Most trades are unbalanced....if you have excess talent at one area you have to sometimes offer more in that area to get talent in a deficent area. That is part of being a good owner and balancing your team. Most people do not look at those kind of things when evaluating a trade and just putting the players up there really is no way to say whether it was a good deal. Sure some people say that they could have gotten more, well maybe not if the team needs of better players did not match up. You obviously play with a bunch of idiots.
wrveres wrote:I see nothing wrong with the trades that you put up there, are they perfectly balanced, no. But certainly not "Veto" worthy.
Sounds like a league with a buuch of crybabies in it to me.
interesting, I play in one of those too ..
WR, this isn't balanced:
ocmusicjunkie wrote:G Anderson, Loretta, Mora = Kolb, Wakefield, Lowell, Ward
I would have tried to see if the managers could work out something more fair so this doesn't happen
bleach168 wrote:I wouldn't expect them to return next year however.
True it is not balanced, but if the team that was getting Kolb was desperate for saves I can see someone doing it. Lowell career wise puts up similiar numbers to Garreet Anderson. Loretta used to be only a good batting average player, he could think he will go back to those numbers.
Hey your doing the right thing, trade vetoing is retarded because then trades barely get through, and its not like those trades are totally lopsided. And if those members dont like it then I would say they can leave because im sure there are 100's of other people out there that would want to take over that team
Screw the Peavy and Burnett Watches, I'm probably one of the laziest people in the world
kingctb27 wrote:Okay, so you guys wouldn't veto that trade? I def. would. This is how leagues get unbalanced. You can't just "sit back" and get run into the ground. I'm in a keeper league were someone has Beltran, Pujols, Tex, Abrue, A-Rod, RJ, Santana, Prior, and Schmidt. We did the same thing you guys said to do last year in the league and just "sat back". Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice.......er.....it won't happen twice
I agree with you. However, ocmusicjunkie specifically said "no vetoes unless it's collusion or first rounder being handed away for free." His hands are tied now.
In my league where thehat is commish, he traded Renteria and Hafner for Santana. That was one helluva lopsided trade. But the rule there is no vetoes, so I can't really complain. I doubt I'll play in his league next year though.
I think there are alot of circumstances to be considered before anyone hits the veteo button. What are the condition of the teams involved, positions needed, players the new players will replace in the lineup.
I've learned recently that cash leagues managers tend to get more desperate earlier in the season because... well, if they don't make changes now they are more likely subject lossing out on the prizes.
A first place team may be more inclined to hold on Chavez's, Vmarts, Matsui's etc etc, but for the guy who is already 15-20 games back, he has to move now on it, sell players low and take more or less quantity/specialized players in return....... and in my instance (click link below) what appears to be a more loopsided trade then it really is.
bleach168 wrote:But the rule there is no vetoes, so I can't really complain. I doubt I'll play in his league next year though.
I think this is the key - seven billion leagues exist because people want to create your own style and make your own rules. A rule was made for no veto without collusion and that's that. Everyone here would be bashing the commish if he buckled no matter what the rule. If the owners don't like it, they can move on - there are plenty of people to fill their spots.