CBM is right on the nose but also you have to look at the other side of the fence....you arent giving much because of your backups to bargin with...but im curious as to once he gains your crap, he is also giving up beltran and abreu in the outfield and i dont see him having better to keep a decent foundation in the outfield...thome and giambi are a wash to me and you cant compare numbers because 2 yrs ago you would have always taken giambi over thome...maddux needs to get back to form but no where near abreu or beltran, that said neither is giles, hes better than most in a scrapping position but not for desperation. giles numbers wont be any bigger or better than abreu and beltran...
overall your theory of 'BOTH OWNERS FILLING THEIR NEEDS....' is BS....i hate hearing that and the word collusion being used all the time....bottom line is there are more than 1 veto's in a league and if it maxes out then there is a reason....FOR THE BETTER OF THE LEAGUE is the only excuse for a veto...
Harry Doyle: Remember, fans, Tuesday is Die Hard Night. Free admission for anyone who was actually alive the last time the Indians won the pennant.
ND, that's an interesting opinion you present. Unfortunately you fail to make the obvious connection.
if the person making the seemingly stupid deal is a novice who is being taken advantage of
In this case the person making the deal ABSOLUTELY meets this criteria. If it were you I'm sure you wouldn't make this trade in the first place, because anyone capable of making it, invariably, fits the criteria above.
If you are unhappy that I traded too cheaply, you should have been more active and tried to make a similar deal with me.
Again, an unsubstantial point; So perhaps I should have five INSULTING offers on the table to five different managers at all times? No thank you. I like to assume that the other managers in my league are intelligent and would like to trade sensibly with me when circumstances merit, rather than insult their intelligence by offering them ridiculous deals.
Too many people play this way, and not only are they obnoxious, but when they happen to be in a league with several suckers, their ridiculous behavior is actually rewarded.
Thankfully, I don't play in leagues where this type of veto power is used.
Thankfully I don't play in leagues where people are stupid enough to make such horrible trades (starting this year). And thankfully the owners I play with are smart enough to know when a veto is warranted. If you enjoy the kind of competition that allows you to trade Rocky Biddle for Jim Thome, Raul Ibanez and Torii Hunter for Vlad Guerrero, or Geoff Jenkins and Mike MacDougal for Manny Ramirez, than by all means have fun.
I bring up those three trades specifically, because they were three that I pulled off last year, and felt guilty about when I ended up winning the league (I would have won anyway of course, but in these I even could have gotten away with a poor draft). I'd rather play in a competitive league, and if I can make these kinds of trades, then I'm in the wrong one.
Try a money league and see if that kind of trade goes through.
For those of you who think collusion is the only reason to veto, remember this:
Selig vetoes trades all the time. And there is NO collusion in the MLB. In fact, MLB owners are, by and large, a heck of a lot smarter than the average fantasy owner.
Try a conservative approach on for size, any sophisticated fantasy player will do so.
CBMGreatOne wrote:People aren't vetoing this trade JUST out of jealousy. They are vetoing it because you have taken advantage of the other owner and given yoursef a huge (unfair) advantage. This disrupts the competitive balance of the whole league.
Good post CBM, even though I disagree. You've laid out your side of the argument very well.
Now, the way I see it. The object of fantasy baseball is for you to build the best team thru drafting, signing, and trading players. If you make trades to improve your team, you're playing the game well. So to that end if you make a lopsided trade in your favor, that would be playing the game really well. Now I know what you're saying - why is it fair that one owner benefits from another's stupidity? Well... doesn't that happen all the time in the real MLB? Was it fair that the Red Sox handed the greatest player in baseball history, Babe Ruth, over to the Yankees and gave them a dynasty? Is it fair that whenever that idiot Randy Smith saw talent on the Tigers and wanted to get rid of it, he called the Astros first? Or how about the NFL - the Cowboys won three titles after totally taking advantage of the clueless Vikings in the Herschel Walker trade. Lopsided trades are part of sports, real or fantasy.
I always hate hearing how bad trades ruin the "competitive balance" of a league. Who said leagues were supposed to be competitively balanced? Fantasy baseball is competition. If some owners are significantly better than others, they should have significantly better teams.
