suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re:

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:28 am

Team b (10:18:33 AM): depending on who you offer


Ok, I missed this line in my previous reading of the conversation. Having seen that, the trade is painted in a much more flattering light than how I viewed it before.

There is, however, a mostly apathetic, cooperative vibe that I get from Owner B. When you are trying to win a fantasy league, you aren't "cooperative," when talking trade. He'd at least play his hand a little bit in the negotiations. Although Team B does probably needed pitching, in an 8 team league, the difference between Bonderman and the best of what's out there in FA probably isn't extreme. I'd wager that it is less extreme than the difference between Bonderman and his next weakest starter, but that's just speculation on my part. Of course, in this tiny 8 person league he could have easily refilled his roster with capable hurlers and had them all along. In an 8 person league I'd bet people as good as Ted Lilly, Oliver Perez and Tom Gorzelanny are unowned, not an extreme difference from Bonderman.

Figgins is probably the rarer commodity and therefore more valuable. In either case, I don't like seeing someone who is merely facilitating another owner.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Bwanna » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:04 am

CBMGreatOne wrote:Figgins is probably the rarer commodity and therefore more valuable. In either case, I don't like seeing someone who is merely facilitating another owner.

I agree, but I still contend this isn't grounds in and of itself for vetoing a deal.

I guess part of my point is that an active, aggressive owner has to take advantage of this owner before another active, aggressive owner does. Too many times a commissioner and league members find ways of punishing hardworking owners like this.
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st]
123Innings '08 [1st/1st], '09 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/4th], '12 [4th/2nd]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Cool 3.0 '08 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5646
(Past Year: 260)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:43 pm

I guess part of my point is that an active, aggressive owner has to take advantage of this owner before another active, aggressive owner does. Too many times a commissioner and league members find ways of punishing hardworking owners like this.


That is one way of looking at it. Consider though that he obviously has a personal rapport with Team B and that he has his AIM address, judging from the lack of formality in the initiation of the trade talks. I would bet that other teams have sent Team B offers, but not taken the step of IMing him, perhaps because most of them probably don't have his AIM address. I'll bet Team B is making a deal with Team A, partially, because they are friends.

I don't like any deals to take place including a "dead team." You obviously see no problem with it, but I see a big problem with it. Team B fits every qualification as a dead team in my book. There are friends of mine in my league that have fallen out of activity who would trade me useful players if I asked them to, partially because they aren't familiar with the ethics involved in doing so themselves. I, however, will not take advantage of that opportunity because I don't agree with the idea in general.

I think in this case, with the value being close,it is marginally acceptable, but if it was put to a league vote and they wanted to shoot it down, I would do so without hesitation.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Triplec223 » Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:03 am

Well just FYI, all the owners in the league are pretty good friends from college. Six of the seven other teams (including myself) have the guy's screen name. He's usually a very active fantasy football owner, but I guess fantasy baseball just isn't his thing.
Triplec223
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 300
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby tenken » Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:14 am

what do you guys think of this.
viewtopic.php?t=310018&start=10

We are all friends and I'm the commish. No trades were previously vetoed the whole season. I'm starting to poise myself in position to make a run for the lead. I'm in 2nd place and the other team is in 4th place in a 11 team league. And suddenly, this trade gets vetoed. Is that collusion by the other players in an attempt to not let me improve my team?
tenken
Little League Legend
Little League Legend


Posts: 18
Joined: 8 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bloody Sox » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:16 pm

Good argument... my gut tells me it is not collusion and is perfectly fine. Saying that the 5th place team shouldn't be able to make a deal because he hasn't been active is not right. He has every right to decide to get involved whenever he wants, since his team was very much still part of the league - he shouldn't be punished for agreeing to be active. Granted, his IM log indicates that he isn't going to be any more active, but that was not known up front and would not normally be part of the decision making process. You can't assume that.

Further, he agreed to negotiate, said he'd trade Figgins, and when asked what it would take he said "it depends, make me an offer". This is exactly what I'd do - if someone wants to initiate a trade with me for ANYONE (Johan, Reyes, Pujols, whoever), I say "sure" and I put the onus on them to make me the first offer. In other words, "it depends".
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:40 pm

It's been a while since this was first posted... I'm curious, did you end up vetoing or allowing the deal?
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st]
123Innings '08 [1st/1st], '09 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/4th], '12 [4th/2nd]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Cool 3.0 '08 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5646
(Past Year: 260)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Triplec223 » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:26 pm

Yup, this went down. Only one owner was upset with the trade and he was in 2nd place.

But NOW, this trade was just accepted and I hope to God that it does not go through.

Team B (the one that gave up Figgins) trades:
Jose Reyes
JJ Putz

Team C (another owner, who happens to be pretty good friends with team B) trades:
Miguel Tejada
Orlando Hernandez

I have already cast my veto. This is blatant collusion. I hope the other owners feel the same way.
Triplec223
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 300
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:30 pm

Well, sharks smell blood...
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st]
123Innings '08 [1st/1st], '09 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/4th], '12 [4th/2nd]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Cool 3.0 '08 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5646
(Past Year: 260)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:54 am

I don't like any deals to take place including a "dead team."


I understand that to be your opinion and I can respect that but that doesn't mean that the guy that slept all weekend shouldn't get the last doughnut if he happens to wake up in time. Timing is everything. Personally, I have no problem with this 1-for-1 deal. Since we have looked deeper into it, I still have no problem. While I hate that anyone would neglect a team, that isn't reason enough for me to just outright veto an otherwise fair deal.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Monday, Sep. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Philadelphia at Atlanta
(1:10 pm)
NY Mets at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Boston at Tampa Bay
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Minnesota at Baltimore
(1:35 pm)
Pittsburgh at St. Louis
(2:15 pm)
Milwaukee at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Seattle at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Detroit at Cleveland
(4:05 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Arizona at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Texas at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Washington at LA Dodgers
(8:10 pm)

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