At what point can I fairly veto trades? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

At what point can I fairly veto trades?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby mak1277 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:54 pm

1) I don't think one person (i.e. the commissioner) should ever have the unilateral ability to veto a trade. That's just ridiculous and allows for abuse of power.

2) We don't know much about this particular trade. First, we don't know if it's a keeper league or not. If it's a re-draft, Liriano's potential for a sophomore slump is completely irrelevant, as is the age of any of the players in the trade. Second, we don't even know
which of the two owners thought the trade was uneven. Third, we don't know the rosters of the teams. Plenty of trades are "unfair" at face value. If the guy trading Wright was desperate for starting pitching, then that's an important consideration.

3) In general, I don't believe in vetos being used to stop non-collusive trades. That said, I don't even think this trade is one of those that drastically upsets the balance of power in a league. Do I have a preference on which side of the trade I'd take? Of course. But the reality is that the trade was offered and accepted and (presumably) both managers are happy about it. Why on earth would the commish then veto such a trade? It just doesn't make sense to me.
mak1277
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 4569
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby ThisOneGuy » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:07 pm

I subscribe to the 'only veto if it's collusion' school of thought, but I do understand the other way of thinking. That being said, I don't understand this veto. I'm assuming you think the Wright side is getting the (MUCH) better end of this deal.

Liriano is pitching as well as ANYONE in the league right now. Even without knowing the teams' needs, this doesn't seem uneven enough to veto.
ThisOneGuy
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 323
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby astav28 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:10 pm

If it was not a keeper league than I dont think I'd veto it...unless it didnt make sense based on rosters (Like the team giving Wright already having good pitching). I still dont think it was a real smart trade, but id let it slide if it wasnt keeper. In a keeper though, David Wright is a top 5 keeper player. Liriano, at this point, is deffinitly not. And Atkins isnt even a keeper, period.

When i posted originally, I assumed a keeper league (dont know why).
astav28
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 330
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:12 pm

teddy ballgame wrote:We're not talking about someone AFTER a season. This is in the middle of a season. Someone needs pitching. Liriano has been amazing, and there's no signs of slowing down. You can't just say Mark Prior was supposed to be great and got hurt. So what? Good for Mark Prior...what does that have to do with anything? Maybe David Wright will have a heart attack tomorrow...the risk of injury is there for everyone.


Of course.

There's never signs of someone slowing down until, well, they've slowed down. The whole reason that certain players are "studs" are that they have a track record of production that you can look and say, "Yah, this is no fluke." But more on point, that it's easier to SAY that someone will be the next Santana than someone to actually BECOME the next Santana.

What does Prior have to do with this? There's always someone who starts hot who draws comparisons, "They're the next" whoever. But very rarely do they actually become the next whoever. So just throwing out that this is fair because Liriano is the next Santana. Bah. In April, Chris Shelton was the next Babe Ruth.

And I hate the causation game. "Maybe David Wright will have a heart attack tomorrow." Grow up. Under that logic, trading Pujols for next year's 8th round draft choice is fair because Pujols might drop dead tomorrow. You can justify literally ANYTHING on this amorphous idea of causation. The reality is that things have value based on predictions of future behavior which are based upon past experience. And you don't base your entire valuation upon a 0.00000001% event to justify it.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RugbyD » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:16 pm

to all the veto-happy out there, you may actually want to look at what Atkins has done this year, then feel free to stick your foot way down your throat.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:22 pm

RugbyD wrote:to all the veto-happy out there, you may actually want to look at what Atkins has done this year, then feel free to stick your foot way down your throat.


to all those who don't read thread, find anywhere here that i said this trade should be vetoed.

all i did was tell teddy to lighten up from jumping down his throat.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby mak1277 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:24 pm

Matthias wrote:What does Prior have to do with this? There's always someone who starts hot who draws comparisons, "They're the next" whoever. But very rarely do they actually become the next whoever. So just throwing out that this is fair because Liriano is the next Santana. Bah. In April, Chris Shelton was the next Babe Ruth.

And I hate the causation game. "Maybe David Wright will have a heart attack tomorrow." Grow up. Under that logic, trading Pujols for next year's 8th round draft choice is fair because Pujols might drop dead tomorrow. You can justify literally ANYTHING on this amorphous idea of causation. The reality is that things have value based on predictions of future behavior which are based upon past experience. And you don't base your entire valuation upon a 0.00000001% event to justify it.


You're right of course in theory, but my problem is that you are not allowing someone to utilize their own personal projection to make a trade. If the guy trading David Wright really believes that Liriano is going to be a mega-stud, then who the heck are you to tell him he can't make that trade? It's BS to think that a trade should be vetoed just because you don't agree with someone else's opinion on the quality of a player.

