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 The Jury » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:15 am

You should not veto a trade because YOU THINK that a player will not continue to perform at a certain level, when he has demonstrated that level of performance so far this season.

Your opinion does not carry more weight than the involved manager's opinion.
[quote:4fef447375="Geek"]The odds of the AL MVP coming from the American League are looking pretty good.[/quote]
The Jury
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3328
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:27 am

if you are going to micromanage to this degree, why not veto horrible draft picks?
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Belle4Hall88 » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:09 pm

I would do that trade in a heartbeat. The guy has Ensberg too, and the addition of Loriano would put him over the top in pitching since he is in a 16 team league. And hello, Atkins is on pace to do .310-101-22-105-4. I would try my best to get out of that league!
Belle4Hall88 Beginner
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 413
Joined: 1 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: DE

Postby Matthias » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:46 pm

Wow. So many people disagree with me for so many different reasons. Let's see if we can cover all, or at least most, in no particular order. (And apologies to long-term Cafe'ers; most of these arguments have been made ad nauseum before).

1) Stupid draft picks are 100% different than stupid trades. Someone who makes Tru their first-round draft pick hurts their own team but doesn't affect league balance. Everyone else is just basically drafting one draft spot higher. If you trade a $35 player for a $5 player, though, the team on the other side is greatly benefited which harms league balance. Someone can draft only players who have career averages of .200 or below and I'll never say boo. All they're doing is killing themselves. That I could care less about.

2) There's a difference between when you think a trade is unfair or imbalanced and when you think a trade is vetoable. It's a fine line, granted, but there is a difference. I don't veto trades just because I personally think they're unfair. Also, at a certain level, just as you can't complain if someone takes advantage of a particular league setting after the season has started, you can't really complain if a commissioner uses the discretion which the league gave them at the beginning of the year.

3) The coin analogy is not precisely spot on, but it's not ridiculous. Of course you can't exactly know the probabilities of a particular player's career arc (basically, that would be the same thing as knowing what their career would be). But baseball has been around for a while. And there's been lots of player careers that you can use as comparison. Of course it's not perfect but it's not a shot in the dark, either. Again, it all comes down to probabilities. A given weather system may not ALWAYS result in rain, sun, tornado, or whatever, but looking at past, similar weather systems, you can say that it has a certain probability of turning into whatever. Even though you don't know the exact situation of that system. Players are really, really no different.

4) The 3% and the 50% numbers. I'm not Elias Sports Bureau or a major-league agent. I don't have 100 years of datasets at my fingertips. But if you think from your own experience the number of times that a player on your favorite team gets injured for the remainder of the season, it's a relatively rare event (and, incidentally, the whole discussion on Wright getting injured ignores the possibility of Liriano getting injured. At best, they cancel each other out since pitchers have a greater injury incidence than positionals). But young pitchers who come in, tear up the league for a month, and then fall back to becoming an average major-league pitcher (which still isn't easy) is relatively common. Even established pitchers have huge amounts of variance which is why most people at the Cafe argue against early-round pitches. You just don't know what they're going to look like most of the time.

5) Player value: Sure, players have different projections of players and different degrees of confidence in players keeping up their current production. But there also exist commonly accepted ideas of player values. And so even if you like a certain player and think a certain player is going to blow up, it doesn't make it a fair trade to give away 5x more than you have to to get them. Even if you think that Jered Weaver is the end all be all and will be back in the bigs sometime soon and Albert Pujols is going to have residual back problems it's still a vetoable trade to do them one-for-one. Because you can get Weaver for cheaper. I'm sorry. You can. You can defend that kind of trade all day, but if you post it in the trade forum you'll get tirade after tirade about how the Weaver owner is ripping off the Pujols one.

6) Zig: I respect you as well. And, for the record, have never vetoed a trade in any of my leagues (except a Yahoo public league where there was actually cheating; you can ask TheRock about that one... he and I both quit the league out of frustration). I've been fortunate to get good owners from my friends. So I don't advocate vetoing as much as I do argue against the idea that a commissioner can have some reasonable basis to do so.

7) Machine: all I did was argue that there were benefits and drawbacks to whatever veto system you choose to institute. No matter what it was. And you kept telling me how yours didn't suffer any problems. I wasn't advocating for any particular one, simply stating that there's no perfect system. Since you weren't seeming to agree with me, I can only assume that you did think your system was, actually, perfect.

