I would not have vetoed that trade. Liriano would be the leagues ERA leader if he had enough innings pitched. Atkins is no slouch either. I would rather have Wright, but I can see why someone without good pitching would jump on that. I think the Wright owner gets a better deal, but it isn't vetoable IMO.
I've been commishing leagues for 5 years and have seen my share of one sided stuff that deserves a veto, but this one? Nah, I don't think it deserved a veto.
Its the #34 player and the #100 player, for the #3 player and that my friends, is not worth vetoing.
jblank wrote:I've been commishing leagues for 5 years and have seen my share of one sided stuff that deserves a veto, but this one? Nah, I don't think it deserved a veto.
Its the #34 player and the #100 player, for the #3 player and that my friends, is not worth vetoing. Sorry to say it, but you made a mistake.
What you just said, in my opinion, does make it worth vetoing. A TOP first rounder is worth atleast 2 second rounders. You dont give a top first rounder (top 5 player) for a (assuming 12 team league) a late 3rd rounder and a early 9th. It can go either way, depending on your opinion, but I do think he was justified in vetoing it as I also think he'd be justified in letting it slide. You guys jump down peoples throats so fast and make them feel like chumps: Express your opinion, dont tell him "OMG YOU SCREWED UP, OMG" you are such a bad commisioner, id be so furious! Just tell him, in my opinion, you should have let it through. Get off the high and mighty train. (PS, to the person I quoted I am not directing this towards you at all, I just used your quote for the rankings you showed)
jblank wrote:I've been commishing leagues for 5 years and have seen my share of one sided stuff that deserves a veto, but this one? Nah, I don't think it deserved a veto.
Its the #34 player and the #100 player, for the #3 player and that my friends, is not worth vetoing. Sorry to say it, but you made a mistake.
What you just said, in my opinion, does make it worth vetoing. A TOP first rounder is worth atleast 2 second rounders. You dont give a top first rounder (top 5 player) for a (assuming 12 team league) a late 3rd rounder and a early 9th. It can go either way, depending on your opinion, but I do think he was justified in vetoing it as I also think he'd be justified in letting it slide. You guys jump down peoples throats so fast and make them feel like chumps: Express your opinion, dont tell him "OMG YOU SCREWED UP, OMG" you are such a bad commisioner, id be so furious! Just tell him, in my opinion, you should have let it through. Get off the high and mighty train. (PS, to the person I quoted I am not directing this towards you at all, I just used your quote for the rankings you showed)
Did it sound as though I was jumping down your throat? I was as calm as could be. GIving Liriano and ANOTHER player in the "30" range, is way too much for Wright.
Again, thats a fair trade, just like the consensus has told you, but you're the commish and you run your league how you want. However, I can promise you with the fantasy vets in the leagues I run/participate in, the commish would have caught holy hell for a veto of that trade.
astav28 wrote:It can go either way, depending on your opinion, but I do think he was justified in vetoing it as I also think he'd be justified in letting it slide.
This is exactly the point. Vetos are for the egregious, not the 50/50. People get their throats jumped down b/c they claim to or can be inferred to know that their 50 is is so obviously right. When I choose not to veto something it is never b/c i know, that its a fair trade, but rather that I don't know that its unfair or have no basis for investigating collusion. Vetoing on one's own mere speculations is unacceptably arrogant.
jblank wrote:I've been commishing leagues for 5 years and have seen my share of one sided stuff that deserves a veto, but this one? Nah, I don't think it deserved a veto.
Its the #34 player and the #100 player, for the #3 player and that my friends, is not worth vetoing. Sorry to say it, but you made a mistake.
What you just said, in my opinion, does make it worth vetoing. A TOP first rounder is worth atleast 2 second rounders. You dont give a top first rounder (top 5 player) for a (assuming 12 team league) a late 3rd rounder and a early 9th. It can go either way, depending on your opinion, but I do think he was justified in vetoing it as I also think he'd be justified in letting it slide. You guys jump down peoples throats so fast and make them feel like chumps: Express your opinion, dont tell him "OMG YOU SCREWED UP, OMG" you are such a bad commisioner, id be so furious! Just tell him, in my opinion, you should have let it through. Get off the high and mighty train. (PS, to the person I quoted I am not directing this towards you at all, I just used your quote for the rankings you showed)
Did it sound as though I was jumping down your throat? I was as calm as could be. GIving Liriano and ANOTHER player in the "30" range, is way too much for Wright.
Again, thats a fair trade, just like the consensus has told you, but you're the commish and you run your league how you want. However, I can promise you with the fantasy vets in the leagues I run/participate in, the commish would have caught holy hell for a veto of that trade.
um.......do you read these posts? A) I specifically stated at the end of my post that this post was not directed to you and that i was only using your example and B) I am not the commisioner of this league! I was simply defending him! Man, that was the worst post ive ever seen.
Easy big boy, please. You don't need to get worked into a tizzy. It comes off like you were accusing me of perhaps being angry in the other post, but yes, I saw what you said, though I thought you were talking about "getting off the high and mighty train" when you said you weren't directing it at me.
We're 3 pages into the thread, my apologies for not being able to keep up with 50 different posters and who was the actual commisioner.
Again, relax, have a sip of water, ease back, no reason to jump at me and call a simple disagreement, the "worst post you had ever seen".
well, I'm not totally sold on the argument that David Wright is for sure first rounder, but he is close. He wasn't this year, and this season isn't done. I don't think that it should be some major crux of the argument, but its semi valid because it looks like it will probably end up that way.
Anyway, everyone starts somewhere. It would be one thing if Liriano came from nowhere and this happened, but he has the pedigree.
the thing is: No one takes a pitcher in the first round not because their statiscal production doesn't warrant it, but because of the risk involved. However that said, when they are on, they can move your score much more than any one hitter can. IP relative to ABs means that each inning you get out of a pitcher has more of an effect that the hitter will. (certain situations excluded of course).
Liraino could very well be the best pitcher from this point on with monster ratios and k's. and in case no one noticed, atkins is certainly an adequate fill in.
To those who say "Liriano hasn't proved it"--last time I checked, wright isn't some totally established veteran himself. He has one full season under his belt, and about two full seasons of ABs.
Frankly, I would keep wright if I was in the trade, but possibly against my better judgment as I tend to not take those risk/reward situations sometimes. Liriano's relative wroth could end up being as good as wrights anyway.
Bad veto. The guy who thinks he is getting away with something is actually kind of ignorant in my opinion.
Matthias wrote: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.
Wow, you're joking right? I only said that because YOU brought up Prior and that he got hurt after he was supposed to be the next great pitcher. Well the risk for injury remains for everyone, which is my only point. "You can justify Pujols for an 8th rounder with that logic." Well then why did you use that logic with saying Liriano may not live up to the hype. If I decide Wright is gonna have a heart attack it's the same as deciding Liriano is gonna have injury problems or not live up to his potential for no reason.
Don't tell me to grow up, when you make these stupid irrelevant arguments. Not everyone lives up to hype, blah, blah, blah. Well maybe Wright won't live up to the hype? You know Mark Teixeira? 2.5 great seasons? How's he doing this year? Wright is just as much a risk to fail as Liriano. It's not like people just pulled Liriano out of their @$$ as someone who could be the next Santana. It's because he has the skill, and has shown the skill to do so.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by pangbones » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:03 pm 
