10 team 5x5: Team A gets James Shields & Putz Team B gets Street and Sonnanstine.
Team B pitchers:
Johnny Cueto CC Sabathia Cole Hamels John Lackey James Shields Daisuke Matsuzaka Bobby Jenks Brad Ziegler Manny Corpas J.J. Putz
Scott Baker DL
Team A's pitchers:
Jair Jurrjens Jake Peavy Chad Billingsley Scott Kazmir Fausto Carmona Andy Sonnanstine Francisco Rodriguez Kerry Wood Huston Street Brandon Morrow
Trevor Hoffman DL
I can appreciate that Team B could use another Closer but the value is just WAY off. Sonnanstine has little to no value in a league our size and Street's job is shaky. Street+Kazmir or K-Rod+Sonnanstine would be more appropriate.
In our auction draft Shields went for $22, Street went for $5, and Sonnanstine went for $2.
Maybe your definition of vetoable differs a huge amount from mine, but I dont even think that this is in the same ocean as vetoable. One team might be getting the best player, but you have to allow for speculation by your owners. You also have to allow owners to take a little bit of the worst of a trade in order to shore up a needy position. Street's job is "shaky", but that is a perception, and not necessarily a reality. Perhaps the guy getting Street thinks that he can return to form.
Shields can be considered a risk. He did throw 240 innings last season. Go back the past few years and look at teams that made the World Series the previous season, and the decline that most of their starting pitchers go through the next season. It aint pretty.
The side getting Shields might get a little more, but to me vetoes are to only be used in the extreme cases of collusion, or player dumping. This case is neither. Not even NEAR a veto in my mind.
RDD15 wrote:Shields can be considered a risk. He did throw 240 innings last season. Go back the past few years and look at teams that made the World Series the previous season, and the decline that most of their starting pitchers go through the next season. It aint pretty.
The side getting Shields might get a little more, but to me vetoes are to only be used in the extreme cases of collusion, or player dumping. This case is neither. Not even NEAR a veto in my mind.
Maybe so...I think it is about as close to a possible to a collusion type trade as you can get w/o it being completely ridiculous. I could make as good of an argument as you did for trading Holliday for Furcal. I could say that Oakland will surpress Holliday's #'s (have you looked at his home and away splits in Colorado...it ain't pretty) and that maybe Furcal is going to be the player he was last year before injuring himself (and the team needs steals). But, having paid $25 for Holliday and $8 for Furcal it makes very little sense to swap them a week later, when nothing about their situations have changed.
In other words, the league (in its auction) a week earlier valued these players at $22 and $5 and without much of anything changing, they get swapped for each other. Your right, nothing funny about that!
It may not be a slam dunk veto. But it is definitely in the discussion of possibly veto-able..... and at the very least sends up a red flag.
Last edited by s221506 on Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm with the first guy. I'm an anti-veto kind of guy since it's not my responsibility to monitor stupid decisions.
That said, if you believe there's collusion, then the answer is simple, but always overlooked: communicate. - Who offered the trade? - Who ever offered it, ask for a quick explanation through their though process, And ask the hard questions, like dollar amounts in the draft and the sudden switch of value.
Easy.
With that said, I can make a case both ways. 5X5 league, no holds; so Putz really has minimal value. Street brings save opportunities for now, whereas Corpas and Putz do not. Major hole in RP solved. Plus Team B has Sabathia, Hamels, Dice K and Lackey. Injuries aside, Shields could be the 4th to 5th best pitcher on his team, making him more expendable in his eyes.
I understand you think value is way off, but (and no offense here), who are you to tell another manager who is more valueable or not? They can make their own determination. Again, it comes backs to communication.
RDD15 wrote:Shields can be considered a risk. He did throw 240 innings last season. Go back the past few years and look at teams that made the World Series the previous season, and the decline that most of their starting pitchers go through the next season. It aint pretty.
The side getting Shields might get a little more, but to me vetoes are to only be used in the extreme cases of collusion, or player dumping. This case is neither. Not even NEAR a veto in my mind.
Maybe so...I think it is about as close to a possible to a collusion type trade as you can get w/o it being completely ridiculous. I could make as good of an argument as you did for trading Holliday for Furcal. I could say that Oakland will surpress Holliday's #'s (have you looked at his home and away splits in Colorado...it ain't pretty) and that maybe Furcal is going to be the player he was last year before injuring himself (and the team needs steals). But, having paid $25 for Holliday and $8 for Furcal it makes very little sense to swap them a week later, when nothing about their situations have changed.
In other words, the league (in its auction) a week earlier valued these players at $22 and $5 and without much of anything changing, they get swapped for each other. Your right, nothing funny about that!