In sum, I would not have vetoed the trade in my leagues. But I don't think that the trade was fair. The player who was getting Liriano is accepting much more risk for the same upside than the player who was getting Wright. There are reasonably objective ways to look at these things that are independent of what either of the trading parties believe and what the other league members or the commissioner doing the veto believes. And if something is completely imbalanced, will harm the league, and cannot be defended on a particular category or positional need then there is standing for the trade to be vetoed.

Thanks for the chat.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby The Jury » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:00 pm

I found it funny that you actually refer to Adrian Beltre as Tru :-D It doesn't even need an explaination - he is known as simply as Tru :-D
[quote:4fef447375="Geek"]The odds of the AL MVP coming from the American League are looking pretty good.[/quote]
The Jury
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3328
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:07 pm

There's a difference between when you think a trade is unfair or imbalanced and when you think a trade is vetoable. It's a fine line, granted, but there is a difference. I don't veto trades just because I personally think they're unfair.


I agree but that's just what the original poster did. If it was me, I would have asked both sides to justify this deal if I had an issue with it.

In sum, I would not have vetoed the trade in my leagues. But I don't think that the trade was fair. The player who was getting Liriano is accepting much more risk for the same upside than the player who was getting Wright.


What's wrong with accepting risk?? Atkins is certainly no Wright but he is clearly serviceable and, if Liriano keeps this up, it is a risk that might be worth taking. We have no idea what each team's needs are but maybe the side getting the 2 players is stacked on offense and needs pitching help. Risk is also a major factor in fantasy sports. Taking risks is key. Obviously, we all know that trades aren't only things like "here's my 3rd rounder for your 3rd rounder".

The bottom line for me is that I wouldn't have even thought about vetoing this deal. I really only like to veto if there is obvious collusion or if a trade is so blatantly lopsided that it could affect the league. I haven't seen evidence that this deal fits either of those descriptions.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby great gretzky » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:07 pm

Stupid draft picks are 100% different than stupid trades. Someone who makes Tru their first-round draft pick hurts their own team but doesn't affect league balance. Everyone else is just basically drafting one draft spot higher. If you trade a $35 player for a $5 player, though, the team on the other side is greatly benefited which harms league balance. Someone can draft only players who have career averages of .200 or below and I'll never say boo. All they're doing is killing themselves. That I could care less about.

That is not accurate at all. It does affect league balance for sure. It makes one team pretty bad. Its not as problematic for sure, but I think the spirit of the argument is there. Everyone feels compelled to enforce their player evaluations during trades, but never say boo during the draft. One guy in a public live draft league drafted brian roberts in the first round. Are you really telling me that doesn't affect league balance? surely you are not. What if two people do it? It certainly stacks specific teams. Teams that are "only hurting themselves" are hurting league balance.

This is a pretty good example. Some idiot in a football league the year before last kept making idiotic picks. He picked Jake Delhomme number one overall, then picked Donovan McNabb as his second round pick (because he would then be "set" there). He took a tight end in round three and a defense in round four. granted, this is football, but the fact remained that it ended up totally stacking the team that picked after him. She got peyton manning, randy moss, and two totally stud backs because of the cascading effect it had on the draft. Baseball definitely isn't as dependent on certian players as football is, but some decisions are just so indefensible, that if you are going to apply league balance to trading, it should be applied to waiver moves and the draft as well.

And the whole "league balance" argument is hogwash anyway, since there will always be a first place team and a last place team, that's the whole point of the exercise.

You basically want a rough estimation of equity, which you have in this trade. By continuing to post, you are just making it worse. The teams involved have every right to make that trade, and you did a bad job as the commish as to vetoing it.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby rainman23 » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:20 pm

great gretzky wrote:Stupid draft picks are 100% different than stupid trades. Someone who makes Tru their first-round draft pick hurts their own team but doesn't affect league balance. Everyone else is just basically drafting one draft spot higher. If you trade a $35 player for a $5 player, though, the team on the other side is greatly benefited which harms league balance. Someone can draft only players who have career averages of .200 or below and I'll never say boo. All they're doing is killing themselves. That I could care less about.