In the league I commish, there is no vetoing of trades by the league. If there's collusion, I'll step in and take action. But every owner will always be free to run his team to the best of his ability, even if that means he's an idiot and runs his franchise in to the ground.
I was conceding that vetoes are OK if the person is an obvious novice who didn't realize what a stupid trade he is making. I tried to advance the discussion to situations where there are two experienced players and, for whatever reason (other than collusion), one of them makes what appears objectively to look like a stupid or unfair trade. In that situation I do not like vetoes.
I do not play in public yahoo leagues and do play in money leagues. I find that people are more serious and more careful when they are playing for real dollars -- and that the league needs to be less protective in those situations.
The idea is to compete to get the best team and there can be many ways to get there -- such as overpaying at times to get what you want/need (without fear of veto). To each his own -- I'll stick to serious leagues where the veto power is rarely used (or needed).
I like the points you make Spartans. It's a different philosophy than my own, but I can respect a league where everybody plays that way "in good faith."
I wouldn't do it, but I respect a league where everybody knows that going in.
Well... doesn't that happen all the time in the real MLB? Was it fair that the Red Sox handed the greatest player in baseball history, Babe Ruth, over to the Yankees and gave them a dynasty? Is it fair that whenever that idiot Randy Smith saw talent on the Tigers and wanted to get rid of it, he called the Astros first? Or how about the NFL - the Cowboys won three titles after totally taking advantage of the clueless Vikings in the Herschel Walker trade. Lopsided trades are part of sports, real or fantasy.
It just touches a nerve with me when a manager trades his high draft picks for another manager's low ones before games have even been played.
This does NOT happen in real sports, and I'd challenge you to point out to me a circumstance where it does and prove me wrong, but don't bother trying because it doesn't. In the NFL the Giants don't draft Jeremy Shockey with the fifteenth pick in the draft and then turn around and trade him to the Jets for the guy they picked at the end of the round. And we see a lot worse than this in fantasy leagues.
Essentially the manager getting the short end might as well post a message to the league that says:
"I am a sucker. I didn't prepare for the draft, and it should be very easy for you to talk me out of players that I picked before your players, because I didn't form solid opinions about these players before I picked them. Further, I am going to compound the mistakes I made in the draft by not receiving adequate value for the players that I did select in an appropriate draft position, so long as you can rationalize to me that your inferior players will assist me in the specific scoring categories I failed to address in the draft, even if their value isn't nearly as high as my players."
Trading picks 2, 6, and 8 for picks 1, 3, and 5 is tantamount to saying exactly this, and this is the kind of manager whose judgment should be held in check by the rest of the league. I don't like playing in league that even have players like this, but if I do find that I'm in a league with one, I don't want to let their judgment throw off the competitive balance of the league (whether you think this is an important thing to maintain or not, I do).
Selig does veto trades, but thats more about the business side of baseball. Like the A-Rod to Boston trade - that was about contracts being unfairly restructured. Had nothing to do with talent.
I see this more as a support of my point of view than yours and the reason why is somewhat complicated. (I would also like to throw in that Selig did say upon the completion of this trade something to the effect of "I allowed this trade, in spite of the large amount of cash changing hands, because of the level of talent moving in both directions, but I don't like this kind of cash movement, and it will not be the standard in the MLB.")
In real sports talent moving from one team to another CAN be lopsided if one of the teams is handcuffed by payroll problems and needs to turn the cash given to them in supplement to the player(s) they receive into more good players.
In fantasy sports, there is no business consideration, except in money leagues with auctions/free agent pools, and the like. Thus the absolute value of the performance of the players is the ONLY consideration in whether the trade is lopsided or not, and being the sole factor, it must be evaluated with more scrutiny, in my opinion.
If production of the players involved were the only consideration of actual MLB, it still wouldn't quite compare, because there is always something to be said for stockpiling great prospects for your proven talent when you don't figure to be competitive in the current year. This is also a nonfactor in all but keeper fantasy leagues.
