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 machine3 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:39 pm

I never understood why a commissioner would have power of veto when HE HAS A TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! How is this not a conflict of interest???
As commissioner in my league, all trades must have 1/3 of the teams to veto a trade (4 teams in a 14 team league). And I require those protesting teams to post reasons why, not just click a button to vote it down. Since we implemented that rule, no trade has been vetoed.
machine3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1010
Joined: 2 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:30 pm

teddy ballgame wrote: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?


Not exactly. What I'm telling you is that performance comes with degrees of surety. And, even if Liriano has better numbers for his number of starts than Santana, I would still take Santana in a heartbeat over Liriano. Because Santana has a stronger likelihood of maintaining his numbers. If you rate performances on a scale of 1 to 10, Liriano may be a 10 right now. But it's completely possible he ends the season as a 5. Santana, and other elite players, on the other hand, you're 80% sure they're going to be an 8 or better.

teddy ballgame wrote: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.


No. It's completely different.

The probability of Wright suffering a major injury is probably about 3%. You can crunch the numbers on major injuries in the majors if you like, but my guess is that's pretty close.

The probability of a fireballing rookie pitcher coming in on a hot month and then significant cooling off for the rest of the season, I'm guessing, would be about 50%. Maybe greater.

So, yes. They're both probabilities. But discussing something that's a 50% probability as something that's the same as a 3% probability is either disingenuous or naive.

teddy ballgame wrote: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.


Sure. But Baseball Prospectus (and others) make a great deal of money comparing players to other playes and projecting year and career arcs. At the end of the day, yes, individuals are self-determinate. But they do fall into categories of probabilities which can be considered and weighed.

teddy ballgame 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.

Your whole stock market or whatever the hell that was basically showed me you expect Liriano to come crashing down this season.


No. What my stock market (or, actually, asset) example should have shown you is that all risks are not created equal. I don't expect Liriano to come crashing down this season. BUT, he has a greater probability of coming crashing down than David Wright does. And since at their current performance they're about equal, that makes it a bad trade.

teddy ballgame wrote: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.


No. It's not uneven because personally I think Liriano won't keep it up. It's uneven because a rookie pitcher who has been starting for five weeks has a greater probability of regressing to becoming an average starting pitcher than a batter who has one and one-third full seasons of consistent play under his belt has of regressing to an average major league hitter.

If you want to make it really basic, think if I offered you the chance to win $100,000. And I gave you the option: you can either win it by flipping a coin and calling it heads/tails correctly or you can win it by rolling a die and calling the number correctly. Of course you would go for the coin. They both have the same payoff: $100,000. But the coin gives you 50% odds of winning (1 out of 2). The die only give you 16 2/3% odds of winning (1 out of 6). Given equal reward, you choose the one that is less risk.

And that's all that this is about.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:35 pm

machine3 wrote:I never understood why a commissioner would have power of veto when HE HAS A TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! How is this not a conflict of interest???
As commissioner in my league, all trades must have 1/3 of the teams to veto a trade (4 teams in a 14 team league). And I require those protesting teams to post reasons why, not just click a button to vote it down. Since we implemented that rule, no trade has been vetoed.


Having league-members vote (as many people here will relate through experience) is also a conflict of interest. It's just a more diffused one. And you also hear horror stories of leagues where no trade ever goes through because it just becomes the culture where everybody votes to veto everything lest someone else gets ahead.

At the end of the day, you have to have some sort of judgment. And somebody may be unhappy. What it comes down to is how you decide to make that judgment. And who you trust to do it. There's benefits and drawbacks either way.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby machine3 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:45 pm

Matthias wrote:
machine3 wrote:I never understood why a commissioner would have power of veto when HE HAS A TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! How is this not a conflict of interest???
As commissioner in my league, all trades must have 1/3 of the teams to veto a trade (4 teams in a 14 team league). And I require those protesting teams to post reasons why, not just click a button to vote it down. Since we implemented that rule, no trade has been vetoed.


Having league-members vote (as many people here will relate through experience) is also a conflict of interest. It's just a more diffused one. And you also hear horror stories of leagues where no trade ever goes through because it just becomes the culture where everybody votes to veto everything lest someone else gets ahead.

At the end of the day, you have to have some sort of judgment. And somebody may be unhappy. What it comes down to is how you decide to make that judgment. And who you trust to do it. There's benefits and drawbacks either way.

With a league vote, every team has equal say. Most trades are not black and white; there are grey areas and arguments. That's why there are 4 pages of debate (so far). How can 1 person make a fair judgment on whether a trade should be allowed, especially when it may affect his team's standing?
machine3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1010
Joined: 2 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Grouperman941 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:51 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.


Wright will be better than Atkins, obviously, at the end of the year, but the difference will not be huge (though it will most likely be significant).

If you look at the trade from the position that the team giving Wright is trading a drop in performance at third for a solid starter, I think it looks pretty fair.

There is also a chance for the team getting Liriano and Atkins that both of those young players improve even more to the point where the trade winds up lopsided in his favor.

As to the owner admitting he thought he was robbing the other guy, if I don't feel that way, even a little, I am generally hesitant to do the deal. I'd guess both owners might make that claim, in which case, the deal is perfect.

<holy cow, I spent 20 minutes in this thread!>
Be excellent to each other.
Grouperman941
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2079
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Rays Country

Postby Matthias » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:59 pm

machine3 wrote:
Matthias wrote:
machine3 wrote:I never understood why a commissioner would have power of veto when HE HAS A TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! How is this not a conflict of interest???
As commissioner in my league, all trades must have 1/3 of the teams to veto a trade (4 teams in a 14 team league). And I require those protesting teams to post reasons why, not just click a button to vote it down. Since we implemented that rule, no trade has been vetoed.


