OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

[HechticSooner]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

You could sign up to be a rep, or you could go to the trade discussion thread.

Does anyone really care where I sent this from?

He doesn't have to sign up to be a rep to use this thread. This thread is just supposed to give a more realistic trading market cause you dealing with people that understand the systems that they are reping and they are suppose to be basing things more on what their teams would do IRL.

[chicubsfan20]

Re: A trade acceptance/rejection thread idea

TO: Tampa Bay Rays (msuboy11)

FROM: Chicago Cubs

RE: Jeremy Hellickson

Currently sitting in rebuilding mode, the Cubs are sitting 8.5 GB of first and 5th in NL Central. We are looking to add some young pitching depth to the rotation.

Current you guys are in 3rd and 2.5 GB and with your starting catcher out you look like you could use an upgrade there. You also have a starting pitcher DL'd 60 days (Price). We have Soto who's been hot as of late and hitting well. Hellickson has a modest 5-3 record but an 4.69 ERA and a change of scenery may help

We have a slew of players who we'd be willing to throw in:

SP Jay Jackson (6-3 3.31 ERA in AAA) B potential age 24
Dae-Eun Rhee (5-0 1.89 ERA in AA, 2-1 3.33 ERA in AAA) has received overachieving email already and is now sitting at a B potential and only 23.
SP Randy Wells (6-1 (2.56 ERA in AAA log jamed right now)
SP Ryan Dempster (5-3 3.53 ERA)
SP Paul Maholm (1-4 3.93 ERA, receives little run support)RP Shawn Camp (1-1 3.66 ERA)
CP Carlos Marmol (1-3 2.67 ERA 18/21 in Saves)

C Soto (.282/12 HR/48 RBIs.)
LF/DH Soriano (.267/ 19 HR's 2nd in NL/60 RBIs)
RF David DeJesus (.281/2 HR's/33 RBI's)
SS/3B Junior Lake (.324/8 HR's/16 SB's/44 RBIs in AA)
OF Reggie Golden (.333/2 HR's/22 RBis in AA) B potential age 20

We were considering a trade of

Rays get:
C Soto
SP Dempster or SP Jackson
SP Rhee
PTBNL if necessary (possibly SS/3B Junior Lake, OF Reggie Golden, or 2B Logan Watkins)

Cubs get:
SP Hellickson
3B Tyler Goedell (.277/4 HRs/ 22 RBIs in AA)

If you are willing to let Hellickson go we are looking at Soto as being the main piece we want to move for sure. We are surely willing to listen to any counter offers or if you have any other players in mine you're interested it please feel free to ask. No player will be labeled "untouchable" if the right price comes along but players like Castro, Jackson, Garzo, Baez, Rizzo, Samardzija, and McNutt will need to have great offers to have us consider moving what we are considering core pieces

[Qb]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

So are only ppl who are reps allowed to post in this because I have trades that I would like to ask about...

You do not have to be representative to post. All we ask is that those proposing a trade have at least a framework of a deal -- eg, MLBer X, Prospect Y, PTBNL for MLBer Z -- as opposed to, "what would it take for me to get Player Q?" And what we really don't want are folks chiming in with "that would never happen IRL" or other such irrelevant comments.

You could sign up to be a rep, or you could go to the trade discussion thread.

I was under the impression the intention of this thread was for the team representatives to play the part of the opposing GM when someone wants to trade in their franchise. This would most likely be for those using 30-team control, since they can make any deal they want.

In short, someone who is running a franchise proposes a trade to the appropriate team rep while giving him some background info about that user's franchise -- the rep's personal franchise should have nothing to do with the decision. I guess you could say the panel members are here to act as alternate "trade logic" for those not satisfied with the game's interpretation.

However, I think this was lost along the way. It seems to be more of a fantasy trading league between the representatives, which is fine if that's what people now want it to be, but not true to the original purpose. I believe it was conceived as a community resource to be used when needed.

[37]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

I was under the impression the intention of this thread was for the team representatives to play the part of the opposing GM when someone wants to trade in their franchise. This would most likely be for those using 30-team control, since they can make any deal they want.

In short, someone who is running a franchise proposes a trade to the appropriate team rep while giving him some background info about that user's franchise -- the rep's personal franchise should have nothing to do with the decision. I guess you could say the panel members are here to act as alternate "trade logic" for those not satisfied with the game's interpretation.

However, I think this was lost along the way. It seems to be more of a fantasy trading league between the representatives, which is fine if that's what people now want it to be, but not true to the original purpose. I believe it was conceived as a community resource to be used when needed.[/quote]

for some folks, this is true.....instead of posting a single trade proposal here and there from a user, this thread gets bombarded with mutiple offers at once....since there was no real *set-in-stone* rules on how many suggestions can be thrown out at any particular time, yeah it can get pretty frustrating going through every page and seeing the same thing over and over....but if the creators of this thread are ok with it, i guess the true purpose of this thread has changed for some

[derelictojama]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

I was under the impression the intention of this thread was for the team representatives to play the part of the opposing GM when someone wants to trade in their franchise. This would most likely be for those using 30-team control, since they can make any deal they want.