With no business or future potential considerations it just makes it that much more of a priority to make sure that trades are balanced, productionwise.
Thus, while I totally respect your decision to play in a league that does allow any trade to pass, I wouldn't play in one and as most of the leagues that we play in are with strangers, or at least players of differing philosophies, I am glad there is an inclusion of democracy, so all points of view can be represented. It all boils down to a difference in philosophy in which one can't be quantitatively be measured against the other, but the majority generally gets their way.
Generally there are enough managers who are as conservative as I am to prevent bad trades from going through so it's usually not a big concern.
ND, If I did miss your point it was in my assumption that your post had some relation to the trade mentioned in this thread. As my post was a reaction to that particular trade, or similar trades, I figured that your post being a reaction to mine, implied some connection to the previous.
For any misunderstanding I apologize.
I agree, I don't veto any deal where one side is a clear winner, I only do so when the margin of "victory" so to speak crosses a certain threshold of value difference.
If you are in money leagues, then I'm sure your philosophy works every bit as well as mine. In the money leagues I've done, I have seen VERY few vetoes. The one I recall was a football league where someone traded Ricky Williams for Deuce McCallister and Joe Horn to a player with a team name that included the word "Dolphins."
If you played in yahoo public leagues (which I play in also), I think you'd find that there are times when you do need to have a more conservative approach to the veto option.
Even so, most managers are reluctant to get "beaten" in a trade and the result is that trades that do go through are generally very fair. I find that 9 out of 10 trades that get accepted aren't veto worthy, even using an approach as conservative as mine.
CBMGreatOne wrote:OK, I hate to stick my nose in this debate, because I've already been a very active voice in a very similar one on my league page, but I have to throw in my 2 cents.
The reality of the matter is that there are other reasons to veto beyond collusion. Just looking at the offer you made earlier this year of Thome, Maddux, Giles for Giambi, Beltran, Abreu, I can't say for certain I would veto it in a points league, as I don't know the settings, but in a standard 5x5 Roto League, I would probably veto this every time, regardless of how good the intentions were of the owner handing you Giambi, Beltran, and Abreu.
It just happens too often that trades like this are allowed to slide and owners who toss out bad trade offers at every opportunity run into that 12 year old fantasy first timer and take advantage of him. This trade is so lopsided that every player on the side you received is an upgrade over the guys you gave.
Beltran>Thome, Giambi>Giles, Abreu>Maddux. Although the difference between Beltran>Thome is not that great, Giambi is MUCH better than Giles, Abreu is MUCH better than Maddux.
How can I say this? Look at your draft history, if either player I mentioned wasn't drafted at least 2 rounds higher than the other, I would be SHOCKED.
People aren't vetoing this trade JUST out of jealousy. They are vetoing it because you have taken advantage of the other owner and given yoursef a huge (unfair) advantage. This disrupts the competitive balance of the whole league.
Let me just assign what I believe to be fitting rounds to draft these players and toss around another idea. Beltran is a mid to late first rounder (1), Giambi is 3rd or 4th rounder, but probably a 3rd (3). Abreu is probably a 5th rounder (5). Now let's look at the other side of the deal. Thome is a 2nd rounder (2). Giles is, at best, a 5th rounder and at worst a 9th rounder, let's give him some benefit of the doubt and say he's a 6th (6). Maddux should be about an 8th rounder, if not later. I wouldn't take him this high, but someone might so we'll say 8th (8).
So what you've done is traded a 2nd rounder, a 6th rounder, and an 8th rounder for a 1st rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a 5th rounder.
If your league allowed you to trade draft picks, and you had made this swap before the draft, it would have been so lopsided that a veto would have been ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS!!! Now just because one manager doesn't understand how stupid, and poor a reflection this is on him as a manager, you are allowed to take advantage of him?
There hasn't even been any games played yet to rationalize this deal by the numbers produced by the players involved, so draft stock is the most reliable measuring stick for their value at this point.
He is trading the core of a great team for a great player and two decent/good players. It's a hugely lopsided deal, and should be vetoed every time, not because the other managers are jealous, but because it hurts the league.