Having league-members vote (as many people here will relate through experience) is also a conflict of interest. It's just a more diffused one. And you also hear horror stories of leagues where no trade ever goes through because it just becomes the culture where everybody votes to veto everything lest someone else gets ahead.

At the end of the day, you have to have some sort of judgment. And somebody may be unhappy. What it comes down to is how you decide to make that judgment. And who you trust to do it. There's benefits and drawbacks either way.

With a league vote, every team has equal say. Most trades are not black and white; there are grey areas and arguments. That's why there are 4 pages of debate (so far). How can 1 person make a fair judgment on whether a trade should be allowed, especially when it may affect his team's standing?


As I said, there's no perfect system. If you go with one person then you (hope, at least) you're getting a consistent look at someone who you assumedly trust (or they wouldn't be commissioner). But, they are only one person.

If you just put up for a league vote you can end up in the situation where no trades ever go through because everyone is pissed at each other. Which is a problem you wouldn't expect, at least, where you have one commissioner deciding.

And you keep bringing up the commissioner's team standing. In a voting system, you have the same problem. It's not unique.

So as I said, there's benefits to both. But I don't think that you can say one is the hands down winner.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby machine3 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:05 am

Matthias wrote:
machine3 wrote:
Matthias wrote:
machine3 wrote:I never understood why a commissioner would have power of veto when HE HAS A TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! How is this not a conflict of interest???
As commissioner in my league, all trades must have 1/3 of the teams to veto a trade (4 teams in a 14 team league). And I require those protesting teams to post reasons why, not just click a button to vote it down. Since we implemented that rule, no trade has been vetoed.


Having league-members vote (as many people here will relate through experience) is also a conflict of interest. It's just a more diffused one. And you also hear horror stories of leagues where no trade ever goes through because it just becomes the culture where everybody votes to veto everything lest someone else gets ahead.

At the end of the day, you have to have some sort of judgment. And somebody may be unhappy. What it comes down to is how you decide to make that judgment. And who you trust to do it. There's benefits and drawbacks either way.

With a league vote, every team has equal say. Most trades are not black and white; there are grey areas and arguments. That's why there are 4 pages of debate (so far). How can 1 person make a fair judgment on whether a trade should be allowed, especially when it may affect his team's standing?


As I said, there's no perfect system. If you go with one person then you (hope, at least) you're getting a consistent look at someone who you assumedly trust (or they wouldn't be commissioner). But, they are only one person.

If you just put up for a league vote you can end up in the situation where no trades ever go through because everyone is pissed at each other. Which is a problem you wouldn't expect, at least, where you have one commissioner deciding.

And you keep bringing up the commissioner's team standing. In a voting system, you have the same problem. It's not unique.

So as I said, there's benefits to both. But I don't think that you can say one is the hands down winner.

That's why we have the rule that you have to post your objections...you don't just click "veto" without a valid reason. If I get 4 legitimate veto votes, then as commissioner, I can better make a judgment.
machine3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1010
Joined: 2 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:30 am

machine3 wrote:That's why we have the rule that you have to post your objections...you don't just click "veto" without a valid reason. If I get 4 legitimate veto votes, then as commissioner, I can better make a judgment.


So you decide what objections are "valid."

As I said, you always have a decision point at the end of the day.

But you think your system is perfect. Whatever. I'm happy for you. I'm not to debate you any more on whether or not any other system could have any merit as you've clearly made up your mind. Yay.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby He who did Wright » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:58 am

Ok, I'm the person in the league Fantasy Guru's talking about who tried to trade David Wright. For some league info:

16 team league and I consider myself pretty decent on offense without Wright. I have Ryan Howard, Wright, Ensberg, and Holliday as my main power hitters.

Now obviously I would be downgrading from Wright to Atkins but my starting pitching situation is fairly average. My ace would easlily be Roy Oswalt, however he has pitched good not great this year, plus he's had to deal with injury problems.

After Oswalt it's basically Tim Hudson, Derek Lowe and CC Sabathia(who seems to be imploding). Considering he doesn't get hurt, Liriano would likely be an instant success to my strikeouts and K/9.

My leading strikeout pitcher, David Bush at 86. He's thrown 104 innings. Leading K/9 pitcher, CC Sabathia at 8.64, he's only thrown 66 innings. Liriano has thrown just 66 innings and he's at 74 strikeouts and a 10.04 K/9.

I don't really expect him to keep pitching the way he is now, but is it unreasonable to see him finish with a high 2, low 3 era? Atkins has been fairly good at 3b, better than guys like Aramis Ramirez and maybe Eric Chavez.

I have no problem with the commish vetoing the trade, I didn't want to give up David Wright, but right now it looks like a good way to improve my pitching while also getting a decent 3rd baseman to replace Wright.
He who did Wright
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 54
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bleach168 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:21 am

You have Oswalt, Hudson, Lowe, Sabathia, and Bush. That's pretty good in a 16-team league. Don't panic on Sabathia. He's good, just really unlucky. You can live without Liriano.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5058
(Past Year: 17)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Sep. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Cincinnati at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Detroit at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Boston at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
NY Mets at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Milwaukee at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Texas at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
LA Angels at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Seattle at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Washington at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Arizona at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

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