If it's a keeper league, and the owner thinks that Joba is going to be closing full time for the Yankees in a few years, then it could be kind of fair. In a redraft league, it's a rape job, but I'm not for vetoing trades except for collusion.
Dark Knight wrote:If it's a keeper league, and the owner thinks that Joba is going to be closing full time for the Yankees in a few years, then it could be kind of fair. In a redraft league, it's a rape job, but I'm not for vetoing trades except for collusion.
Well, it's a moot point since the OP said it's a redraft. But even in a keeper league, I would seriously consider vetoing this. Just the possibility that someone might have a better job in a few years does not make them equivalent to a low 1st/high 2nd rounder that is young himself. Besides, the talk is not of Joba closing in a few years, but rather starting by the end of this year.
This is a perfect example of why the mantra, "No veto except for collusion" hurts more than it helps.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Yeah that's pretty bad. I don't ever vote against bad trades, just against collusion. But in a redraft league that seems to be very fishy. At the very least, you should be able to get a legitimate ace for Crawford. I mean, Hamels for Crawford seems fair, Smoltz or Kazmir for Crawford would be a bit unbalanced... but those trades I'd let through. Joba for Crawford? Pushes it too far I think...
I reverse it and then kick the idiot out of the league. You can make a case with a month or 2 to go in the season, but for now, the guy is a jackass and has no business playing....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by willoconley » Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:29 pm 
