Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 11:56:56 GMT -5
Here is the trade that is under review for potentially being grossly disproportionate (per constitution rules):
Red Sox send:
Rangers send:
Jared (Red Sox GM) explained his reasoning for the trade as follows:
"After trading 2 top 10 prospects (Senzel and Acuna) and another top 100 prospects (Soto) in a deal for Bryce Harper and pick 1.11, I needed to make a trade to get another top prospect in my farm system after I depleted most of mine for Harper.
Rodgers met several needs of mine 1) plays a position of need 2) plays in a hitter friendly environment 3) my personal ranks have him as the 2nd best prospect in the game. I approached Scott (Texas Rangers) July 8 about a potential deal for him. Scott told me that he more than likely wants to keep him, but would listen to offers. I did not want to waste his time with a boring offer, and knew if I wanted to get Rodgers I needed to put together an aggressive offer. That is when I approached Scott about building a package around Khris David, Cespedes, OR Trumbo AND other major league/minor league players. I asked him if that got us talking about a Rodgers trade and he responded "Yes. With Davis being center piece." At that point I proceeded to offer Davis, Arcia, Eduardo Rodriguez, Andrew Heaney, my 3 first round picks and told him I would include some prospects, as well. Obviously, we got a deal done. I included Jurado and Clark.
To me...it was worth losing a 29-year old Davis (who I'll recognize is on a team friendly deal), Arcia, often injured Eduardo Rodriguez/Andrew Heaney, three 5th rd draft picks, and two prospects in Jurado and Clark to gain who I consider to be the 2nd best prospect in the game who plays a position of need AND a very hitter friendly environment (as long as the Rox don't trade him). Especially after I traded Senzel/Acuna/Soto. I needed that cornerstone to build my future around. And I got him!!!! At least I thought..."\
Scott (Rangers GM) explained his reasoning for the trade below:
"I realize I missed the 72 hour window for this, but I thought I would add it now...for what it's worth.
I think a distinction needs to be made when we vote between "grossly disproportionate" and a trade which is deemed unfair because one side may be perceived to have got more value--even what appears to be an great imbalance.
Grossly disportionate, for my mind, means that the nature of the trade is such that it affects the fundamental integrity of the league. I do not believe, in this circumstance, the integrity of the league is in any way threatened because of the trade.
Jared approached me with the idea that he wanted Rodgers. I told him that others have similarly made this approach and that I am unlikely to move him unless there was a drastic offer. In short, I've been holding Rodgers (after depleting most of my higher level prospects last season)as a centerpiece going forward. I think Jared's made his case for why Rodgers was important enough to shell out what he did.
From my end, I will say this: I could conceivably have made the deal for Davis, Arcia and the two pitchers. Arcia provides a young replacement for what was to be a cornerstone piece. Is he a cornerstone? I don't think anyone would say this...but maybe some stability going forward. Davis adds some value to this and I was particularly interested in him over the other options provided because for this year anyway he could be moved to reserves....if necessary. That option, however, is gone next year. In addition, one of the weak points of my team is team average. Davis will only further drag this down, despite his power, which hasn't been my biggest concern. As with the pitchers they are both injured and who knows what happens with Heaney when he eventually returns. This deal would have been eminently fair and had it gone through as such I doubt we would be having this review (though I could be wrong?).
And if that is the case the real question is...does the addition of two prospects and 3-5th round picks really constitute gross disproportionality? Well...let's look at those prospects. Jurada, while ranked by MLB as a #3 prospect within the Rangers organization, is currently sitting in AA with an ERA of 4.39 and a K/9 rate under 7. Not all that enticing and then you add in the fact that he really only has two decent pitches and there is certainly a question of his ability to succeed at the ML level. Clark, while not as highly ranked within his organization, is also enjoying an uninspiring season with an average of .239 and slugging under .400 in high A ball. As for the 3-5th rounds, the likelihood of my drafting anyone with any real changing power is, to say the least, low. In fact, in the long run they will make more work for me because I'll have to see if the guys I draft are worth keeping over guys I already have since my Minors have 40 guys.
So I ask...is there anything in this "additional" part of the trade that really makes it "grossly disproportionate"? My return for what I deemed to be a center piece moving forward is really a power OF who can't hit for average, a young decent SS, two hurt pitchers and a handful of pieces that may or may not reach the MLB, never mind trying to weigh their success when/if they do. Could it turn out that I have "won" the deal? It could. And certainly in the short term I've gained MLB ready pieces. But that doesn't mean it is grossly disproportionate.
Just some thoughts to consider as you vote on this trade."
