in regards to this... the Kemp deal, guy said he really didn't believe in what Kemp did last year, and looking at Cruz's minor league stats there was no way this guy couldn't compete a the big level, and he also needed a cheaper arm (pretty decent one in Cueto i think)... the halladay trade, guy didn't think it was that big of a drop off to beckett (with the better defense and lineup behind him in boston) and also the ability to get a strong young arm for his minor league system in Zimmerman... Soriano deal alot of people are looking for a possible 15/20 even 20/20 year, not to mention a strong strong #4 SP (in a league where you have to start 5 SP)... didn't really think these trades were THAT far off?
Actually they are pretty terrible.
Kemp is a 3rd, maybe 4th rounder Cruz is a 10-12th rounder Cueto is a 15-20th rounder
Soriano is a 2nd rounder Werth is a 10-12th rounder Jimenez is a 15-20th rounder
Bingo.
Now, there's the old adage that draft position goes right out the window immediately following the draft, but we're not even 1 pitch into the season yet, so our projections should all still be essentially what they were a month ago or whenever the draft was held. The Kemp and Soriano deals are both horrible for the teams getting 2.
BitterDodgerFan wrote:bad trades, but shouldn't be vetoed. still not a blatantly bad.
And I agree with this. I was only pointing out that they were indeed bad trades...I'd have to be in the league and get a feeling of what all is going on before I could say if it was veto worthy....likely not though.
Trade vetoes comes up about twice a week, it seems, here.
In the 4 years I've been lurking around the Cafe, the best discussion I've seen (and was involved in) on league vetoes, and touching upon areas of collusion, is one from last year here.
The upshot of it is that if it's in a competitive league with guys that you trust, player values, draft values, and rosters really don't matter. You let the honest and intelligent people make their own decisions on what to do with their rosters. If it's in a public league or a league full of shysters, then you have to resort to looking at consensus values because otherwise you're taking a shyster's word for it that he's not cheating.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias wrote:Trade vetoes comes up about twice a week, it seems, here.
In the 4 years I've been lurking around the Cafe, the best discussion I've seen (and was involved in) on league vetoes, and touching upon areas of collusion, is one from last year here.
The upshot of it is that if it's in a competitive league with guys that you trust, player values, draft values, and rosters really don't matter. You let the honest and intelligent people make their own decisions on what to do with their rosters. If it's in a public league or a league full of shysters, then you have to resort to looking at consensus values because otherwise you're taking a shyster's word for it that he's not cheating.
so you said there's been one guy in all the trades, what side is he on on each of them? I'd be skeptical if he's the one giving up Kemp and Soriano.
But I generally hate the veto rule, and we've moved away from it in my largest money league because we would have guys vetoing every trade under the sun because they could.
Matthias wrote:Trade vetoes comes up about twice a week, it seems, here.
In the 4 years I've been lurking around the Cafe, the best discussion I've seen (and was involved in) on league vetoes, and touching upon areas of collusion, is one from last year here.
The upshot of it is that if it's in a competitive league with guys that you trust, player values, draft values, and rosters really don't matter. You let the honest and intelligent people make their own decisions on what to do with their rosters. If it's in a public league or a league full of shysters, then you have to resort to looking at consensus values because otherwise you're taking a shyster's word for it that he's not cheating.
WickedSmaat wrote:so you said there's been one guy in all the trades, what side is he on on each of them? I'd be skeptical if he's the one giving up Kemp and Soriano.
But I generally hate the veto rule, and we've moved away from it in my largest money league because we would have guys vetoing every trade under the sun because they could.
the guy invovled in all 3 had Kemp, Werth, Beckett... so he would have gotten Cruz, Cueto, Halladay, Soriano
WickedSmaat wrote:so you said there's been one guy in all the trades, what side is he on on each of them? I'd be skeptical if he's the one giving up Kemp and Soriano.
But I generally hate the veto rule, and we've moved away from it in my largest money league because we would have guys vetoing every trade under the sun because they could.
the guy invovled in all 3 had Kemp, Werth, Beckett... so he would have gotten Cruz, Cueto, Halladay, Soriano
WickedSmaat wrote:so you said there's been one guy in all the trades, what side is he on on each of them? I'd be skeptical if he's the one giving up Kemp and Soriano.
But I generally hate the veto rule, and we've moved away from it in my largest money league because we would have guys vetoing every trade under the sun because they could.
the guy invovled in all 3 had Kemp, Werth, Beckett... so he would have gotten Cruz, Cueto, Halladay, Soriano
That actually makes a little more sense then.
Agreed. That puts things into perspective.
Soriano > Kemp (arugably)
Halladay > Beckett
Cruz + Cueto > Werth
Individually these look terrible, but the whole picture shows this guy got off pretty nicely. Though, the trades are still imbalanced individually.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bigh0rt » Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:03 pm 
