Tim Wakefield and Joe Nathan for David Weathers and Scot Shields
This trade was just accepted in my league. My gut reaction is that it is a horrible trade for the Nathan owner. Its basically giving Nathan away for nothing. Yet I'm not sure its bad enough that it should be vetoed. Consider that Holds are counted in our league. What do you think?
As far as how these two teams are doing: This is two teams that are doing pretty badly, but the one who is getting Nathan is one who always does better pro-Allstar. Last year he was in last place, almost 10 games behind the next one at All Star, and he ended up coming in 2nd place, very close to winning the whole thing in the playoffs.
I'm the commish in this league, but we vote to overturn trades. I'm on the edge of voting against it, and am undecided on it. As commish, do you think I should send something out to the league?
Send out an e-mail to the rest of the league, minus the trading partners, if you don't feel good about it. Your right, it is a little lopsided, but we as comishes are not here to police stupidity. <img src=/forums/images/smiles/kiss.gif> It's always best to get the league to veto it not just one person.
<thanks alec03
Move over Mantle and Maris, the new blood is here!!
It's a veto. Nathan was a top 4 round draft pick. Weathers has had a hot start, but he's nowhere close to Nathan in value. The other pitchers involved are very marginal roster material. It looks like collusion to me, and if it isn't, it still shouldn't go through.
It's a dumb trade, but I'd say dumb enough that it shouldn't fly. Nathan is a stud closer and has been drafted in some leagues as the best this year. Weathers is one of a bunch. Wakefield isn't a rock star for fantasy but he'll get wins at least..Shields is good but has little value unless K Rod goes down.
I dunno so much bout collusion but this could be seen as not fair in league's best interests and shouldn't go.
Well, what makes it a bit of a difficult decision is that this league counts holds, so that makes Shields a little bit more valuable. This is what makes the decision whether to veto it tough for me. Its obviously a lobsided trade, but is it lobsided enough to veto? Still, Nathan was grabbed in the 3rd round, and Shields was grabbed in the 20th round... the other two were picked up off waivers.
At any rate, I decided to send an e-mail to everyone in the league letting them know about the trade, and inadvertantly, letting them know my opinion about it. I used as an excuse that not all people receive messages when there is a trade, and not all people check their teams every day, so I wanted to make sure everyone got the chance to vote against the trade at any rate. I decided to send it to the two involved as well, cause I didn't want them thinking I was trying to go behind their backs.
I sent this message: As Commish, I feel it is my responsibility...
... to try and make sure everyone is aware of the trade that was just done between Doc and Hair.
Team 1 gets Weathers (waivers) and Shields (20th round pick)
Team 2 gets Nathan(3rd round pick) and Wakefield (waivers)
To try and put some perspective to it, I put in parenthesis what round each got the player in the draft(or if they got them off waivers). Granted, Weathers is the closer for Cincinatti... for now. Something we weren't sure about at draft time. But still, it seems like a very cheap price for someone to pay to get, arguably, the best closer in the MLB.
Vetoing trades is decided by a vote, so it is up to all of us to decide if this trade is going to upset the balance of the league. If you don't see anything wrong with this trade, then you need not do anything. If you feel the trade is vetoable, you have until the end of tomorrow to do so, by clicking on the trade, and then on 'Vote Against the Trade' at the bottom.
This is not meant as a way of me saying I believe the trade should be vetoed. I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of the trade while there is time to veto it. Not everyone gets a message when trades are done in this league, and not everyone checks their team every day. (I'm hoping everyone checks their e-mail every day. lol.) I just don't want people coming on the message board a few days from now and saying they didn't get a chance to vote against it because they didn't notice it in time.
Good luck to all this week!
Max
This is the two replies I got from the same person
1. I don't have a strong feeling about the trade hairy proposed to me either way. I do ask that if you vote to veto, please post your reasons.
My view, which I know is shared by the majority in our league, from before Max joined us, is that no trade should be vetoed unless it appears to be collusion, or due to a manager who has given up.
I will be disappointed in this league if they veto a trade because they don't like it, or because it will "upset the balance of power" between the number 7 and 8 teams.
Whose balance of power is being upset?
And how did we end up with a commish who thinks it is his job to pass judgement on our trades?
2. I hate to let Max in on how I think, but as for the merits of the trade, I do believe that many people in the fantasy world, including Yahoo, overrate Nathan and underrate Shields in a holds league. So when hairy proposed the trade to me, I didn't say "oh goody, what a moron," I said, "I understand why he wants to do this, and he knows I "like" Nathan, so he is getting a solid and underrated closer plus a top setup guy, for a top closer and a throwaway."
That is how I see the trade, which is why I think that if it favors anybody in our league, it is hairy. Still, I have always had Nathan, and I figure I am overpaying only a little.
I don't mind Max passing judgement on everybody else's trades, but I request that he keep it to himself.
He actually has another (maybe a few more) now, but I will leave it at that. I obviously pissed this guy off.
His response was instantly defensive and then he called you out. I'd say that was pretty immature. While I agree with him that in a holds league, Shields has some decent value, Holds are even more of a crapshoot than saves. If you want to replace a top setup man, chances are that there is one on waivers right now who is pretty darn good.
I think you did the right thing brining it to the league's attention because of the lopsidedness of the draft stock.
In a holds league, it really might not be that pragmatically unbalanced though, so if it didn't get voted down, it wouldn't be the end of the world. That's sort of why I despise holds leagues, they water down the value of all pitchers to accomodate adding value to a class of pitcher that is available in abundance. You can't carry four closers because you need some of those roster spots for holds, but I digress.
I agree with the league member who responded, I don't know how many times I can say this but a trade should never be veto'd unless there is cheating or sandbagging going on.
I don't know how many times I can say this but a trade should never be veto'd unless there is cheating or sandbagging going on.
Well you can say it a million times, but I'll never 100% agree. That being said, like others have mentioned in this post. The quirks of the holds league make this one not so bad.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by quitesanemax » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:24 pm 
<thanks alec03
/snoopy.gif){kind=small}