Red Sox send:
- Khris Davis, OF, OAK - $1m (5yr) ARB(-)OPT(4)
- Orlando Arcia, SS, MIL - $0.4m (6yr) ARB('20-'22) OPT(4)
- Eduardo Rodriguez, SP, BOS - $3m (5yr) ARB(-) OPT(3*)
- Andrew Heaney, SP, LAA - $3m (5yr) ARB(-) OPT(3*)
- Ariel Jurado, SP, TEX 5yr (minors)
- Trent Clark, OF, MIL 5yr (minors)
- pick 5.1 in 2017 draft
- pick 5.11 in 2017 draft
- pick 5.19 in 2017 draft
Rangers send:
- Brendan Rodgers, SS, COL 5yr (minors)
Jared (Red Sox GM) explained his reasoning for the trade as follows:
"After trading 2 top 10 prospects (Senzel and Acuna) and another top 100 prospects (Soto) in a deal for Bryce Harper and pick 1.11, I needed to make a trade to get another top prospect in my farm system after I depleted most of mine for Harper.
Rodgers met several needs of mine 1) plays a position of need 2) plays in a hitter friendly environment 3) my personal ranks have him as the 2nd best prospect in the game. I approached Scott (Texas Rangers) July 8 about a potential deal for him. Scott told me that he more than likely wants to keep him, but would listen to offers. I did not want to waste his time with a boring offer, and knew if I wanted to get Rodgers I needed to put together an aggressive offer. That is when I approached Scott about building a package around Khris David, Cespedes, OR Trumbo AND other major league/minor league players. I asked him if that got us talking about a Rodgers trade and he responded "Yes. With Davis being center piece." At that point I proceeded to offer Davis, Arcia, Eduardo Rodriguez, Andrew Heaney, my 3 first round picks and told him I would include some prospects, as well. Obviously, we got a deal done. I included Jurado and Clark.
To me...it was worth losing a 29-year old Davis (who I'll recognize is on a team friendly deal), Arcia, often injured Eduardo Rodriguez/Andrew Heaney, three 5th rd draft picks, and two prospects in Jurado and Clark to gain who I consider to be the 2nd best prospect in the game who plays a position of need AND a very hitter friendly environment (as long as the Rox don't trade him). Especially after I traded Senzel/Acuna/Soto. I needed that cornerstone to build my future around. And I got him!!!! At least I thought..."\
Scott (Rangers GM) explained his reasoning for the trade below:
"I realize I missed the 72 hour window for this, but I thought I would add it now...for what it's worth.
I think a distinction needs to be made when we vote between "grossly disproportionate" and a trade which is deemed unfair because one side may be perceived to have got more value--even what appears to be an great imbalance.
Grossly disportionate, for my mind, means that the nature of the trade is such that it affects the fundamental integrity of the league. I do not believe, in this circumstance, the integrity of the league is in any way threatened because of the trade.
Jared approached me with the idea that he wanted Rodgers. I told him that others have similarly made this approach and that I am unlikely to move him unless there was a drastic offer. In short, I've been holding Rodgers (after depleting most of my higher level prospects last season)as a centerpiece going forward. I think Jared's made his case for why Rodgers was important enough to shell out what he did.
From my end, I will say this: I could conceivably have made the deal for Davis, Arcia and the two pitchers. Arcia provides a young replacement for what was to be a cornerstone piece. Is he a cornerstone? I don't think anyone would say this...but maybe some stability going forward. Davis adds some value to this and I was particularly interested in him over the other options provided because for this year anyway he could be moved to reserves....if necessary. That option, however, is gone next year. In addition, one of the weak points of my team is team average. Davis will only further drag this down, despite his power, which hasn't been my biggest concern. As with the pitchers they are both injured and who knows what happens with Heaney when he eventually returns. This deal would have been eminently fair and had it gone through as such I doubt we would be having this review (though I could be wrong?).
And if that is the case the real question is...does the addition of two prospects and 3-5th round picks really constitute gross disproportionality? Well...let's look at those prospects. Jurada, while ranked by MLB as a #3 prospect within the Rangers organization, is currently sitting in AA with an ERA of 4.39 and a K/9 rate under 7. Not all that enticing and then you add in the fact that he really only has two decent pitches and there is certainly a question of his ability to succeed at the ML level. Clark, while not as highly ranked within his organization, is also enjoying an uninspiring season with an average of .239 and slugging under .400 in high A ball. As for the 3-5th rounds, the likelihood of my drafting anyone with any real changing power is, to say the least, low. In fact, in the long run they will make more work for me because I'll have to see if the guys I draft are worth keeping over guys I already have since my Minors have 40 guys.
So I ask...is there anything in this "additional" part of the trade that really makes it "grossly disproportionate"? My return for what I deemed to be a center piece moving forward is really a power OF who can't hit for average, a young decent SS, two hurt pitchers and a handful of pieces that may or may not reach the MLB, never mind trying to weigh their success when/if they do. Could it turn out that I have "won" the deal? It could. And certainly in the short term I've gained MLB ready pieces. But that doesn't mean it is grossly disproportionate.
Just some thoughts to consider as you vote on this trade."