PDA

View Full Version : Is the trade deadline too early?


chisoxfanatic
07-31-2006, 07:14 PM
Unlike the NHL and NBA, whose trade deadlines are much later in the season, MLB has its deadline with 1/3 of the season left to be played.

Do you personally think the non-waiver trade deadline is too early? Should it be moved to say August 15th? The date of the waiver deadline?

batmanZoSo
07-31-2006, 07:17 PM
Na. I think it's better to have a player for at least a respectable portion of the season. There's something not right about picking up a guy with like 4 weeks to go.

But much more importantly, the sooner to end the BS rumors, the better.

sox1970
07-31-2006, 07:36 PM
I'd say August 15.

ilsox7
07-31-2006, 07:37 PM
It's too late. Make it the end of June.

spiffie
07-31-2006, 07:39 PM
Yes it is, simply because teams still don't know what their situation is really going to be due to the wild card. I'd move it to August 20 or so, somewhere around 3 weeks later.

soxfanreggie
07-31-2006, 07:47 PM
I think it's fine where it is. I wouldn't suggest having it earlier, but I could see it being later. There is also as long waiver wire, so you can still make trades.

Frater Perdurabo
07-31-2006, 08:50 PM
I'd say August 15.

I also think August 15 would work a bit better, if only because it would allow two more weeks to distinguish between the pretenders (sellers) and the contenders (buyers).

Brian26
07-31-2006, 09:13 PM
It's too late. Make it the end of June.

I like this. The problem with moving it later in the year, from a fairness point-of-view, is that it gives teams with a lot of money an opportunity to essentially buy players for the playoffs. If that Abreu deal happened on August 31, how unfair would it seem? And if you're the team trading a player that is an impending free agent, how much talent are you really going to expect back for basically a month of service? It would open up a huge can of worms across the board.

Chips
07-31-2006, 09:57 PM
I like this. The problem with moving it later in the year, from a fairness point-of-view, is that it gives teams with a lot of money an opportunity to essentially buy players for the playoffs. If that Abreu deal happened on August 31, how unfair would it seem? And if you're the team trading a player that is an impending free agent, how much talent are you really going to expect back for basically a month of service? It would open up a huge can of worms across the board.

Couldn't agree more, move it back if anything.

Ol' No. 2
07-31-2006, 10:03 PM
It's too late. Make it the end of June.Put me down for one of these. Isn't the NFL trade deadline about the 4th game of the season? Build your team and stick with it. Don't plan on raiding weak teams and playing with a new team for the last two months.

samram
07-31-2006, 10:05 PM
I like this. The problem with moving it later in the year, from a fairness point-of-view, is that it gives teams with a lot of money an opportunity to essentially buy players for the playoffs. If that Abreu deal happened on August 31, how unfair would it seem? And if you're the team trading a player that is an impending free agent, how much talent are you really going to expect back for basically a month of service? It would open up a huge can of worms across the board.

On the other hand, if it's just one month of salary that has to be paid, maybe it allows some lower revenue teams to have a chance. Maybe not. I'm fine with it where it is now anyway.

SoxFanPrope
07-31-2006, 10:11 PM
Unlike the NHL and NBA, whose trade deadlines are much later in the season, MLB has its deadline with 1/3 of the season left to be played.
Don't know about the NHL, but the NBA's trade deadline is a week after the All-Star game - about late February. That is just about two months before the season is over. So if nothing else, the NBA's trade deadline is similar to the MLB. It's perfect for the NBA, the NFL's is perfect, like I said I can't speak for the NHL.

Like Brian said, the later the deadline, the more the have's can spend, and the more prospects the have-not's acquire. IMO, I think the deadline should coincide with the All-Star break.

chisoxmike
07-31-2006, 10:21 PM
No way, its a good set up for the last two months of the season. Baseball is like a three act movie, the trading deadline is a nice end of the second act to the finale...

TDog
08-01-2006, 04:29 AM
The non-waiver trade deadline should be June 25, the way it was 20 years ago.

Frontman
08-01-2006, 07:43 AM
I like the trade deadline being now. Two months left, now get to work-type attitude to the season.

I personally think the NFL deadline is a bit too early, as a key injury even in week 7 can ruin your season. I think if you could have their trade deadline at the halfway point of the season, or even as late as week 9, you'd get two thirds of the season in then have the trade.

Just a bit of perspective, I guess.

downstairs
08-01-2006, 08:02 AM
I vote May 31st.

