At what point can I fairly veto trades? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 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 Zito is God » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:53 pm

I hate all these threads of commish's vetoes where the real reason is because half of them wished they could pull a deal like that themselves.

I have been involved in too many of these to get deep here, but I will tell you something very quick you should probobly take into consideration:

1. It was a very very bad veto, and trades should not be vetoed unless there is collusion or there is a clear case of absense of basic baseball knowledge (Pujols for Womack) involved.

2. It is understandable since you are a first year commish, I would apologuize and offer for them to redo the deal if I were you.

3. The Prior example was the biggest joke of an example I have ever seen on this site. Wright could get killed in a drive-by tommorow, that sound reasonable? No? Your Prior example does not either.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby Zito is God » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:54 pm

teddy ballgame wrote:
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.

:-b :-b 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.


Bravo my friend. Bravo.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby TonyCee » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:23 pm

mkultra wrote:Not at all vetoable. You made a bad move, IMO.


Word.
TonyCee
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1068
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:39 pm

teddy ballgame wrote:
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.

:-b :-b 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.


No. Prior and Wright are different comparisons.

Prior stands for the proposition that players get hyped, compared to players in the HOF, and then don't pan out. Percentage of the time this happens: often.

Wright dying of a heart attack stands for the proposition that there are very, very low-probability events that may occur that, in hindsight, could justify a trade as even. Percentage of the time this happens: rarely.

The comparison has been made ad nauseum but it really is a good one. This is like pricing in the financial markets.

Without getting too technical, say you have an asset that has an 80% probability of being worth $100MM and a 20% probability of being worth zero. The value you should correctly assign to that asset is $80MM.

If you have a second asset that has a 80% probability of being worth $10MM and a 20% probability of being worth $100MM the asset should be correctly valued at $28MM.

You should not trade Asset B for Asset A even though they have same maximum vaue.

So, when valuing players, you look at the sum of their probabilistic values. Players who are more known quantities have their upper values weighted more because they are known quantities. Manny has been producing 100+ RBI seasons since dirt was young... he'll probably do so this year as well. You take someone who is a rookie sensation like a Liriano, they might hit the same equivaluent value but there's much more risk involved in Liriano. He has say a 30% chance of keeping up this pace throughout the season. And maybe a 50% chance of dropping back some. And then 10% either way of drastic improvement/failure.

Wright, on the other hand, has about a 70% chance of keeping this up based on last year and based on the at bats he's had so far this season. He has, probably, a 20% chance of cooling off, and then 5% chance of going drastically better or worse. So, just because he and Liriano have the same plateau (say, a $35-$40 player) does mean that they're "even" in any trading sense right now.

And just because we're using the same general idea of probability in regards to Wright and Prior, there's no reason to snicker and play a, "Gotcha!" because you think they're the same. They're not.

I really hope you guys actually take the time to understand this. Because it is how things actually work.[/b]
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby teddy ballgame » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Matthias wrote:
teddy ballgame wrote:
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.

:-b :-b 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.


No. Prior and Wright are different comparisons.

Prior stands for the proposition that players get hyped, compared to players in the HOF, and then don't pan out. Percentage of the time this happens: often.

Wright dying of a heart attack stands for the proposition that there are very, very low-probability events that may occur that, in hindsight, could justify a trade as even. Percentage of the time this happens: rarely.

The comparison has been made ad nauseum but it really is a good one. This is like pricing in the financial markets.

Without getting too technical, say you have an asset that has an 80% probability of being worth $100MM and a 20% probability of being worth zero. The value you should correctly assign to that asset is $80MM.

If you have a second asset that has a 80% probability of being worth $10MM and a 20% probability of being worth $100MM the asset should be correctly valued at $28MM.

You should not trade Asset B for Asset A even though they have same maximum vaue.

So, when valuing players, you look at the sum of their probabilistic values. Players who are more known quantities have their upper values weighted more because they are known quantities. Manny has been producing 100+ RBI seasons since dirt was young... he'll probably do so this year as well. You take someone who is a rookie sensation like a Liriano, they might hit the same equivaluent value but there's much more risk involved in Liriano. He has say a 30% chance of keeping up this pace throughout the season. And maybe a 50% chance of dropping back some. And then 10% either way of drastic improvement/failure.

