If you've read previous posts of mine you may be aware that I almost never veto a trade. However, in my public H2H league there was a trade notification today that warrants not only a veto, but an active campaign against it. One guy in my league has announced a 'yardsale' (can we say panic?) and made the following trade:
Chipper Jones and LoDuca for Lieberthal.
As it's a public league, four votes against the trade are needed in the next two days to veto the trade. Should I start the campaign?
Did he pronounce this yardsale? And if so, this doesn't seem that Yardsale-ish. Chipper has been hurt for most of the year--thumb, hammy, etc., and LoDuca has been struggling. Lieberthal has been great.
I don't think that's a veto. Unless, of course, he is doing a true yardsale. That doesn't look like one, though.
by just passing through » Sun May 04, 2003 9:49 am
I agree: although it's a lousy trade, it's certainly defendable thus far. Lieby has been awesome this year. (If I had Lieberthal, it's exactly the kind of trade I'd make.)
The other owner might be accused of being short-sighted, but that's what happens when you're an owner in fantasy baseball (or real baseball, for that matter). If your team gets screwed by it, well, you probably should have contacted the Lieberthal owner sooner.
you never know though, some guys would make that trade if they were a phillies fan (in other words, give up something more for that favorite player)... knowing how your home team is doing can be a real positive in fantasy baseball.. .the guy might just want to get Lieby...
Some background information here. Before the season began, there was a trade vetoed in this league. It was Alfonzo for Sasaki straight up (wow - that turned out to be for two real dogs...). I was not involved in the trade, but I had been trying to get Alfonzo from one of the owners. Despite this I wrote a message to the league chastising those who voted against the trade, arguing at the time that a veto should be used very sparingly - basically only in times of collusion. I would place 'dumping' into that category as well. (By the way, the Alfonzo-Sasaki trade was re-submitted and went through).
Just because this guy announced that he was having a yardsale doesn't justify this trade. If I placed an announcement that I was looking for a team to collude with, it wouldn't make collusion right.
Collusion and dumping of players are actions that destroy the integrity of a league. That's why such actions should be resisted when they occur. Having a yardsale to shake up your team is one thing, to start simply dumping players is another altogether.
Also, it takes four managers to veto a trade. I won't simply hit the 'vote against trade' button. I plan on publicly stating my opposition to the trade, making my case for why I think it ought to be vetoed, and letting the managers involved defend the trade. If they can offer good reasons for letting the trade go through, I'd be happy to let it stand.
Colluding or dumping of players is kind of like lying. There has to be intent for it to count. After all, someone could say a false thing without lying (they might simply be mistaken). One has to have an intent to deceive in order to lie. Similarly with colluding or dumping. If this trade just popped up on the radar screen I would think the guy getting Lieberthal was an idiot who got ripped off. I probably wouldn't vote against it in that case. However, knowing that the guy is dumping his players means that this is an intentionally bad trade, and that sort of action warrants a veto.
ramble2, that sounds like a good idea. We just had a big controversy in my league about protests. In the end, we all agreed that protests are not necessarily, "this trade should not go through" votes.
In our league, where I'm commissioner, if we get three protests, it comes to me for the final decision. Both parties in the trade must publicly make their case. Others can publicly make their case against it. In the end, I decide based on all of the info, but we are supposed to let all "on the level" trades go through, unless they are so blatantly ridiculous that it affects the whole league.
This one, their could be arguments for its. Personally, I think Chipper is done, and, though he continually gets offered as trade bait, I avoid him. He's one of the most overrated fantasy players out there, IMO. It's been a couple of years since he's put up monster numbers, and I don't expect him to do so ever again. A decent player to have, but he's no top 20 outfielder. He'd still be a top 10 third baseman, but he doesn't play there anymore.
So with that, I do think the trade is dumb, but not blatanly ridiculous. Still, if the intent is there to screw the league, then it should clearly be protested.