(1) This trade was approved in my league. I opposed it, but it still went through.
Team A got: David Wright, Huston Street, JA Happ Team B got: Chone Figgins, Mariano Riviera
(2) This trade was proposed to a team with an absentee owner. Other managers must approve. The absentee team could use pitching and has Jose Reyes on the DL.
Team A gets: Matt Kemp, Nolasco Team B gets: Edwin Jackson, Stephen Drew, Nolan Reimold
**Nolasco could be taken out of the deal making it Matt Kemp for Edwin Jackson plus Stephen Drew or Matt Kemp for Edwin Jackson plus Rafael Soriano.
Is one trade more fair than the other? Do you see a reason one should be approved but not the other? Let me know please.
The first trade seems to be situational, mainly because Team A is giving up a corner infielder for Figgins, who i would assume would be used for his 2B. Also, Team B probably thinks JA Happ is going to continue winning every game (which I don't believe), and so sees a way of improving his starting pitching while getting a satisfactory closer in return. I'd let the trade go, though if I were team B I wouldn't have done it.
The second one is trickier. I don't nkow how to value Team B, but I see Nolasco and Jackson almost even in terms of their production for the rest of the season. Thus, I'd have to look more at Kemp for Reimold and Drew and I don't know how to value that.
In conclusion, the first trade is fair, I'm hesitant to describe the second one.
These two trades really can't be compared because they are two very different situations.
1) The first trade was agreed to by 2 owners, ad then the rest of the league had an opportunity to veto it if they felt it was unfair.
2) If I understand correctly, the league owners are acting as the defacto manager for a team (presumably for a manager that ignored his team and was ejected from the league). In this case managers are trying to decide whether or not it is in the team's best interest to accept a trade in the first place. This is a completely different process than trying to decide whether or not to veto a trade. There are many times when I look at a trade and think that i would never have offered/accepted it (which is the decision being made in trade #2), but I also decide that it is not unfair and, therefore, should not be vetoed (which is the decison being made in option #1).
With all that said. I agree that trade #1 was a poor trade. It certainly could have been vetoed, and MAYBE should have been vetoed. But this late in the season (only approx 1/3 of the season left) people start making trades and overpaying for certain players based upon their needs in specific categories. If, for example, the guy who traded away Wright is running away with HR's but really needs SB's, or if he's overloaded at 3B but just lost a MI to injury, the trade might make more sense. So I also understand why it might not have been vetoed. (For the record, I believe that far to many trade are vetoed in fantasy leagues and I'm glad to see that a trade like this got through the veto process)
Re: the 2nd trade, there is no way I take that trade if I'm Team B. But it is probabaly a more even trade than the 1st one (at least without knowing the specific needs of the teams in each trade), and I wouldn't even consider vetoing it if it were accepted.
But most importantly , what happened with the 1st trade really has nothing to do with what happens with the 2nd trade, since they are different types of decisions being made by the league....you're trying to compare apples and oranges.
Let me guess....you are Team A in Trade #2 and you are upset that the league wont give you Kemp, even though some other guy got Wright?
this is why I would never join a league where trades must meet league approval. In general, and especially in Roto leagues, I think most trades should go through.
I do feel that if a owner abandons his team for any length of time, he loses the right to make trades.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by woowoo crew » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:08 am 
