F that! the trade may suck for either side. BUT, It's a reasonable trade, considering how the season has unfolded thus far. At some point, owners need to decide if a 'proven name' is worth a 'budding star'. I will not comment on which side I like, but this isnt Johan/Pujols for C. Jackson/Meche. This deal has some substance behind it, no matter which side you are on. No Cheating Here.
I'd get out of that league quickly as possible. That trade is undoubtedly fair. But, then he says crap about previous trades. He's a douche. Just leave.
RocketsDWM wrote:Halladay's K's numbers are decreasing and TOR is an average team. I would rather have Bruce and Escobar.
Really?? I thought he was 3rd in the league in K's, and his K/9 is the highest it's been since 2001!!
Your commisioner's reasoning for the veto is weak. Where a player is drafted means less and less as each day passes IMO. I mean last year I got Braun off waivers, and I wouldn't trade him for anyone. Didn't matter to me that I got him off waivers. That arguement is about the lamest I've seen.
I would rather have Halladay and Guillen, but with the way Bruce has started off, there is no good reason that trade should have been vetoed!! I believe lopsided trades that don't make sense should be vetoed, but that trade should not be vetoed. The fact that half the people that have replied to this thread, think Bruce and Yunel is the better side of the deal, makes your case that much more valid.
Bruce and Y. Escobar for Halladay and C.Guillen???
I take the Bruce/Escobar side hands down. Escobar approx. equals the injury-ish Guillen, and Halladay-esque pitchers number in the many. Gotta love the upside of Bruce.
That veto is pretty weak, you trade by the players value not their overall draft position. The Bruce/Escobar side was probably getting the better deal too.
So I directed the commish to this board to see this thread, and this was his responce:
"Dude, what are u doing? Asking other "people" what they think of the trade? Who are these so called "experts" huh? Don't u know enough about baseball not to have to concur with others about what trades u make and what ur lineup now looks like and whatnot? Wow, I've never seen this done before, talking about being OVER active. Bottom line, not just me, but others felt the trade was unfair, thus the veto. I also don't appreciate those "others" talking shit, they're retarded. Of course u look at rounds players were drafted in and what they've done in past years! What else is there??? Literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sry dude, u guys can work something else out if u really wanna make the deal work, one that will fly with the LEAGUE, not just me"
His reasoning was ridiculous. You are going to base the value of a trade in June on the position they were ranked when you originally drafted them? I agree with the previous posters on this subject.
How about you base trades on how your players are currently performing and/or how you expect them to perform in the future? Otherwise, you might as well base trade validity on Yahoo's original rankings, since "obviously" they know exactly how every player is going to perform that season.
If we thought you were off-base, we would tell you so, and getting outside opinions is always a good thing. And as far as the "rest of the league" goes, I've seen a lot of psychology where most owners hate trades because they worry the two teams are getting better at their expense, so they are opposed to them.
What I laughed at was him putting "people" in scare quotes. What are we, if not people? lol
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by RocketsDWM » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:54 pm 