It allows teams to quickly make up for a serious injury or a serious "bust".

Other than that- stick with your team.

Palehose13
08-01-2006, 12:29 PM
I also think August 15 would work a bit better, if only because it would allow two more weeks to distinguish between the pretenders (sellers) and the contenders (buyers).

I third.

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2006, 12:40 PM
I vote May 31st.

It allows teams to quickly make up for a serious injury or a serious "bust".

Other than that- stick with your team.

I disagree. An absurdly early trade deadline - along with the policy that requires players placed injured reserve to miss the rest of the season - helps make the NFL lame IMHO. An obscenely early deadline would remove so much intrigue and interest from baseball.

As it is, the incredibly boring and incessantly long NFL training camps and preseason schedules overshadow the pennant races in late July and early August. At least the trade deadline helps keep some interest in baseball. Extending it two more weeks to August 15 would help extend interest and intrigue in baseball even further.

Last year, both Dye and Konerko had horrible averages on May 31. KW might have been tempted to pull the trigger on one of both of them if the trade deadline was May 31.

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 12:45 PM
I disagree. An absurdly early trade deadline - along with the policy that requires players placed injured reserve to miss the rest of the season - helps make the NFL lame IMHO. An obscenely early deadline would remove so much intrigue and interest from baseball.

As it is, the incredibly boring and incessantly long NFL training camps and preseason schedules overshadow the pennant races in late July and early August. At least the trade deadline helps keep some interest in baseball. Extending it two more weeks to August 15 would help extend interest and intrigue in baseball even further.

Last year, both Dye and Konerko had horrible averages on May 31. KW might have been tempted to pull the trigger on one of both of them if the trade deadline was May 31.I'd go for the end of June. All this swapping of players makes baseball look like a rotisserie league. And I don't think having good teams using weaker teams like a farm system is good for baseball.

And it's not really a deadline anyway. Teams can and do make trades after the "deadline" every year.

TDog
08-01-2006, 01:15 PM
I disagree. An absurdly early trade deadline - along with the policy that requires players placed injured reserve to miss the rest of the season - helps make the NFL lame IMHO. An obscenely early deadline would remove so much intrigue and interest from baseball. ....

Most of all, what makes the NFL lame is that they play football.

When the baseball non-waiver trading deadline was June 25, teams could adjust their rosters in the first half of the season, but non-contending teams weren't scavenged for spare parts at the end of July. Whenever I bought season tickets for the Sox (and once for the Brewers to a lesser degree), I know there wasn't much of a chance that they will go to the postseason -- most teams don't. But at least I can go to the ballpark and see my favorite ballplayers. The July 31 deadline creates situations where trading Alvarez, Fernandez and Hernandez actually seems like a good business move at the time, even though it screws and alienates fans.

I would move the deadline back to May. If you have a free agent-to-be, don't tease fans with his presence on the team. Trade him at the beginning of the season or let him finish the season. This season the A's had a choice of keeping Zito and having a shot at the World Series or getting something for him at the deadline. Some people argued for a trade.

Most of all, the current deadline helps keep the richest teams on the top.

ilsox7
08-01-2006, 01:17 PM
I'd go for the end of June. All this swapping of players makes baseball look like a rotisserie league. And I don't think having good teams using weaker teams like a farm system is good for baseball.

And it's not really a deadline anyway. Teams can and do make trades after the "deadline" every year.

Exactly. Teams should be rewarded for using the offseason to build their team. Allowing teams to buy players and rent players is horrible. Give teams 3 months to see their team play. Then make them take huge risks if they want to sell off players or buy players.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Don't know about the NHL, but the NBA's trade deadline is a week after the All-Star game - about late February. That is just about two months before the season is over. So if nothing else, the NBA's trade deadline is similar to the MLB. It's perfect for the NBA, the NFL's is perfect, like I said I can't speak for the NHL.

Like Brian said, the later the deadline, the more the have's can spend, and the more prospects the have-not's acquire. IMO, I think the deadline should coincide with the All-Star break.

The NHL's deadline is one month before the season ends - far too late IMO.

July 31 is fine by me.

duke of dorwood
08-01-2006, 01:47 PM
:reinsy

Earlier if someone is absorbing salary

Later if I am taking on salary

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2006, 01:54 PM
The July 31 deadline creates situations where trading Alvarez, Fernandez and Hernandez actually seems like a good business move at the time, even though it screws and alienates fans.