That is not accurate at all. It does affect league balance for sure. It makes one team pretty bad. Its not as problematic for sure, but I think the spirit of the argument is there. Everyone feels compelled to enforce their player evaluations during trades, but never say boo during the draft. One guy in a public live draft league drafted brian roberts in the first round. Are you really telling me that doesn't affect league balance? surely you are not. What if two people do it? It certainly stacks specific teams. Teams that are "only hurting themselves" are hurting league balance.

This is a pretty good example. Some idiot in a football league the year before last kept making idiotic picks. He picked Jake Delhomme number one overall, then picked Donovan McNabb as his second round pick (because he would then be "set" there). He took a tight end in round three and a defense in round four. granted, this is football, but the fact remained that it ended up totally stacking the team that picked after him. She got peyton manning, randy moss, and two totally stud backs because of the cascading effect it had on the draft. Baseball definitely isn't as dependent on certian players as football is, but some decisions are just so indefensible, that if you are going to apply league balance to trading, it should be applied to waiver moves and the draft as well.

And the whole "league balance" argument is hogwash anyway, since there will always be a first place team and a last place team, that's the whole point of the exercise.

You basically want a rough estimation of equity, which you have in this trade. By continuing to post, you are just making it worse. The teams involved have every right to make that trade, and you did a bad job as the commish as to vetoing it.


I don't think anyone uses the term "league balance" to mean parity. It's basically the status quo, where in an ideal world everyone has the team they deserve. When one guy takes another one for the ride -- whoops, that ain't fair. I'm using a microscope figuring out ways to make my team infinitesimally better. And this other guy is giving away the farm. No fun playing with my microscope in that kind of league.

I gotta go with Matthias on the draft pick question. It's not the same. When a guy makes bad choices there, it's like he said "Pass!" when it was his turn. Other than possibly the first round, it's very rare that everyone will agree what that choice should have been, so the benefit does not clearly land on a single player's lap.
rainman23
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 937
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:36 pm

Gretz.......You bring up a good point. I am quite certain that someone that drafts Beltre in the 1st round didn't stop making stupid picks there.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby Matthias » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:56 pm

great gretzky wrote:Stupid draft picks are 100% different than stupid trades. Someone who makes Tru their first-round draft pick hurts their own team but doesn't affect league balance. Everyone else is just basically drafting one draft spot higher. If you trade a $35 player for a $5 player, though, the team on the other side is greatly benefited which harms league balance. Someone can draft only players who have career averages of .200 or below and I'll never say boo. All they're doing is killing themselves. That I could care less about.

That is not accurate at all. It does affect league balance for sure. It makes one team pretty bad. Its not as problematic for sure, but I think the spirit of the argument is there. Everyone feels compelled to enforce their player evaluations during trades, but never say boo during the draft. One guy in a public live draft league drafted brian roberts in the first round. Are you really telling me that doesn't affect league balance? surely you are not. What if two people do it? It certainly stacks specific teams. Teams that are "only hurting themselves" are hurting league balance.

This is a pretty good example. Some idiot in a football league the year before last kept making idiotic picks. He picked Jake Delhomme number one overall, then picked Donovan McNabb as his second round pick (because he would then be "set" there). He took a tight end in round three and a defense in round four. granted, this is football, but the fact remained that it ended up totally stacking the team that picked after him. She got peyton manning, randy moss, and two totally stud backs because of the cascading effect it had on the draft. Baseball definitely isn't as dependent on certian players as football is, but some decisions are just so indefensible, that if you are going to apply league balance to trading, it should be applied to waiver moves and the draft as well.

And the whole "league balance" argument is hogwash anyway, since there will always be a first place team and a last place team, that's the whole point of the exercise.

You basically want a rough estimation of equity, which you have in this trade. By continuing to post, you are just making it worse. The teams involved have every right to make that trade, and you did a bad job as the commish as to vetoing it.


Yah, but the draft is completly different. You may say the girl drafting after him got Peyton, Moss, and two stud backs drafting after this person but then the person drafting after her got a better player on each of the picks as well. Everybody got shifted up the draft board equally. And that I don't care about. As I said, a team can draft all career sub.-200 hitters for all I care. All it effectively does is turn a 12-team league into an 11-team league or a 10-teamer into a 9-teamer. But no one team receives a huge, individual boost. So league balance is maintained (which, as rainman observed, is different than league parity). That doesn't hold true in trades which only effect two teams out of the whole league.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 14:23 hours
(and 95 days)

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