Its not a slam dunk trade for the schilling guy, but basically it is dunn and andruw jones (jones and green are surprisingly interchangable) for schilling. klesko sucks and should be waiver material. I don't think it is that bad. That is like 70 hrs -- dunn 40, jones 30. and 200 (about rbi) and 200 runs for 18-20 wins, 200 k's and good ratios, I think that is a good, good deal if you need power and depending on how the players are distributed.
I don't think this is a deal that anyone should be horrified at -- schilling should have been picked, what? one round prior to dunn? and andruw jone shigh enough to make up the difference?
I think it was probably dumb, as schilling was the guys ace undoubtably -- but its not as if he doesn't get qulaity back. he could trade dunn probably for a quality pitcher and essentially have gotten jones for close to free.
i like letting the league decide. i mean, the guy is responsible for his actions, even when drunk, but at the same time, you don't want to let him completely screw up the league. if the trade is absurly lopsided, the league will probably reject it so that it won't screw up the "fairness" of the league. but if it's just mildly hurtful to the drunkard, they'll probably let it stand.
at least, that's the way i view it.
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"
"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
I'm still trying to figure out what's so awful about this deal.
Look, if the trade involved Nick Green, okay, there's a good reason to void the deal. But I just don't see where there's a problem with this trade.
I also think you set a potentially dangerous precedent here. Anytime an owner makes a trade he suddenly gets cold feet over, guess what you're going to hear, Mr. Commissioner. While I'm not an iron-fisted dictator by any means in the leagues where I am commish, there are times you have to make a ruling, and that's just the way it goes. I'm quite convinced that you should have just declared the deal as official and moved on from there.
i say you're the commish. if you don't like it, nix it. all this hand-wringing on the next guy who doesn't like his trade is silly. if he proposed it at 3pm, too bad. if he proposes crazy trades to everyone at 3am... well... maybe he was friends with some long necks. but it's better to keep league balance amongst teams and avoid giving any one team a freebie (without getting into whether or not this trade is one of those) than keep some holy, you did it, you live with it, attitude.
putting up to a league vote is also not a bad way to handle it; but i would say you're the commissioner, it's your call. make it.
However, I just think it was trader's remorse. A) He said he was Drunk and no one really knows if he actually was. b) Supposidly everyone should be responsible for their actions and if you put forth a proposal or offer you have to be conscientious of the possiblility that it might be accepted. It's one thing in negotiations but another to actually put it through as a firm offer.
I understand the point about contract law but I see this more like securites trading. He entered his trade offer to be either accepted or rejected. Similar to buying/selling stock. Now he didn't cancel his offer in time and the other team accpeted. Trade is done regardless of the mental state of the trader.
To be honest, depending on the type of league and other factors , IMO that really wasn't a bad trade. Klesko and Green are somewhat equal in potential and value so the trade comes down to Schilling and Dunn. This isn't the Schilling from 2001 and Dunn is a player looked upon as being on the verge. Again I just think the team that traded Schilling had sellers remorse and he wants an out option. I say trade stands with being "drunk" no reason to kill a trade. Probably Sellers Remorse.
It's not just the Tradition.....its Aura and Mystique