A later deadline in 1997 might have prevented a White Flag trade. Let me indulge in a bit of counter-factual history:

Without the pressure of having to make a decision by July 31, Schueler watches as the Sox, bouyed by the return of Robin Ventura, put together a tidy winning streak and get to within 1.5 games of Cleveland on August 10. Seeing that adding a pitcher might get the Sox over the top, Schueler trades for a veteran starter on August 14 and the Sox go on to win the division and face the Florida Marlins in the World Series...
:cool:

TDog
08-01-2006, 02:12 PM
A later deadline in 1997 might have prevented a White Flag trade. Let me indulge in a bit of counter-factual history:

Without the pressure of having to make a decision by July 31, Schueler watches as the Sox, bouyed by the return of Robin Ventura, put together a tidy winning streak and get to within 1.5 games of Cleveland on August 10. Seeing that adding a pitcher might get the Sox over the top, Schueler trades for a veteran starter on August 14 and the Sox go on to win the division and face the Florida Marlins in the World Series...
:cool:

I don't think the Sox were playing well enough for that scenario to have occurred. Fans certainly weren't happy with the way the team was playing. In any case a May 31 deadline would have prevented the question from coming up in the first place.

spiffie
08-01-2006, 02:46 PM
I'd go for the end of June. All this swapping of players makes baseball look like a rotisserie league. And I don't think having good teams using weaker teams like a farm system is good for baseball.
http://www.rogermarisgolf.com/graphics/maris09.jpg

Couldn't agree more. Now if you'll excuse me I have a plane to catch to New York. We seem to have made yet another trade with the Yankees. They're great trading partners!

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 02:51 PM
http://www.rogermarisgolf.com/graphics/maris09.jpg

Couldn't agree more. Now if you'll excuse me I have a plane to catch to New York. We seem to have made yet another trade with the Yankees. They're great trading partners!I knew sooner or later someone was going to bring this up. But the fact is, it's much more prevalent today than it was then, with more teams involved. It's the same script every year, with the same teams getting their bones picked over and the same teams doing the picking.

spiffie
08-01-2006, 02:53 PM
Most of all, what makes the NFL lame is that they play football.

When the baseball non-waiver trading deadline was June 25, teams could adjust their rosters in the first half of the season, but non-contending teams weren't scavenged for spare parts at the end of July. Whenever I bought season tickets for the Sox (and once for the Brewers to a lesser degree), I know there wasn't much of a chance that they will go to the postseason -- most teams don't. But at least I can go to the ballpark and see my favorite ballplayers. The July 31 deadline creates situations where trading Alvarez, Fernandez and Hernandez actually seems like a good business move at the time, even though it screws and alienates fans.

I would move the deadline back to May. If you have a free agent-to-be, don't tease fans with his presence on the team. Trade him at the beginning of the season or let him finish the season. This season the A's had a choice of keeping Zito and having a shot at the World Series or getting something for him at the deadline. Some people argued for a trade.

Most of all, the current deadline helps keep the richest teams on the top.
Actually, an earlier deadline would probably just increase the movement of top talent to the best teams.

If on May 31 this year the Oakland A's had to make the decision on whether to move Zito or not it would have been much harder to justify keeping him. After the games on May 30 they were 23-29 and had lost 9 of their last 10. How do you not justify making the move at that point? Of course, with another 2 months of season, the situation looked much different. Same with the Twins and Torii Hunter. Minnesota was 23-28 and 12 out of first (and 10 out of 2nd) after May 30. Between the Sox and Detroit they looked so dead in the water there was no reason to believe this season had any potential. The incentive to save nearly a whole season's salary combined with a bad start would likely justify a lot more salary dumps onto the big-market teams. And the big-markets wouldn't have to give away as much in prospects since the threat of being stuck paying an entire season on a guy you don't really need or want this year would be enough to encourage teams to deal.