Wright, on the other hand, has about a 70% chance of keeping this up based on last year and based on the at bats he's had so far this season. He has, probably, a 20% chance of cooling off, and then 5% chance of going drastically better or worse. So, just because he and Liriano have the same plateau (say, a $35-$40 player) does mean that they're "even" in any trading sense right now.

And just because we're using the same general idea of probability in regards to Wright and Prior, there's no reason to snicker and play a, "Gotcha!" because you think they're the same. They're not.

I really hope you guys actually take the time to understand this. Because it is how things actually work.[/b]

Ok, so basically what you're telling me is because Liriano isn't guaranteed to put up the insane numbers he has been, he's not worth what he's done so far?

Well, maybe that's one strategy, but that doesn't mean Liriano isn't worth Wright if they both keep up what they've been doing. Saying this trade is uneven because Liriano might not keep it up, for this year at least is like me thinking Wright will suffer a major injury. There's no basis for that besides that it happened to someone else. Liriano isn't someone else, he's his own person, who will build his own personal history.

Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.

Your whole stock market or whatever the hell that was basically showed me you expect Liriano to come crashing down this season. If you believe that, then this deal isn't for you. If you don't believe that, then it's not uneven. I'd still take the Wright side of this deal, but to call it uneven just because you personally don't think Liriano will keep it up is ridiculous IMO.
Image
teddy ballgame
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11485
Joined: 7 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beantown

Postby bleach168 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:26 pm

Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.


To simplify things, just imagine you were drafting today in a mid-season league. Just about everyone would take Wright over Liriano. That makes Wright worth more than Liriano and in a straight up trade uneven. By throwing in Atkins, it does make it unvetoable.

Still, doesn't mean the deal is even. Any 2 for 1 trade is inherently uneven. But uneven does not equate to automatic veto imo.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5048
(Past Year: 52)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby teddy ballgame » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:28 pm

bleach168 wrote:
Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.


To simplify things, just imagine you were drafting today in a mid-season league. Just about everyone would take Wright over Liriano. That makes Wright worth more than Liriano in a straight up trade uneven. By throwing in Atkins, it does make it unvetoable.

Still, doesn't mean the deal is even. Any 2 for 1 trade is inherently uneven. But uneven does not equate to automatic veto imo.

And during a draft before the season, everyone would take Vlad over Santana, but in some situations, like now when Santana is dealing where you would trade Vlad for Santana. Draft position does not have much effect on trade value, when in one spot you don't have a roster and standings alread going and in the other you do.
Image
teddy ballgame
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11485
Joined: 7 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beantown

Postby bleach168 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:33 pm

teddy ballgame wrote:
bleach168 wrote:
Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.


To simplify things, just imagine you were drafting today in a mid-season league. Just about everyone would take Wright over Liriano. That makes Wright worth more than Liriano in a straight up trade uneven. By throwing in Atkins, it does make it unvetoable.

Still, doesn't mean the deal is even. Any 2 for 1 trade is inherently uneven. But uneven does not equate to automatic veto imo.

And during a draft before the season, everyone would take Vlad over Santana, but in some situations, like now when Santana is dealing where you would trade Vlad for Santana. Draft position does not have much effect on trade value, when in one spot you don't have a roster and standings alread going and in the other you do.


Standings play a role but to a point. Just because someone needs saves doesn't mean he should trade A-Rod for Saito even though it may make sense based on standings. A manager should always try to get the best value for his players.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5048
(Past Year: 52)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby machine3 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:55 pm

Bottom line is this- If you have to post on here asking whether a trade is vetoable, then it isn't. There should be no doubt.
machine3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1010
(Past Year: 30)
Joined: 2 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Zito is God » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:11 pm

machine3 wrote:Bottom line is this- If you have to post on here asking whether a trade is vetoable, then it isn't. There should be no doubt.


I never even thought of it that way, good work. This statement is dead on.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: germani40, NikkiSixx, perrync18, Saltydog and 10 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Apr. 23
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Arizona at Chi Cubs
(12:10 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(2:20 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(3:10 pm)
Houston at Seattle
(3:35 pm)
Kansas City at Cleveland
(3:40 pm)
LA Angels at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Toronto at Toronto
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at Baltimore
(7:07 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Diego at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

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