One More Streaming Problem Thread

[Matthias]

You don't see how telling the rest of the league that one guy is going to be attempting to trade a bunch of hitting in order to address his newfound problem, caused by a rule change mid season, is unfair? How exactly is he going to get a fair deal? If he really desperately needs pitching, a competitive owner will put the screws to him and get the best deal possible for himself. But maybe now the rest of the league should collude, and agree to give the guy sweet heart deals for the sake of the league's integrity. That would probably make sense, given the rest of the warped logic being discussed here.

No, it's called trusting the market.

If there was only one other owner and that owner knew that the OP had to trade hitting for pitching, he could put the screws to him. But in a 10, 12, or 14-guy league, you have between 9 and 13 other owners bidding. The market should ensure that he gets a fair deal. Besides, the idea floated out was that if he didn't get two pitchers traded, he would continue streaming. That combination of stick & carrot should allow him to get a fair deal.

[noseeum]

You don't see how telling the rest of the league that one guy is going to be attempting to trade a bunch of hitting in order to address his newfound problem, caused by a rule change mid season, is unfair? How exactly is he going to get a fair deal? If he really desperately needs pitching, a competitive owner will put the screws to him and get the best deal possible for himself. But maybe now the rest of the league should collude, and agree to give the guy sweet heart deals for the sake of the league's integrity. That would probably make sense, given the rest of the warped logic being discussed here.

No, it's called trusting the market.

If there was only one other owner and that owner knew that the OP had to trade hitting for pitching, he could put the screws to him. But in a 10, 12, or 14-guy league, you have between 9 and 13 other owners bidding. The market should ensure that he gets a fair deal. Besides, the idea floated out was that if he didn't get two pitchers traded, he would continue streaming. That combination of stick & carrot should allow him to get a fair deal.

I love it that when an argument proves completely ridiculous, you have the ability to fall back into economic and/or legal abstractions for a final layer of support. Good work, Matthias. I'd have you on my debate team anytime. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. and there's no way you can say that being forced to trade in order to deal with a rule change and having the entire league know that you're forced to trade puts one person at an extreme disadvantage.

But this is all justified because streaming is wrong.

[JasonSeahorn]

I agree with Matthias on this one...the OP says he is entertaining offers of SP for his hitters and since it needs to be done to address the league's problem with him, people will send offers. The OP can then post on the message board or send a league-wide email that he was offered pitcher X for batter Y(which will probably be a trade not favoring the OP), and that the OP will listen to better offers for his batter. If one owner thinks they can get batter Y for cheap, so should at least a few other owners who will bump up their own offers for batter Y. I mean, why shouldn't those other owners try that? Just letting one guy get a crack at the OP's team means that owner will get good hitters for cheap, which "affects league integrity".

The other owners would keep bidding and making higher offers for batter Y until the OP feels he has a fair enough trade for himself. If the other owners don't do that and only one owner gets batter Y for cheap, the rest of the league can only blame themselves for not trying to make a trade as that one owner makes his team stronger for nothing. It's almost the same principle as the last-place team doing a fire-sale, except the trades for the OP will be way more fair than a fire-saleing owner.