There are certainly cases where it is obviously bad (Pujols for Oliver Perez would be an example) but in this particular case there is certainly room to accept the viewpoints exhibited by the trade (i.e. that Liriano is good enough to trade, with Atkins, for Wright). It's just not unreasonable.
mak1277
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 4569
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby RugbyD » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:28 pm

Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:to all the veto-happy out there, you may actually want to look at what Atkins has done this year, then feel free to stick your foot way down your throat.


to all those who don't read thread, find anywhere here that i said this trade should be vetoed.

all i did was tell teddy to lighten up from jumping down his throat.

show me where i said you said it should be vetoed
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:30 pm

mak1277 wrote:
Matthias wrote:What does Prior have to do with this? There's always someone who starts hot who draws comparisons, "They're the next" whoever. But very rarely do they actually become the next whoever. So just throwing out that this is fair because Liriano is the next Santana. Bah. In April, Chris Shelton was the next Babe Ruth.

And I hate the causation game. "Maybe David Wright will have a heart attack tomorrow." Grow up. Under that logic, trading Pujols for next year's 8th round draft choice is fair because Pujols might drop dead tomorrow. You can justify literally ANYTHING on this amorphous idea of causation. The reality is that things have value based on predictions of future behavior which are based upon past experience. And you don't base your entire valuation upon a 0.00000001% event to justify it.


You're right of course in theory, but my problem is that you are not allowing someone to utilize their own personal projection to make a trade. If the guy trading David Wright really believes that Liriano is going to be a mega-stud, then who the heck are you to tell him he can't make that trade? It's BS to think that a trade should be vetoed just because you don't agree with someone else's opinion on the quality of a player.

There are certainly cases where it is obviously bad (Pujols for Oliver Perez would be an example) but in this particular case there is certainly room to accept the viewpoints exhibited by the trade (i.e. that Liriano is good enough to trade, with Atkins, for Wright). It's just not unreasonable.


i actually agree with you. i would've busted the chops of the owner who traded away wright but i wouldn't have vetoed it. but i do think it's interesting that noone here has mentioned, at all, the owner's reaction to getting his trade vetoed.

and at a certain point, it does become paternalism. you are telling someone they can't trade oliver perez for albert pujols. even if they think that ollie is due for a break-out and will pitch perfect games from now until september. but you do it because you realize that there are certain player values and some trades just don't stack up. but you can't use these disaster/hero scenarios to justify them.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Laean » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:57 pm

astav28 wrote:i am getting so annoyed with this website, anytime anyone makes a trade you guys think it is not vetoable: this is deffinitly vetoable in my opinion. David Wright is MVP caliber (2nd only to Pujols) and Liriano is a stud right now, but hes proven it over, what, 10 starts? People have great starts all the time, Wright is the real deal. Liriano has a lot left to prove. And Garett Atkins, IMO, isnt anything special at all. I think it was ok to veto it if you want your league to stay fair and dynasty's not to be made (especially since wright is still so young). Dont get mad about all these people flaming you, Im a commish also and anytime i ask about vetos they say DONT VETO, YOU SUCK AT COMMISIONER, just know that these guys would say that Matt Kemp for Mark Teixeira is not vetoable (they just tolerate anything). You have to go with your gut. PS: 3 names: Ben Sheets, Mark Prior, Rich Harden...
HITTING IS SO MUCH MORE OF A SURE THING THAN PITCHING...look at felix last year and THIS YEAR.


90% of the trades that are brought up in this forum really shouldn't be vetoed, and that's why the cafers say don't veto. i'm usually one of them.

however, this one is different, and i agree with you.

i generally follow the rule of no collusion = no veto, so i wouldn't have personally vetoed this either, but looking at it purely balance/value wise, i would veto it.

david wright is an elite 1st rounder, i don't think anyone disputes that.

liriano was a late round draft pick or a FA pickup who has had half a good season. how can wright be equal to that? and don't tell me atkins makes it fair, atkins is solid, but there are a lot of solid FA hitters even that you can still pick up midseason.

liriano already the next santana? sure, he could be. and in a keeper league, this trade is a little better (only a little better since wright himself is a top keeper), but haven't we seen time and time again how inconsistent pitchers can be? they can dominate for an entire month and look like the next ace of the century, then have a 5 era the next month, or even rest of the way. look at felix last year and this year. oh you think that's a different situation since it's last year that he dominated? look at kazmir (1.91 era in may, 4.15 in june). don't give me liriano's been a high prospect reason either, as kaz has been too. verlander anyone? (1.73 era in may, 5.16 in june).) conteras? (2.49 era in may, 5.54 era in june.) i mean jeez, if we're going to trade liriano for wright, why not josh johnson? would people veto that?

basically, this COULD be a fair deal, but the one getting liriano is taking ALL the (HUGE when you're risking your 1st rounder) risk. liriano couldn't have been the guy's 5th round drafted ace or something. he probably has at least a carlos zambrano or a smoltz or a clemens or whatever. if it was one of them + atkins for wright, i'd still prefer the wright side, but it wouldn't be vetoable.
Laean
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2595
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 6 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 15:43 hours
(and 91 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact