 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Speed Leagues » Mookie Wilson League » Vic Camp dealt to Cincinnatti
Farles
Vic Camp dealt to Cincinnatti
August 18, 2006 at 02:34PM View BBCode
The day after his 36th birthday, Vic Camp was dealt to Cincinnatti for [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3063819]Satchel Parker[/url] (to join KC at the end of the season) and a 1953 1st Round Draft Pick.
baseballpurist
August 18, 2006 at 02:45PM View BBCode
in his first AB Camp smashed a 2R HR to please the (CIN) faithful and keep their hopes of the playoffs alive.
phen0m
but im not sure you should be able to trade a guy you have getting CP's on a different team(through cp trade). It makes a world of difference whether you make a CP trade with someone in the other league or within the same league as you (if cincinnati was in the same league as me i probably would not have made the CP deal with him, even more so since his 2nd round pick will probably be a late one), so i dont really think its fair that i now have to accomodate someone in my own league having 4 guys with CP's on them instead of someone in the NL having 4 which was the original trade between cincinnati and i. to avoid this problem, I think if you have a guy in a CP deal and you wish to trade him... the team youre trading him to has to accept taking him on their roster now.
its definitely not too big of a deal now and all the trades should stand etc. , but i think its a rule that could and should be implemented next year,
brad
August 18, 2006 at 09:17PM View BBCode
definitely a good and fair trade for both of your teams...but im not sure you should be able to trade a guy you have getting CP's on a different team(through cp trade). It makes a world of difference whether you make a CP trade with someone in the other league or within the same league as you (if cincinnati was in the same league as me i probably would not have made the CP deal with him, even more so since his 2nd round pick will probably be a late one), so i dont really think its fair that i now have to accomodate someone in my own league having 4 guys with CP's on them instead of someone in the NL having 4 which was the original trade between cincinnati and i. to avoid this problem, I think if you have a guy in a CP deal and you wish to trade him... the team youre trading him to has to accept taking him on their roster now.
its definitely not too big of a deal now and all the trades should stand etc. , but i think its a rule that could and should be implemented next year,
brad
baseballpurist
just look at the trade as vic camp being trade for a #1 pick and a player to be named later. parker (the player in question) is in your minor league system but really is or was a (CIN) player and management has the right to use any prospect they have in trade. rod.
August 18, 2006 at 09:31PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
brad,
just look at the trade as vic camp being trade for a #1 pick and a player to be named later. parker (the player in question) is in your minor league system but really is or was a (CIN) player and management has the right to use any prospect they have in trade. rod.
Farles
-JS
August 18, 2006 at 09:59PM View BBCode
Yeah, I thought about the fairness of it too but the possibility of a CP'ed player getting traded to a potential competitor is something you have to accept whether it be while he's in the minors or after. CP trades are kind of hazy anyhow, so I would support more detailed rules about them.-JS
baseballpurist
August 18, 2006 at 10:29PM View BBCode
ok, if you guys want to explore adding to the CP rule then start an apprropriate thread and hammer out the details. at the end of the year, nominate the polished version and the league will vote to see if this new rule will bw added. 12 yeah votes will be needed for any rule to be added. thanks, rod.
phen0m
an extreme example; my NL team has about 10 guys that could benefit greatly from having CP's on them in the minors... a handful of AL teams dont have enough guys to put CP's on so i make CP deals with all of those teams, so now i technically have 10 guys getting CP's on them in minors. The AL teams dont mind too much because they pretty much get something for nothing, and the only way my team would ever play theirs would be in the world series. But shortly after, i go and trade all 10 guys that are getting CP's on them, and all of them to one team in the AL. And now that AL team has 13 players that they are developing in the minors. It is not fair to all the rest of the AL teams because they never would have made the CP trade to the AL team. They only made the deal because it was with an NL team.
obviously this scenario would probably never happen, but the Vic Camp/Parker trade is the exact same thing, just not on the grand of scale of the example because its only one minor leaguer with CP's
August 18, 2006 at 10:34PM View BBCode
yes, i understand what you are saying, but you cant compare it to real life baseball becuase there are no "coach points" or maximum of 3 players you can develop etc. etc.an extreme example; my NL team has about 10 guys that could benefit greatly from having CP's on them in the minors... a handful of AL teams dont have enough guys to put CP's on so i make CP deals with all of those teams, so now i technically have 10 guys getting CP's on them in minors. The AL teams dont mind too much because they pretty much get something for nothing, and the only way my team would ever play theirs would be in the world series. But shortly after, i go and trade all 10 guys that are getting CP's on them, and all of them to one team in the AL. And now that AL team has 13 players that they are developing in the minors. It is not fair to all the rest of the AL teams because they never would have made the CP trade to the AL team. They only made the deal because it was with an NL team.
obviously this scenario would probably never happen, but the Vic Camp/Parker trade is the exact same thing, just not on the grand of scale of the example because its only one minor leaguer with CP's
miked5
August 18, 2006 at 10:46PM View BBCode
I didn't know we can trade "players to be named" or "future considerations". I thought if you trade Vic Camp for Satchel Page then it was to be executed immediately, otherwise it falls in the category of a CP deal....which is probably what you guys are talking about right?? I'm a little confused here.
rhautanen1
Rich
August 19, 2006 at 01:01AM View BBCode
Satchel Parker is actually Cincinnati property, but is currently on Chameleon's roster as part of a previous CP deal. Had me confused at first. I think there is nothing to question here, Parker is Cincinatti's property and they should have the right to trade him. My feeling is since we allow CP trades then this is perfectly legit. I wouldn't vote for any restrictions where a guy on another team as part of a CP trade is somehow "locked" and can't be included in another deal.Rich
baseballpurist
i can see the point you're trying to make now. start work on a rule if you'd like.
mike,
as far i understand, there is nothing in the rules against such a trade. the problem is finding another owner you trust enough to do a "future" deal with. i can't speak for tyson or jet, but can imagine them not promoting these "future" deals because of the possibility of an owner flaking on the deal and the headaches this would cause them.
August 19, 2006 at 01:04AM View BBCode
brad,i can see the point you're trying to make now. start work on a rule if you'd like.
mike,
as far i understand, there is nothing in the rules against such a trade. the problem is finding another owner you trust enough to do a "future" deal with. i can't speak for tyson or jet, but can imagine them not promoting these "future" deals because of the possibility of an owner flaking on the deal and the headaches this would cause them.
rhautanen1
August 19, 2006 at 12:30PM View BBCode
This isn't much more dangerous than any other CP trade. The deal is captured on the message board. At the end of the season Chameleons trades Parker back to CIN as they would have anyway, then CIN trades Parker to KC. No troubles.
Ridgerunner
Other wise I say dump the CP trade rule all together. I have too many teams to keep track of to have a team that has to abide by many rule changes.
I vote leave it as it is or dump the CP trades all together
August 19, 2006 at 01:15PM View BBCode
Too many rules can cause a rule overlook or confusion. I agree the guy is in the Cinn's minors and Cinn should be able to do as he pleases.Other wise I say dump the CP trade rule all together. I have too many teams to keep track of to have a team that has to abide by many rule changes.
I vote leave it as it is or dump the CP trades all together
miked5
August 19, 2006 at 03:53PM View BBCode
RIDGERUNNER, just curious....what team are you? don't see you on the league info page
Ridgerunner
August 19, 2006 at 04:26PM View BBCode
The more I think about it you can do what ever you want with the CP trades. I can just keep from getting involved with them. This is the first league that has had that option out of the 8 I'm in.Pages: 1