As the commish in a league this trade was just put through. I dont think rosters would be needed to try and justify this move. Two good friends, 1 in second place the other in last. I think you can guess who is trading who just by the names? Vetoable? I think the league may shoot it down but just in case I thought I would ask around for opinions. I know Cantu is off to a good start and Lee is starting slow But come on now!
Yeah. Unless it's something where the team trading Lee (I assume the lesser team) has NO other OF options worth anything and has a stud or 2 at 3B/CI, no way. Only if it's clearly hurting the bad team in a crazy manner to help the better team with a specific need can you even think it unfair.
Lee is currently his utility player. Here is his roster 20.5 games out, in 10th place C Brandon Inge Det C, 3B 1B Adam LaRoche Pit 1B 2B Dustin Pedroia Bos 2B 3B Hank Blalock Tex 1B, 3B, DH 2B Emmanuel Burriss SF 2B, SS LF Alfonso Soriano CF B.J. Upton TB CF [Recent News] RF Elijah Dukes Was CF, RF UTIL Carlos Lee Hou LF
Bench Aramis Ramirez ChC 3B DL15 Chone Figgins LAA 3B Derrek Lee ChC 1B DTD Vladimir Guerrero LAA RF
My thing is if that's the case couldn't Lee fetch a better first baseman. With Aram and Figgins on the team I suppose he is looking to slot Cantu as a 1st baseman with D Lee declining. This is a keeper league with 5 keepers allowed per team. In our third year. C Lee was one of his keepers last year.
Heres the roster of the team that would be getting Lee Currently in first place by a game
C Rod Barajas Tor C 1B Miguel Cabrera Det 1B 2B Orlando Hudson LAD 2B 3B Alex Rodriguez NYY 3B SS Hanley Ramirez Fla SS LF Adam Lind Tor LF, DH CF Jay Bruce Cin CF, RF RF Nick Markakis Bal RF UTIL Jorge Cantu Fla 1B, 3B
Bench Troy Tulowitzki Col SS Jose Lopez Sea 2B Mike Cameron Mil CF Asdrubal Cabrera Cle 2B, SS Mark Teahen KC 3B, LF, RF
Here is what I see in defense of the team getting Cantu.
Currently he has 5 OF that are worthy of being in his starting lineup (Soriano, Upton, Dukes, Lee, Vlad when he comes back in a week or so) and a crap 1B (LaRoche). By doing this deal, he gets Vlad off the bench and puts LaRoche on the bench.
Since beginning of '08:
Cantu: 204 hits for ..279 average, 109 R, 127 RBI, 37 HR, 6SB. On a decent up and coming team, probably dual-position eligible, 27 years old.
Lee: 176 hits for .318 average, 75 R, 126 RBI, 34 HR, 4SB. On a declining team with a bad offense. Only eligible as an OF which is deep. 33 years old.
Granted, Lee did miss a month last year with injury, but those lost stats can be considered the discount in value that he should receive for being an older player that is more of an injury concern.
One point that was made was the question of whether Lee could bring in a better 1Bman. Well, maybe. But sometimes a trade in hand is worth two trades in the bush. A deal got done, and rather than dick around trying to make this upgrade happen for another two weeks, the owner got the deal done now and upgraded immediately. Besides, your job isn't to decide whether or not these teams both made the best deal that they could. Your job is to make sure that trades do not compromise the integrity of your league. To me, it is fairly clear that this trade has not done that.
Actually I was just looking for input from unbiased others. The trade did get vetoed by the league (as I thought it would). Thanks for those numbers though. I do know that Cantu is 27 and a player coming in to his own. I had a trade vetoed a few years back when I wanted Aron Rowand from someone and I was offering J Edmonds. That trade was also vetoed by the league and I was livid about it. It was Rowands first year with the Phils and I was very high on him. Edmonds missed most of that year and Rowand would have been a great upgrade for me. The league felt Edmonds was too much to offer. Again thanks for those stat lines. Maybe those two weren't as far off as I thought.
I think if there is some justification for move you can't veto it. Maybe the guy trading for Cantu has a gaping hole at 3B or something. Just because you wouldn't make the deal doesn't make it vetoable.