spiffie
08-01-2006, 02:59 PM
I knew sooner or later someone was going to bring this up. But the fact is, it's much more prevalent today than it was then, with more teams involved. It's the same script every year, with the same teams getting their bones picked over and the same teams doing the picking.
But who really got picked over this year? I can think of one trade that when you looked at it you said "wow, that really was just awful" and that's the Abreu trade. And in that case that was because the Phillies just needed to get that contract the hell off their hands. Otherwise there are deals where it's surprising that teams took so little or paid so much for certain talent, but they generally seem to be poor negotiation decisions rather than teams being picked on. I mean the biggest mover in the trade market outside of the Yankees was Cincy. The Padres made a few moves to help themselves. The Dodgers picked up a pitcher who might have actually pitched to Roger Maris. I think the era of the pure salary dump is being somewhat mitigated now as more teams are in the race and there seems to be somewhat less appalling discrepancies in payrolls. Teams are generally being smarter and avoiding contracts they will hate themselves for in coming years as well. If anything the problem is incompetent management, with guys like Littlefield in Pittsburgh who seem to use dartboards and tarot cards for franchise planning.

pauliemyhero14
08-01-2006, 03:23 PM
i say that the deadline should be August 15th, because July 31st is to early. If the waited till August 15th, more teams would realize their out so their is more sellers for teams who are looking for something. An example is this year. Their was only 5 teams that were committed to being sellers. If they waited till August 15th, that # of sellers could go up to like 10- 15 teams.

Foulke You
08-01-2006, 04:35 PM
I'd go for the end of June. All this swapping of players makes baseball look like a rotisserie league. And I don't think having good teams using weaker teams like a farm system is good for baseball.

And it's not really a deadline anyway. Teams can and do make trades after the "deadline" every year.
Your post got me thinking about teams being used as a farm system, I wonder when the last time the Pirates did NOT make a salary dump/veteran dump type of trade for prospects near the deadline? It has to be at least 10 years in a row for them now.

Juice16
08-01-2006, 04:41 PM
It's too late. Make it the end of June.

I agree, I hate when teams pick up these guys with half the seaon gone. It gets worse with the waiver trades.

ilsox7
08-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Your post got me thinking about teams being used as a farm system, I wonder when the last time the Pirates did NOT make a salary dump/veteran dump type of trade for prospects near the deadline? It has to be at least 10 years in a row for them now.

The sad thing is they have managed to screw it up pretty much every year. Talk about a HORRIBLY run organization.

downstairs
08-01-2006, 05:22 PM
i say that the deadline should be August 15th, because July 31st is to early. If the waited till August 15th, more teams would realize their out so their is more sellers for teams who are looking for something. An example is this year. Their was only 5 teams that were committed to being sellers. If they waited till August 15th, that # of sellers could go up to like 10- 15 teams.

Why is that a good thing?

What's wrong with winning with the team you began with?

It sort-of makes baseball slightly less pure. Every team seems to win with a few players that had nothing to do with the team for 60% of the year.

spiffie
08-01-2006, 05:55 PM
Why is that a good thing?

What's wrong with winning with the team you began with?

It sort-of makes baseball slightly less pure. Every team seems to win with a few players that had nothing to do with the team for 60% of the year.
And every team seems to win with a few free agents that teams signed during the offseason, guys who came up with another organization. Only 7 members of the current team were on the opening day roster in 2004, and 1 of those is Sandy Alomar who left and came back 1 1/2 seasons later. Hell, 10 of the guys who were in the locker room before Game 4 of the World Series last year are gone (Rowand, Blum, Duque, Politte, Widger, Everett, Harris, Vizcaino, Marte, Perez). Baseball is a mercenary game, and once a guy puts on the jersey, he's part of us, whether it's on Jan. 1, May 1, July 1, or Sept. 1.

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 06:10 PM
And every team seems to win with a few free agents that teams signed during the offseason, guys who came up with another organization. Only 7 members of the current team were on the opening day roster in 2004, and 1 of those is Sandy Alomar who left and came back 1 1/2 seasons later. Hell, 10 of the guys who were in the locker room before Game 4 of the World Series last year are gone (Rowand, Blum, Duque, Politte, Widger, Everett, Harris, Vizcaino, Marte, Perez). Baseball is a mercenary game, and once a guy puts on the jersey, he's part of us, whether it's on Jan. 1, May 1, July 1, or Sept. 1.But at the same time it allows teams to go into the playoffs with a very different team from the one that got them into the playoffs. Somehow, that doesn't seem right.

spiffie
08-02-2006, 09:34 AM
But at the same time it allows teams to go into the playoffs with a very different team from the one that got them into the playoffs. Somehow, that doesn't seem right.
Would you say the same thing about minor league call-ups, or does that feel different to you since they are already part of the organization? Does the Sox putting Bobby Jenks in as closer late in the season ring differently than replacing (though I know this isn't exactly the tradeoff) Politte with MacDougal?