Recent trade was accepted, and I am wondering what the general publics thoughts were....


Astacio and Christman

for

Riggs

at first glance I say yes.... but then again riggs has really struggled in the ML and the team getting rid of him will have to take on $4mil in salary for 1 more season.  still its lopsided imo, maybe not rape.

That wouldn't meet my threshold of traderape, depending on Astacio's contract situation.

if you have to ask, the answer is yes

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.

 

Im new but I can't see how it's too lopsided of a trade at all.

Ratings-wise Riggs looks to be awesome, but as moy23 pointed out, he has been pitiful so far in the big leagues. So he gets rid of a guy who has been a BIG disappointment for a Long R who has been pitching 150+ innings and doing it pretty well the past few seasons. He also gets a pretty solid defensive guy, who could definitely play 2B, and maybe he develops into an actual BL SS. He can't hit very well, but when he does, he will hit for some decent power, and he should steal some bases.

The other guy gets a "potential" lights out closer (maybe the change in scenery will do him good), for a Long R who is nearing the end of his career, and a 2B/SS that he may never have planned on using anyway.

I can definitely see both sides and therefore I'd say it isn't rape by a longshot.

Riggs' P1/P2 keep him from ever being a lights-out closer. Christman will never be a big leaguer with those splits.

It's a $4 million long man/back of rotation guy plus a minor league scrub for a set-up man making the minimum. Unless Astacio's got a ridiculous long-term contract, I don't see why this would even be considered anything close to rape.

Rape is a strong, and sensitive term to certain guys (FDIAH), changed the title.

With the right pitch counts and auto-rest setting Riggs is an excellent 50-60 IP closer. Christman is a zero, and Astacio is less than zero-- you can get that quality for $1.5-2M on the FA market in every world I've been in.

Unless Astacio's salary was covered in the deal, I'd veto quickly, regardless of who the owners are. I'd probably veto even if there was $4M in the deal. Only reason not to would be if you just didn't think any 60 IP pitcher was worth a veto.

Posted by dedelman on 6/29/2010 11:48:00 PM:
Astacio is less than zero-- you can get that quality for $1.5-2M on the FA market in every world I've been in.

Why do you only play in crappy 'tard worlds? Is it a religious thing?

I'm stunned at the fact that anyone would veto a deal that involves no impact players, frankly. Do you people veto any deal you don't feel is perfectly even? "Oh no, one owner may have gotten a slightly more valuable bench player than the other in that trade! I'd better veto it!"

If there are no impact players, why add 4m in salary?

Pay no mind to dedelman.  He sets unrealistic expectations for pitching in every thread.   Although, in this case, he's probably right about finding an Astacio equivalent in FA for 2m.   That doesn't make him less than zero.

Here's a guy dedelman is paying almost 37m.
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=752943
Not that different from Astacio.

I don't get why Astacio is a 0?  Sure his splits aren't the best, but he's a sub 4.00 era w/ 100+ wins in 200+ ml starts.  I wouldn't put him at the front of my rotation, but he's got value.  I'd rather have the closer than either of the 2 guys he's getting back, but I don't see the need for a veto unless you think there is some collusion going on.

the guy Dedleman has is much better.  The splits still suck, but his top 2 pitches are better, and his velocity and sink are top notch.  Put him in Oakland and you see why he has success.  I'm not sure he's worth that contract, but he's several notches above Astacio.