a = drafted this year. b = one year left on contract
It raised a lot of issues in my league because there aren't any real standout guys in that list he got back.
That's not a "build for next year" trade by any means. That's just a horrible deal. I would demand explanation from the "Crush" to figure out WTF he's thinking before it just straight got vetoed. But that looks like collusion of some kind (and I hate using that word ).
keithp23 wrote:Sorry, I forgot that after some people complained, Beltre was taken out and Konerko replaced him in the deal.
The main purpose of my question though - is he didn't break any rules per say. How do you avoid this in the future?
In my dynasty league (28 teams), we have a board of 5 owners and trades have to get approved by them (3 yea votes and you're good). Anyway, this definitely reduces the terrible trades that you might normally see. Also, if a deal doesn't look on the up-and-up, then the owners have to justify it. You have to let each owner manage his own team to the greatest extent possible, and if he can provide reasonable justification as to why he's doing the deal, then fine. But it's not just a "click and done" type of thing by any means.
I agree with you. The problem is that the "Crush" really feels he was getting keepers in Teahen, Renteria and the group. It's hard to see the 2nd place team benefit from such a trade.
keithp23 wrote:I agree with you. The problem is that the "Crush" really feels he was getting keepers in Teahen, Renteria and the group. It's hard to see the 2nd place team benefit from such a trade.
I was in 8th place - so no sour grapes on my end.
So none of the players that the Rattlers got could be kept? If that's the case, and depending on what kinds of salaries other players are contracted at, I can see some value there for Crush. Teahen and Renteria are good scores, but even Konerko and Laird could be pretty good pickups.
The thing is you can't not let an owner make a deal that hurts his team. Look at is this way, the guy in first had just as much of an opportunity to score those players too if he wanted to give up players that the Crush wanted for keepers. If he couldn't keep anyone he was dealing and thought for the long-term the guys he was getting were the better play, then so be it.
keithp23 wrote:I agree with you. The problem is that the "Crush" really feels he was getting keepers in Teahen, Renteria and the group. It's hard to see the 2nd place team benefit from such a trade.
I just realized that the guys the "Crush" gave up have contracts that end this year, correct?? If thats the case then the deal isn't that bad since he would't be able to keep them, correct? His "keepers" he got back though are marginal at best, probably coulda/shoulda got something better in return! Anyway, I'm not sure if I understand the keeper status on those guys fully, which means....... I'm an idiot!!