I don't see what the big deal is with this trade. Walker always has a higher average than sammy and he hits a ton of homers in coors. Sammy hasn't been sammy this year. But the commish vetoed it like 2 minutes after it was accepted
walker is being walked alot and when he gets hot, he wil drive the ball all over that coors field.
on the other hand, when sosa gets hot he will be the best player, i traded him at the all-star break last year and u know what... he hit 20(about) more hrs (i think).
I would take sosa, so i guess its up to 96%
Last edited by eftda on Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
It's a fair deal, by far. Sammy Sosa is a much bigger name, and I'm sure that's why the trade was vetoed. However, he's been hurt this season and now he's going to miss a ton of games for his corky habits. All of that lowers his value, making him a decent 'buy low' candidate for you ... too bad everyone else was too stubborn to see that.
This one's borderline, in my book, but right at this moment, I would let it through.
Argue for it. On Sporting News, Walker is ranked 23 in outfield while Sosa is ranked 9. That's not as great of a difference as I expected it to be.
Sosa's been in a slump. Walker is getting hot. Sosa's out for another 8 games starting next week. That's two weeks of production, which is definitely significant.
Overall, it's a fair trade, but you definitely win. Make the case and ask the commish to publicly argue for his veto instead of just forcing it down your throat.
Borderline? Are you serious? You must think most trades are vetoable if you think this is borderline.
There is no way this should be a veto, under any circumstances- even if Sammy was playing better.
YOU DON'T VETO A TRADE JUST BECAUSE YOU PERCEIVE IT TO NOT BE "FAIR".
The ONLY reason a trade should ever be vetoed is if you have some reason to believe that there is collusion involved. Otherwise, I personally never veto trades. My feeling is that owners should be able to manage their teams the way they see fit. Were it up to me, the veto power would not even be an option in Yahoo public leagues. The private league I'm in does not allow vetos.
And this trade is very fair........
Hooligan1
hooligan1
Minor League Mentor
Posts: 888
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Uumm, micro-managing my fantasy baseball teams. Where else?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by eagles157 » Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:16 pm 
/homer2.gif){kind=small}
/mickey.gif)
