I put out a message saying that I wanted to upgrade my 2B (Kendrick). An owner proposed me the following trade: Damon/Dempster FOR Uggla/Parra. I accepted the deal and an owner in the league emailed me saying that he protests the trade (Commissioner votes on vetoing trades and I'm the commish). This was his email "I protest this trade you are giving up too much for Uggla and Para. Uggla is about the 9th best at 2B. Para is about the 80th best at SP. Damon is about the the 32nd best at OF. Dempster is about the 13th best at SP. This is just too lopsided."
Is the trade that lopsided and what should I do as the commish?
The trade is not lopsided by itself. I think what makes it appear lopsided is that many would say the upgrade from Kendrick to Uggla is not a huge upgrade.
As far as what you can do? There really is nothing you can do except write back and thank him for his note and if more managers protest you will take their protests in consideration.
I say no way can you disallow this. It is not even near vetoable.
One thing though, since sole veto power lies with you, if you have a habit of vetoing a lot of trades in the league, then perhaps this owner is doing this to spite you, and you might deserve it.
If you have set a precedent of vetoing very rarely or never, then you are in the clear.
I actually think this is a pretty fair trade. Parra has way more upside than Dempster and he has a chance to outproduce him. Uggla's MDP is 50 spots higher than Damon's too. Uggla is a very big upgrade over Kendrick IMO because Kendrick offers almost nothing other than a high AVG.
Whether it's exactly fair or not, certainly not vetoable.
sox 06 wrote:Is the trade that lopsided and what should I do as the commish?
What you should do is have a mechanism in place for when it's your own trades, either have the league vote or designate a deputy commish who will do all the rulings on your trades, and then a second deputy in the case that the trade is between you and the first guy.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Thanks for all of the advice. I emailed the manager back and explained my view on the trade. I said something to the effect of I'm giving up a player with a good average and good stolen base numbers for a player with a poor average and good homerun totals. I also said that I'm trading for a player in Parra who has some upside for a player in Dempster who had a career year last season. So far this is the only complaint that I've had about the trade.
RDD15 wrote:I say no way can you disallow this. It is not even near vetoable.
One thing though, since sole veto power lies with you, if you have a habit of vetoing a lot of trades in the league, then perhaps this owner is doing this to spite you, and you might deserve it.
If you have set a precedent of vetoing very rarely or never, then you are in the clear
This is the first year of the league and this is the first trade that has been accepted so I haven't been able to set a precedent yet. That is good advice to follow for the future though
However, you need to have a system in place for when you are involved in the trades.
Since this is the first trade of a new league and you have received a complaint, I would probably first allow the league to vote on this trade. Secondly right after the vote I would install, with input from the league, some system of reviewing trades you are involved in. If you don't, it sounds like this maybe a very long year.
Kimbos Beard wrote:This is definitely not a vetoable trade.
However, you need to have a system in place for when you are involved in the trades.
Since this is the first trade of a new league and you have received a complaint, I would probably first allow the league to vote on this trade. Secondly right after the vote I would install, with input from the league, some system of reviewing trades you are involved in. If you don't, it sounds like this maybe a very long year.
Disagree. As long as you are consistent you will be fine. You don't need to set up a different set of rules for you if everyone in the league is competitive. Personally, if you can trust everyone in the league and everyone in the league knows what they are doing, I would say only veto trades that show obvious collusion. That rule should take care of any issues that may happen. I don't participate in leagues with commissioners who are really strict on trades and try to, in their own mind, keep the league balanced. Therefore, I don't think a commissioner should have to justify his trade.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by sox 06 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:10 pm 