That you could attribute this solely to jealousy of your "fair trade" is shortsighted on your part. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that. I would veto that trade, and it wouldn't be because I was jealous, but because manager B is an idiot and a liability to the competitive legitimacy of the league. I understand that if it's a points league, the scoring might be weird, and it might have been more fair than it appears, but speaking from a roto standpoint, that trade is insane. VETO!!!!!!!
CBM: I'm glad you responded with your tirade as it proves my point, collusion SHOULD be the only reason for vetoing trades. It's owners like you who think your GOD and can tell with your omniscience what will happen in the future. You also make many erronious assumptions concerning those involved. Here are the FACTS:
1) Owner B who you claim is an idiot and a liability to the league, is neither. He is a friend of mine, 38 years old, introduced me to fantasy baseball, has made the playoffs three years running and the league championship two years ago. He makes trades and moves that I consider suspect but they always seem to work for him. His nickname in the league is "The Fantasy God".
2) Points per player:
Giambi-619, Beltran, 628, Abreu-623= 1870
Thome-684, Maddux-501, M.Giles-547=1701
That looks one-sided but so what HE wants to do it. As I stated it addresses HIS needs. He would Improve his 2nd base position as Polonco only had 440 points last year. He also needs a good starter and Maddux will do that with Chicago. In addition he and I also agree that Thome's numbers (ave) were off last year due to changing leagues and he will have an average closer to .300 this year and put up 700-750 points (Just an opinion). Also I was going to take the risk on Giambi who most will admit is an injury risk and may never reach previous numbers again.
All in all we were BOTH happy so why is it that you feel compelled to veto it?
We Tried the trade again and I added Angel Berroa in the mix making his point advantage 2194 to 1870. You guessed it-vetoed. When asked to explain there reasoning for vetoing the trade, the two I previously mentioned spoke up, the other three were dead silence.
If your going to veto a trade at least have the "Balls" to say why. When this sort of crap happens often enough manager start vetoing all trades because they are pissed about getting vetoed and thus no trades ever happen.
you must do sales for a living....no need to sell the smart in here though...nice lowjab on the you must be god theory....
if you were in those other shoes there is no way you would give me beltran let alone add abreu and giambi....i dare you to tell me you would so quit using the collusion and 'it fits our needs BS....
by giving up abreu and beltran in the outfield, what 2 other outfielders does he possibly have to come close to those numbers just by improving your precious 2B by a little and getting thome...? as compared to giambi, and your selling him as a risk factor...WHAT...
this whole thing just cracks me up as you actually think this is fair...i guess the final thing i can say is to have fun in YOUR league as it looks like you have the BEST team...thats what you wanted and youve done it...FUN LEAGUE, i bet no money is involved....
Harry Doyle: Remember, fans, Tuesday is Die Hard Night. Free admission for anyone who was actually alive the last time the Indians won the pennant.
First off, I disclaimed in my initial response that I wasn't familiar with the scoring settings and that my post primarily pertains to a 5x5 roto. With the unique circumstances involved, I knew my statements were not necessarily universal.
Even so, I'd like to look at your draft results page, and if I was basically on point with the rounds where each player was selected, I basically still feel the same way.
If you somehow conclude that what I have said PROVES your point, then I would like to quote Simon and Garfunkel and say.
"All I suggest, is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
And forgive me for not being hugely impressed when you tell me he made the playoffs a bunch of times in a row. Not knowing how competitive your league is, I have no frame of reference for judging that as being a difficult accomplishment.
I would have to have a lot of respect for an owner to make such a move and not be inclined to veto it, and though maybe you do, he doesn't exactly make a good first impression on me. Trading high picks for low picks never does.
Just because we can't tell the future doesn't mean you can't make any value judgments at all.
If you think you can explain away my thesis in one paragraph that essentially says NOTHING, you have another thing coming. Insufficient explanation on your part.
Looking at the scoring system and points though, I am more inclined not to veto that deal. But the crux of my argument remains intact.
Incidentally Thome is a career 285 hitter, I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself to think he's going to hit 300 this year, he's done it before, but not all that recently, and not all that often, but that's beside the point.