite already having a durable stud reliever guaranteed the closer role who is still under team control relatively cheaply through arbitration for 3 more years, deciding not only to trade for the Phillies' freshly signed closer but, for the privilege of inheriting such a bad contract, to give up 3 prospects, including a 4-star durable outfielder who had just been the 34th pick in the draft earlier in the year.

I think the answer here is C, because Philadelphia was somehow able to dump a self-inflicted bad contract for a good prospect, and the player apparently ended up where he wanted to with a 3-year deal and guaranteed job. Cincinnati...yeah.

07-22-2023, 11:32 AM	#7
JasonC23 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Huntley, IL Posts: 898	It's such an interesting situation because, on the one hand, it's not great AI for a team to resign someone to a 3-year deal and then, not even a week later, trade that player/contract. On the other hand, this situation fascinates me because I can't tell which move was most questionable: A) The Phillies giving a 32-year-old fragile closer a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause that guaranteed him the closer role B) The player, having parlayed a 1-year free-agent deal with Philadelphia into a trip to the World Series, the Reliever of the Year Award, and a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause and a guarantee of being the closer immediately deciding, "You know, Cincinnati seems like a cool team to pitch for" Or C) Cincinnati, despite already having a durable stud reliever guaranteed the closer role who is still under team control relatively cheaply through arbitration for 3 more years, deciding not only to trade for the Phillies' freshly signed closer but, for the privilege of inheriting such a bad contract, to give up 3 prospects, including a 4-star durable outfielder who had just been the 34th pick in the draft earlier in the year. I think the answer here is C, because Philadelphia was somehow able to dump a self-inflicted bad contract for a good prospect, and the player apparently ended up where he wanted to with a 3-year deal and guaranteed job. Cincinnati...yeah.