Amazing trade offer. would you???

r0nster · 02-18-2018, 06:38 PM

I got this Amazing trade offer I am very tempted. However my problem it would leave me short handed in replacing the pitcher as he is still young with several good years and I have outfielders to replace of which can be done easily enough. Bottomline is strong in replacing outfielders but weak with starting pitching.

Would you do this trade deal.

JaBurns · 02-18-2018, 06:47 PM

I would not make the trade if you are strong in the outfield, you also have the pitcher locked up for 7 years. Not sure what your financial position is but it appears this guy is going to be looking for more $ after next year.

r0nster · 02-18-2018, 10:52 PM

thanks I had decided NOT to accept the trade and rejected it. No I didn't bother to negotiate with different players.

NoOne · 02-19-2018, 01:07 PM

if you can't afford the loss of pitching, then i'd say no.

can't tell anythign from mil stats on the 24yo without baselines (same for mlb really, ops+ helps*)... @24 and still struggling in aa, i'd assume they are junk. either not dveloping or nothign to develop.

if it's only a slight downturn and only ~1 year, i'd think about it... if you have 3-4 of similar offensive batters than it's not so important anymore for a 3-4year window of excellence (age 30 already).

this sort of decision is about a range of time that extends well beyond 1 season. if i see it as a net positive in the long-term i take it. being left without altenrate positional options isn't something i allow to happen... if that isn't the case for others it would make it a more difficult choice to make.

i.e. i never have 3 sp leaving with no one to replace them. (all possible sources considered -- certainly wouldn't add contracts that cuased 3 to leave in 1 year to begin with)... heck i never have huge turnover in any year, so that sort of impediment to improving my team doesn't exist. multiple reasons for doing things that way, and this on just one.

if you had taken it, you'd have to trade that guy within a few years, either way. signed until age 38? ouch. that means you have to give up 1-2 years of solid play to avoid being stuck with a bad contract and a hamstrung budget for multiple years. (i assume 17m/yr is expensive in your league?)

r0nster · 02-19-2018, 02:23 PM

in this game it seems the players essentially die off by age 32 and become worthless. The odd and strange part it seems the relievers (closers) seem to last into the late 30s into the 40s.

I did get a trade for 28 year old from Milwaukee who just got 50 hit in a row. I didn't do the trade for he was weak in the outfield and I had a perfect DH already and I turned that down too. They wanted way too much for him 4 players for just one guy.

02-18-2018, 06:38 PM	#1
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,082	Amazing trade offer. would you??? I got this Amazing trade offer I am very tempted. However my problem it would leave me short handed in replacing the pitcher as he is still young with several good years and I have outfielders to replace of which can be done easily enough. Bottomline is strong in replacing outfielders but weak with starting pitching. Would you do this trade deal. Attached Images

02-19-2018, 01:07 PM	#4
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	if you can't afford the loss of pitching, then i'd say no. can't tell anythign from mil stats on the 24yo without baselines (same for mlb really, ops+ helps)... @24 and still struggling in aa, i'd assume they are junk. either not dveloping or nothign to develop. if it's only a slight downturn and only ~1 year, i'd think about it... if you have 3-4 of similar offensive batters than it's not so important anymore for a 3-4year window of excellence (age 30 already). this sort of decision is about a range of time that extends well beyond 1 season. if i see it as a net positive in the long-term i take it. being left without altenrate positional options isn't something i allow to happen... if that isn't the case for others it would make it a more difficult choice to make. i.e. i never have 3 sp leaving with no one to replace them. (all possible sources considered -- certainly wouldn't add contracts that cuased 3 to leave in 1 year to begin with)... heck i never have huge turnover in any year, so that sort of impediment to improving my team doesn't exist. multiple reasons for doing things that way, and this on just one. if you had taken it, you'd have to trade that guy within a few years, either way. signed until age 38? ouch. that means you have to give up 1-2 years of solid play to avoid being stuck with a bad contract and a hamstrung budget for multiple years. (i assume 17m/yr is expensive in your league?) Last edited by NoOne; 02-19-2018 at 01:11 PM.*

02-18-2018, 06:47 PM	#2
JaBurns All Star Starter Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Kelowna, British Columbia Posts: 1,301	I would not make the trade if you are strong in the outfield, you also have the pitcher locked up for 7 years. Not sure what your financial position is but it appears this guy is going to be looking for more $ after next year.

02-18-2018, 10:52 PM	#3
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,082	thanks I had decided NOT to accept the trade and rejected it. No I didn't bother to negotiate with different players.

02-19-2018, 02:23 PM	#5
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,082	in this game it seems the players essentially die off by age 32 and become worthless. The odd and strange part it seems the relievers (closers) seem to last into the late 30s into the 40s. I did get a trade for 28 year old from Milwaukee who just got 50 hit in a row. I didn't do the trade for he was weak in the outfield and I had a perfect DH already and I turned that down too. They wanted way too much for him 4 players for just one guy.