Mid Season Trades

[JC456]

I find this mid season trade idea to be completely unfair.

1. The first 80+ games of the year are played with a specific set of players that were members of that team. Depending on schedules certain teams play other teams more in those first 80+ games. For instance

The Sox got their butts kicked by Toronto during the initial part of the year while the Twins were playing New york and Boston.

Now NY and Boston will be trading pieces of their squad for some other team's players to improve and therefore increase the odds for success. Toronto will most likely be selling their best players to the highest bidder thus depleting their squad of better players. Now the Twins will face a much different team than the Sox and the Sox will face a much different team in NY and Boston than the Twins.

Doesn't seem fair to either team.

Take Pittsburgh as the best example, they have basically no one left that's a talent today that they had when they were opposing teams earlier in the year. Not that they were that good, but they were competitve. Now they will be bad to close out the remaining 60+ games. Now if team A from the national league lost games to the Pirates in the first 100 games and don't play them again, Team B, C and D who Team A contends with will play them and have an advantage Team A will not get.

Don't know about all of you, but that just seems way to unfair.

Why do they trade players half way through the year?

[Boondock Saint]

I find this mid season trade idea to be completely unfair.

1. The first 80+ games of the year are played with a specific set of players that were members of that team. Depending on schedules certain teams play other teams more in those first 80+ games. For instance

The Sox got their butts kicked by Toronto during the initial part of the year while the Twins were playing New york and Boston.

Now NY and Boston will be trading pieces of their squad for some other team's players to improve and therefore increase the odds for success. Toronto will most likely be selling their best players to the highest bidder thus depleting their squad of better players. Now the Twins will face a much different team than the Sox and the Sox will face a much different team in NY and Boston than the Twins.

Doesn't seem fair to either team.

Take Pittsburgh as the best example, they have basically no one left that's a talent today that they had when they were opposing teams earlier in the year. Not that they were that good, but they were competitve. Now they will be bad to close out the remaining 60+ games. Now if team A from the national league lost games to the Pirates in the first 100 games and don't play them again, Team B, C and D who Team A contends with will play them and have an advantage Team A will not get.

Don't know about all of you, but that just seems way to unfair.

Why do they trade players half way through the year?

The Pirates don't give a rat's ass about the fairness of their deals to the teams coming up in the schedule. They have a responsibility to their fans to put together a team that will compete in the future (as ridiculous as that sounds, coming from the Pirates' perspective).

[TDog]

That's why the old trade deadline of June 15 was better.

Better still would be a May 31 trade deadline. I could even go for the end of April. People complain about the economic structure of baseball being the root of all problems, but if midseason trades were not allowed, this wouldn't happen. Teams that aren't in contention shouldn't be left to be gutted at the trade deadline for teams that are.

The thing is, in baseball, quite often the teams with better talent sometimes lose when they need to win.