"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."
Um, if you constantly get ripped off, isn't that the "team you deserve"?
By the way, I am aware that there has to some sort common sense approach with trades--no arod for say atkins obviously. But on the other hand, ultimately the overall point of the game is to manage your team according to your valuations. And if everyone is super sensitive as commish, you are defrauding the very purpose of the game.
And as regards to my point about the draft, I respectfully disagree that it is simply "pass," as I have seen one or two teams really benefit from coming behind an idiot drafter or two. Depending on when the picks in question occur, it can and will stack certain teams.
Ultimately, I don't think the commish or the league to make these kinds of decisions. I know you can't quantify and codify exactly what an unfair trade is, its like pornography--we know it when we see it. But if everyone "doesn't see it" then hands off.
I started off this game in a work league to learn more about baseball, pass the time between fantasy football etc. The commish was very mouthy, and he didn't veto much, but he still was unethically involved (IMO) of "Steering trades." Meaning, that if the players in question didn't conform to his and sporting news' opinions of players, it was "lopsided." nevermind that he never even finished in the money.
I guess my point is, if I had a trade like this turned down, I would be livid. There are a few components to this game that get swept under the rug in these debates: the "personal evaluations" everyone discussues. And the overall "economy" of the league. By this I mean, great for every other league if arod fetched x, y, and z. That only has the loosest bearing on what Arod may be worth in any other league.
I have run into this problem many times. Say I know I need an ace (and for some reason, it rears its head with "ace" most often). I survey the other 9 teams in the league. I know I have two stud firstbaseman and a stud OF I am willing to throw out there for bait. Well, after surveying the league, three teams have pitchers I feel are worth the price I am willing to pay. After making an offer, one of those teams has the same hitting strengths I do, so I can't put together a package that will get the deal done. So I move on to the other two. One of them is an idiot and doesn't know a fair deal when he sees one.
That leaves me the last team. At this point, he may not know he is the driver's seat, but I certainly do. I basically need this guy because he has both: the type of player I need, and a need in another area I can deal him. BUT: My hitter is worth 25 percent more than his pitcher in a vacuum. Should the league have the right to veto this? I think absoloutely not. I have surveyed the scene and realized what I need to know, even though to the outside observer, I am "overpaying." This is why I have a serious problem with the veto system as such. We need one, but on the other hand, it should be used for only grossly unbalanced trades, collusion or otherwise. Should not be used because someone's incomplete survey of the league in question deems the trade "unfair."
Overall, you have to leave people to their own devices. Especially when the trades are aysmmetrical and involve various stat categories.
Let's say the pitcher in question was carpenter or someone better, and atkins. Atkins could put the trade over the top, but then again, the other team doesn't need atkins anymore, and the wright team needs a replacement. The point is: this game is fluid externally and internally, and player guides and valuations are dependant on person, league settings AND league economy. No two 5 by 5 leagues are alike, and that has to be taken into account when evalauating trades.
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.
true to an extent. But like I said, DEPENDING on when the picks come, it knocks the true gems of the draft into a situation where id DOESN't effect everyone equally. It probably doesn't affect baseball THAT much if one person is an idiot, but two? It definitely does. If the two picks happen in the middle/late first rounds, anyone with a ladder pick has the ability to score what should be two first rounders--because the other players fell back, and they get to pick again real soon--which was my point. Eventually it does have the effect of just making it a league with one less team. But since the true studs can be found in the first round, the teams that follow the dumb picks can pick up double the value if they are at the tail end of the draft. The teams following the dumb picks move up at a greater level than the teams that picked before the dumb picks. Yes, everyone moves up, but the move up is not equal as you argue.
And anyway, the example is such that it seems rather aribtray to lord over trades and not the other elements of the game like this. Even more so when its a trade that is hard to determine who even won in the first place. If everything went according to rankings, there would be no point to any of this.
Well, Gretzky, if you want to believe that drafts should be monitored as closely as trades, that's your right. I'll respectfully disagree with that one.
(Yes, I understand -- your real point is that we should leave both of them alone. I get it.)
Regarding my "getting the team you've earned" comment -- you're right, that manager making crappy deals certainly is getting the team he deserves. That's not really the concern, though. He can run his team into the ground if he wants. It's those one or two other managers who are reaping the harvest of his stupidity where the concern lies. They are not getting the team they deserve. They're just the lucky beneficiaries of some clown who doesn't know or care what they're doing.
Didn't we start out on the same side in this thread? Or was that another one? Time to put my Cafe dealings under the microscope too, I guess.