A BAD BAD TRADE THAT WENT THROUGH

[RYEM126]

In my 12 Team Yahoo League - Joey Votto was traded for Prince Fielder. This went through about a week ago or afew days after Votto's 3 HR Game. The owner that traded Fielder is just a dope. I have a big issue with people that say out of principle any trade where there is'nt collusion should be allowed. What about if an owner is an idiot - we have to be able to police this to maintain the competitive balance of the league. The league vote was split with the 2 guys trading making up the majority - the people that voted yes did it on the grounds that it wasnt collusion. 2 Questions for you guys... Would this trade be allowed in your league? Should collusion be the only criteria for wether a trade is allowed or disallowed? Thanks for taking the time to chime in. This pisses me off.

[stevethumb]

any other info ? keeper league ? auction price/ contracts years ? what other evidence do you have that the fielder owner is an idiot ? what places are the 2 teams in ?

[Merlin401]

Well, the lesson here is dont allow idiots to manage teams in your league. On paper for this year the trade makes perfect sense and is easy to rationalize. Maybe he panicked with Fielder's bad start and like Votto's upside. But I dont see how you can veto the trade just because he's shortsighted.

[Matthias]

See this thread for a discussion on one of your questions.

As far as Votto vs. Fielder, I own Votto in a league and the Fielder owner is belly-aching. I thought about it and decided not to offer Votto: I like Votto better.

[JTWood]

Fine trade. No complaints. I agree that you should find better owners if this is a problem.

That said, there is a middle ground that solves both inexperience and collusion issues at the expense of speed. Require that all trades have a buffer period were other owners are allowed to make public offers. The benefit of this system is twofold. First, inexperienced owners that are agreeing to bad deals will have the ability to accept a better offer from someone else. Second, if two teams are colluding, it will be obvious when one team does not accept an obviously better offer from someone else.

Again, I prefer to play with skilled owners that have scruples, but the above works if that's not possible.

[RYEM126]

Great stuff from all of you guys. Thanks for the info.

[noseeum]

As they say, "you can't legislate stupidity."

In the case of a struggling player like Fielder, you can't force a guy to keep him. Plus Votto is a pretty big prospect. Just think about one year ago. What if someone traded Guerrero for Braun a couple weeks after Braun came up?

In a non keeper league especially, you can't force a guy to keep a struggling player after 7 weeks have gone by.

[noseeum]

JTWood, interesting concept. That's a great idea for a league with a lot of beginners in it, but I don't think I would want that in an experts league.

There's a skill in getting someone to agree to a trade, and all of that hard work is for naught if afterwards someone else can swoop in and improve on your offer. That's a major advantage to the guys in first and second place too. If they see the third place owner about to land a deal, they can swoop in and take it from him or at least make him pay more.

I like it, but it definitely has its drawbacks. Still, a novel approach to a problem all leagues face.