We play in a money league. Pretty much same guys in league for about 10 years, except 1 new player this year. The commissioner or our league just made a trade with the new guy a couple of days ago. He gave Swisher and Rodney to the new guy for Ellsbury.
The league vetoed the trade. I told him the trade was way too lopsided and called him out on the league board. I told him make the guy a fair offer and you won't see me post on the league board. I also said if the trade had been made to one of the veterans in the league I would also not protest on league board nor would I veto.
My reasoning was that the FA pool is full of guys like Swisher 25-30 HR guys who hit .250 and Rodney is a run of the mill closer with a high volatile situation. Ellsbury is a top 5-6 round pick. The league obviously agreed. My question is were we right to protect the new guys interest?
I think you were in the right, but not because you protected the new guy's best interest, but because you protected the integrity of the league. The commish pulling a lopsided trade with a new manager just doesn't pass the smell test and I think by vetoing the trade you sent the message that EVERYONE is accountable.
One thing though... did you ask the new guy to rationalize the trade? If he honestly believed it was a good trade and gave some kind of sound logic for it then I don't think it should have been vetoed. But if he was just some bozo who didn't no any better and didn't give a good reason, and the commissioner was just taking advantage of him, then a veto is justified.
Carnac wrote:The league vetoed the trade. I told him the trade was way too lopsided and called him out on the league board. I told him make the guy a fair offer and you won't see me post on the league board. I also said if the trade had been made to one of the veterans in the league I would also not protest on league board nor would I veto.
Not that I think this is really the most unfair of trades, but I agree with the reasoning of veto'ing it. I'd talk to the new guy, make sure he gets what he's doing and what else he could get for Ellsbury, and then if he still wants to do the trade, let it through.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
agree with above guys.....you can protect the noobs only so much. they still have to be able to participate and learn form their mistakes. should have gave him some advice and then asked him if he really wanted to do it...if so, let it go...it is his team
and i would see about getting a new commish next year, or let him know the league doesnt appreciate what he is doing. in leagues i commish i never trade w the new guys at least for the first half of the season...just doesnt look good. its your league...you need to protect the legitimisy(spelling?) of it...not take advantage of the new guys
My rule is that all trades go through unless there is evidence of collusion. Noone can predict future stats. To me, you are underminding the new guy by vetoing this trade. Ellsbury could break his leg tomorrow night. Swisher could hit 35 dingers and score 100 runs. Rodney could save 45 games. Sure, none are likely, but we can't know for sure what is going to occur in the future. Unless the new guy is a 10 year old, the trade should have gone through, IMO.
HitmanHart wrote:My rule is that all trades go through unless there is evidence of collusion. Noone can predict future stats. To me, you are underminding the new guy by vetoing this trade. Ellsbury could break his leg tomorrow night. Swisher could hit 35 dingers and score 100 runs. Rodney could save 45 games. Sure, none are likely, but we can't know for sure what is going to occur in the future. Unless the new guy is a 10 year old, the trade should have gone through, IMO.
Honestly I hate this rationale. So a Pujols straight up for say Livan Hernandez is not vetoable? Sure, Pujols can break his leg tomorrow and Livan can win 23 games but it doesn't mean that the trade isn't vetoable. I hate vetos as much as the next guy but I think it was the right move in this case because it is the commish trading with a new player. I would ask the new player for his rationale and if he still wants to do it even though everybody else in the league thinks he's stupid, then I'd let it through.
Yeah, we have projections and rankings for a reason. Sure, almost anything COULD happen, but there's a difference between the plausible and the ridiculous. And there is a such thing as a bad trade. If I'm in a money league and some n00b accepts a REALLY bad trade without any good reasoning, you bet your ass I want to see it vetoed, collusion or not. I'm not one to manage other guy's teams, no matter how incompetent I think they are, but there's a certain point where it infringes on the integrity of the league at large. Ideally we all play in leagues full of sane veteran experts who never make dumb trades, but unfortunately that's not always the reality of the situation.
Trojan Pony wrote:Yeah, we have projections and rankings for a reason. Sure, almost anything COULD happen, but there's a difference between the plausible and the ridiculous. And there is a such thing as a bad trade. If I'm in a money league and some n00b accepts a REALLY bad trade without any good reasoning, you bet your ass I want to see it vetoed, collusion or not. I'm not one to manage other guy's teams, no matter how incompetent I think they are, but there's a certain point where it infringes on the integrity of the league at large. Ideally we all play in leagues full of sane veteran experts who never make dumb trades, but unfortunately that's not always the reality of the situation.
You're not one to manage someone else's team yet you want to have the final say on HIS trades?
And you say there is a difference between plausible and ridiculous? Which category does David Ortiz going the first SIX weeks without a homer fall under?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Carnac » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:56 am 