In short, someone who is running a franchise proposes a trade to the appropriate team rep while giving him some background info about that user's franchise -- the rep's personal franchise should have nothing to do with the decision. I guess you could say the panel members are here to act as alternate "trade logic" for those not satisfied with the game's interpretation.

However, I think this was lost along the way. It seems to be more of a fantasy trading league between the representatives, which is fine if that's what people now want it to be, but not true to the original purpose. I believe it was conceived as a community resource to be used when needed.

for some folks, this is true.....instead of posting a single trade proposal here and there from a user, this thread gets bombarded with mutiple offers at once....since there was no real *set-in-stone* rules on how many suggestions can be thrown out at any particular time, yeah it can get pretty frustrating going through every page and seeing the same thing over and over....but if the creators of this thread are ok with it, i guess the true purpose of this thread has changed for some

Well, the above serves as a multi-quote, as the top part is from Qb, and the bottom from NoFatGirlz. A few points:

--"the creators of the thread" - well, of course, that was pistolpete, who threw out a good idea and then was not able to participate much beyond that; resulting in pokerplaya taking the lead (and well!), but then he's had to back off a bit, too, due to life. And anybody else who has participated has been just sort of adding to the discussion. Hence, we do have a bit of anarchy at this point. Perhaps more organization/leadership needs to happen eventually, but I think we have all been trying to let it develop and not have any one person have to do too much. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, maybe that needs to change (please note: I am not nominating myself, or anyone specifically, to take charge; just saying perhaps that might need to happen. I still think committee rule is better in theory than one person in charge, but as for what is most effective...).

--with the slight confusion that has appeared just recently, it might be worth someone (again, not nec. volunteering, just suggesting) reviewing the OP and rewriting it so it reflects the things we've learned and the processes as they've developed, and then, when confusion happens, we can refer people to that OP, rather than having to explain how things are done.

--finally, as for the kinds of trades being proposed: yes, most at this point have been among the gms, and it has gotten a little fuzzy at times, and could lead someone to think that this is some kind of closed loop; but I've been reading that as being a result of the gms being the ones most involved, and so they're using it to make trades in their franchises, as is intended, and we just haven't seen many others come in and start to use it from the outside.

Basic point is, we may be approaching a time where we need to look at where we started, where we've gone, and who's deciding what, and start to codify things. I don't think we've run off the tracks, just hit a point (at nearly 100 pages) where we might need to be more organized. As the one making these suggestions, let me again make clear I'm not trying to jump in and take over -- I neither want to nor deserve to, necessarily. But I am very willing to help, as I always liked the idea, and still think it's great.

[NYYankees42]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

Well, the above serves as a multi-quote, as the top part is from Qb, and the bottom from NoFatGirlz. A few points:

--"the creators of the thread" - well, of course, that was pistolpete, who threw out a good idea and then was not able to participate much beyond that; resulting in pokerplaya taking the lead (and well!), but then he's had to back off a bit, too, due to life. And anybody else who has participated has been just sort of adding to the discussion. Hence, we do have a bit of anarchy at this point. Perhaps more organization/leadership needs to happen eventually, but I think we have all been trying to let it develop and not have any one person have to do too much. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, maybe that needs to change (please note: I am not nominating myself, or anyone specifically, to take charge; just saying perhaps that might need to happen. I still think committee rule is better in theory than one person in charge, but as for what is most effective...).

--with the slight confusion that has appeared just recently, it might be worth someone (again, not nec. volunteering, just suggesting) reviewing the OP and rewriting it so it reflects the things we've learned and the processes as they've developed, and then, when confusion happens, we can refer people to that OP, rather than having to explain how things are done.

--finally, as for the kinds of trades being proposed: yes, most at this point have been among the gms, and it has gotten a little fuzzy at times, and could lead someone to think that this is some kind of closed loop; but I've been reading that as being a result of the gms being the ones most involved, and so they're using it to make trades in their franchises, as is intended, and we just haven't seen many others come in and start to use it from the outside.

Basic point is, we may be approaching a time where we need to look at where we started, where we've gone, and who's deciding what, and start to codify things. I don't think we've run off the tracks, just hit a point (at nearly 100 pages) where we might need to be more organized. As the one making these suggestions, let me again make clear I'm not trying to jump in and take over -- I neither want to nor deserve to, necessarily. But I am very willing to help, as I always liked the idea, and still think it's great.

Great points man.

I too think that the OP needs to get updated in order for people to see how to post here, and understand the point of the thread.

[bwoodring9]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

I hope this is an ok time to begin negotiations... I don't want to step in when their is confusion among the thread. Anyway:

To: Twins GM, Pirates GM, Royals GM, Red Sox GM, and Tigers GM
From: THE Philadelphia Phillies
RE: Who wants Domonic Brown

We are e-mailing your organizations to inquire which organization wants Domonic Brown? We need a young 3rd baseman, and we are just sending out an e-mail to gauge how interested your organizaton is. We completely understand if the player we want from your team is "untouchable".

