Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
Really depends on the league I'd say. We go out of our way to try to keep our league stocked with expert players but we still do have a couple new/bad owners who accept some pretty terrible trades. We as a league have agreed that we don't want the league champion to be the team that did the best job of fleecing the newer managers with bad trades so we have given a lot of veto power to the league.
Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
Really depends on the league I'd say. We go out of our way to try to keep our league stocked with expert players but we still do have a couple new/bad owners who accept some pretty terrible trades. We as a league have agreed that we don't want the league champion to be the team that did the best job of fleecing the newer managers with bad trades so we have given a lot of veto power to the league.
I just think that there is a fundamental problem with allowing owners with vested interest to have any say in trade vetoes.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
Yoda wrote: I just think that there is a fundamental problem with allowing owners with vested interest to have any say in trade vetoes.
Well it has been a problem to this point and I respect the opinions of all of the players in our league. Generally when someone has a problem we get together and discuss it in IRC in real time so its not like they just push the veto button and its over. I do have the final say in whether a trade is vetoed or not as the commissioner.
We recently had a veto of the trade of Aramis Ramirez, Nick Markakis for Valverde, Kouzmanoff, Gallardo. The trade was between one of the more expererienced owners and a second year owner who didn't trade last season. They reworked the deal and ended up doing Markakis, R. Betancourt for Valverde, Kouz which was a lot more fair.
In real life there are a lot more factors involved in a trade than in a standard 5x5 fantasy league.
Things like $$$$,$$$$, defensive ability, defensive position, $$$$, clubhouse conduct, team chemistry, $$$$, there are simply tons of factors involved in a major league trade that can make what would be an unfair fantasy trade an acceptable real life trade.
If you add in keepers this can add a dimension(either round value or $$$ value), as well if you start to add in defensive categories etc, but all in all for most leagues these aren't a huge issue.
In a 5x5 standard league all you need to consider is how the two are hitting, and how they should be hitting in the future.(Or pitching)
Playing big brother sucks, but destroying a lot of work and the integrity of a league because someone is having a bad day, or is drunk, or isn't interested in the league sucks even more.
Yoda wrote: I just think that there is a fundamental problem with allowing owners with vested interest to have any say in trade vetoes.
Yup! I think a commish should be able to act in the best interests of the league, but it's obvious too many owners veto trades for petty, selfish reasons. Maybe one out of 1000 trades should be vetoed...
Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
A lot of things happen in fantasy baseball that do or don't happen in MLB. That shouldn't really have anything to do with this.
talan37 wrote:In real life there are a lot more factors involved in a trade than in a standard 5x5 fantasy league.
Things like $$$$,$$$$, defensive ability, defensive position, $$$$, clubhouse conduct, team chemistry, $$$$, there are simply tons of factors involved in a major league trade that can make what would be an unfair fantasy trade an acceptable real life trade.
If you add in keepers this can add a dimension(either round value or $$$ value), as well if you start to add in defensive categories etc, but all in all for most leagues these aren't a huge issue.
In a 5x5 standard league all you need to consider is how the two are hitting, and how they should be hitting in the future.(Or pitching)
Playing big brother sucks, but destroying a lot of work and the integrity of a league because someone is having a bad day, or is drunk, or isn't interested in the league sucks even more.
Totally agree with this. Sometimes collusion isn't an evil plan. It's just a casual attitude toward one's own team.
Apathetic owner: "Lame, my team is still in last. Ooh, someone proposed me a trade. Oh well, he's my buddy and my team couldn't get any worse..."
It does happen.
Sometimes people go overboard and veto good deals, which is lame, but not having a veto process is lamer.
talan37 wrote:In real life there are a lot more factors involved in a trade than in a standard 5x5 fantasy league.
Things like $$$$,$$$$, defensive ability, defensive position, $$$$, clubhouse conduct, team chemistry, $$$$, there are simply tons of factors involved in a major league trade that can make what would be an unfair fantasy trade an acceptable real life trade.
If you add in keepers this can add a dimension(either round value or $$$ value), as well if you start to add in defensive categories etc, but all in all for most leagues these aren't a huge issue.
In a 5x5 standard league all you need to consider is how the two are hitting, and how they should be hitting in the future.(Or pitching)
Playing big brother sucks, but destroying a lot of work and the integrity of a league because someone is having a bad day, or is drunk, or isn't interested in the league sucks even more.
Totally agree with this. Sometimes collusion isn't an evil plan. It's just a casual attitude toward one's own team.
Apathetic owner: "Lame, my team is still in last. Ooh, someone proposed me a trade. Oh well, he's my buddy and my team couldn't get any worse..."
It does happen.
Sometimes people go overboard and veto good deals, which is lame, but not having a veto process is lamer.
100% agree and this is the perfect example. the guy giving up Oswalt clearly doesnt give a crap about his team, or the league. this trade should be vetoed, even if it isnt collusion.
allowing moronic trades would ruin the league easily.
Id veto the trade and send a warning to the last place team that any more conduct detrimetal to the integrity of the league will force you to lock his roster for the remainder of the season.
A casual baseball fan would know Oswalt is as consistent as they come and in most formats fetches OF's more along the lines of Jason Bay or Alex Rios, not Markakis
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Ender » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:42 am 