It may not be a slam dunk veto. But it is definitely in the discussion of possibly veto-able..... and at the very least sends up a red flag.
So, I ask you why are you coming here asking others' opinions? I gave mine and you simply shot holes in it and retorted with your opinion which you stated in your first post. If you just want people to agree with you, just say so.
If someone disagrees with you in this thread, why not simply say "thanks for the input" rather than arguing your point further? Sounds like you already have some argument in your league, you don't need to come to the Cafe to have more.
To address the points you made in your counter-point post, I think that vetoes only should exist to shoot down completely ridiculous trades. Unless there is some background that I am missing here, I find it hard to believe that this trade is collusive. Collusion is when one team dumps players to another team to create one great team and another that has no chance. This being the first week of the season, unless these two owners are brothers, roommates, spouses, best friends etc, or if it is a public league where you already have some reason to believe the two teams are owned by the same guy, then collusion is extremely unlikely.
Yeah, Oakland could, and probably will suppress Holliday's numbers a little. Yeah, Furcal could rebound. The thing is, you know none of these things, and I do not know whether Shields will break down or if Street will keep his job. That is the whole point. All of these scenarios are within the realm of solid possibility, so it is impossible to say any will or will not happen. Some may be more or less likely, but I believe that judgment is up to the parties making the trade.
Again, my belief is that vetoes exist for incredibly out-of-whack deals like Inge for Pujols. Not for parsing hairs on deals that might have some actual benefit for both owners.
not vetoable..doesnt even raise suspicions for me about collusion and the like..dont think I would pay this for Street/Sonnanstine but its NOT vetoable
auction prices are pretty much out the window once it is over...
(also Street probably would have went for more if he was named the closer, officially, sooner IMO)
People tried to veto me trading Shields for Tejada in 2007 because the "value was off" as well.. now apparantly you cant get enough for the guy
Why cant Sonnanstine make that jump like Shields did?? and considering it is Putz on the other side whos not promised anything..Street MIGHT dominate in Colorado..I dont think so but I've been wrong before
I dont get why Kazmir should be going back for Shields as an alternative??..its not good to craft a trade for 2 other people (unless they directly ask you what would be more fair in your opinion)
"I'm the man with the ball. I'm the man who can throw it faster than F***. So that's why I'm better than anyone in the world." - Kenny Powers
Again, it depends on the structure of the league (public/private) and how well you know and trust these guys.
But to address some points made by RDD....
RDD15 wrote:To address the points you made in your counter-point post, I think that vetoes only should exist to shoot down completely ridiculous trades.
Completely ridiculous is not the same as collusive. Collusive is when there a trade is made not in good faith and not for face value.
RDD15 wrote:Collusion is when one team dumps players to another team to create one great team and another that has no chance.
No, this is when it is obvious (or at least believable) collusion to you. Collusion can happen at any point in the season; it's simply more likely some times than others.
RDD15 wrote:This being the first week of the season, unless these two owners are brothers, roommates, spouses, best friends etc, or if it is a public league where you already have some reason to believe the two teams are owned by the same guy, then collusion is extremely unlikely.
100% correct.
RDD15 wrote:Yeah, Oakland could, and probably will suppress Holliday's numbers a little. Yeah, Furcal could rebound. The thing is, you know none of these things, and I do not know whether Shields will break down or if Street will keep his job. That is the whole point. All of these scenarios are within the realm of solid possibility, so it is impossible to say any will or will not happen. Some may be more or less likely, but I believe that judgment is up to the parties making the trade.
As long as the trade is being made in good faith, correct.
RDD15 wrote:Again, my belief is that vetoes exist for incredibly out-of-whack deals like Inge for Pujols. Not for parsing hairs on deals that might have some actual benefit for both owners.
I believe vetoes exist to maintain the integrity of the league. The first question is the relationship of the people trading to each other and to the rest of the league. If that is a suspicious relationship, then you veto anything that looks fishy. If that is a relationship which you trust, you don't veto Inge for Pujols even.
converge241 wrote:auction prices are pretty much out the window once it is over...
Not completely true. Unless there is some real reason for a shift in value (promotion, demotion, injury) auction values are a decent barometer one week into a season.
converge241 wrote:People tried to veto me trading Shields for Tejada in 2007 because the "value was off" as well.. now apparantly you cant get enough for the guy
Everyone has one of these stories but nine times out of ten, when you're trading Peavy for Marmol or whatever, the Peavy owner wins. The tenth time doesn't destroy the rule. And also, see above. In a league with people you trust, I'll let them make any trade they want. But if you don't know or can't trust the guys you're in a league in, then you have to go by some objective values.
Last edited by Matthias on Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by s221506 » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:18 pm 