Miguel Sano
Pedro Alvarez - Could we get him for less? Maybe a B or something of the sorts?
Mike Moustakas
Will Middlebrooks- possibly Youk or Bogaerts as well
Nick Castellanos

As we can only trade Brown once, we will be responding to whichever organization responds first. Our intention is not to start a "bidding war", but it is only fair that the first team to respond is the first team to get a response from us. The season has yet to start. We are just very worried about Polanco's long term health, and need someone to step into that role possibly as soon as 2013.

Respectfully,
THE Philadelphia Phillies

OOC: I hope this whole "bidding war" concept is acceptable among the users of this thread. I know there has been some debate lately about how this thread should be used, and I don't want to add to that debate by beginning another new concept... just let me know and I can get rid of that last paragraph of the e-mail if people wish.

Nolan Arenado is really our main target, but it looks as if we won't be able to get him. Not sure if the Rockies GM has seen my offer

[37]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

definetly agree with those points that direct made.....i too would be willing to help out (but not take over) to do whatever it takes to organize this thread in a constructive manner....just depends on how pokerplaya feels

[bugle987]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

I have a quick question to ask everyone would you guys like to set up a franchise possibly on my PS3 I'll sim out every game ( probably a week of games a day) and I'll post basic stats and standing every week) and then the GM's on here could do trades based on how theyre players are doing or how they are placed in te playoff race. It doesn't have to be my PS3 if someone else would like to do it. We'd probably start when Scott's new rosters came out, I just think it would be a fun little thing to do so that we're all basically GMs in a real season together. Let me know what you guys think and then we can see if it people are interested and get it started. By the way I believe poker playa might have mentioned an idea like this already

[bwoodring9]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

I have a quick question to ask everyone would you guys like to set up a franchise possibly on my PS3 I'll sim out every game ( probably a week of games a day) and I'll post basic stats and standing every week) and then the GM's on here could do trades based on how theyre players are doing or how they are placed in te playoff race. It doesn't have to be my PS3 if someone else would like to do it. We'd probably start when Scott's new rosters came out, I just think it would be a fun little thing to do so that we're all basically GMs in a real season together. Let me know what you guys think and then we can see if it people are interested and get it started. By the way I believe poker playa might have mentioned an idea like this already

Sounds interesting! By the way, since you're the padres GM, do you know what potential Jedd Gyorko is? High B or mid B?

[msuboy11]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

Sounds interesting! By the way, since you're the padres GM, do you know what potential Jedd Gyorko is? High B or mid B?

It's a high. If you get 1 email, he'll move up to an A

[bwoodring9]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

It's a high. If you get 1 email, he'll move up to an A

Thanks! I may be open to trading for him as well in my franchise then..

[bugle987]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

Sounds interesting! By the way, since you're the padres GM, do you know what potential Jedd Gyorko is? High B or mid B?

High I believe

[chicubsfan20]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

To: ALL ORGANIZATIONS GM's
From: Chicago Cubs
RE: Complete Selling Mode

We are currently falling farther and farther out of contention. We have our eye on Jeremy Hellickson we'd like to get but besides that we have a plethora of vets and players ready to contribute we'd be willing to part with.

Pitchers include:
Ryan Dempster
Paul Maholm
Randy Wells
Carlos Marmol
Shawn Camp
Casey Coleman
Scott Maine
Matt Garza (at the right price. 1 A and a higher C or atleast 2 B's one close to MLB ready and lower level C prospect)

Position players available:
Geovany Soto
Alfonso Soriano
David DeJesus
Reed Johnson
Jeff Baker
Ian Stewart
Darwin Barney

Few younger prospects/blocked players close to MLB ready who are blocked or we don't feel fit our future plans as of right now:
LH RP Jeff Beliveau
RH SP Alberto Cabrera
OF Dave Sappelt
SS/3B Junior Lake (willing to package with vet to acquire higher level prospect)
RP Esmailin Caridad
SP Jay Jackson (willing to package with vet to acquire higher level prospect)
SP Dae-Eun Rhee
SP/RP Rodrigo Lopez
SP Chris Rusin
IF Alfredo Amezaga
IF Blake DeWitt
2B Logan Watkins
OF Jae Hoon-Ha

Any other vets not mentioned your team could be interested in acquiring will be considered but it would have to be an offer we feel improves our team in the long run. And it has to impact players as we consider them our main core we want to build around. Thanks.

[NYYankees42]

Re: OS Arbitration Panel Project 2012

^^^ Just saying, it would be alot easier for you to get a deal done if you propose it to specific teams depending on how their doing in your chise. The Reps here have no clue how their teams are doing in your franchise, so they wouldn't likely tell you that they want to trade for one of your guys.