This is a H2H points dynasty league.....i had a trade in place to send Rollins and Javier Vasquez for Jared Weaver. The comish vetoed it and im not too happy about that. With that being said would you trade Alexi Ramirez and Vasquez for Jared Weaver.....that would leave me with Rollins as my starting SS....i have Aviles and Theriot as backups
triple3play wrote:This is a H2H points dynasty league.....i had a trade in place to send Rollins and Javier Vasquez for Jared Weaver. The comish vetoed it and im not too happy about that. With that being said would you trade Alexi Ramirez and Vasquez for Jared Weaver.....that would leave me with Rollins as my starting SS....i have Aviles and Theriot as backups
The only time it's acceptable to veto a trade as a commish is when there is suspected/proved collusion involved. Many people are idiots and this carries over to fantasy baseball. You can't veto a trade because someone doesn't know the 'actual' value of a player.
That said, I would not trade Alexei and Vazquez for Weaver. But since you have Rollins it would make sense if your staff was thin.
triple3play wrote:This is a H2H points dynasty league.....i had a trade in place to send Rollins and Javier Vasquez for Jared Weaver. The comish vetoed it and im not too happy about that. With that being said would you trade Alexi Ramirez and Vasquez for Jared Weaver.....that would leave me with Rollins as my starting SS....i have Aviles and Theriot as backups
That is a ridiculous veto...if you aren't too attached to the league, I would leave it. None of the other managers have an opinion?
triple3play wrote:This is a H2H points dynasty league.....i had a trade in place to send Rollins and Javier Vasquez for Jared Weaver. The comish vetoed it and im not too happy about that. With that being said would you trade Alexi Ramirez and Vasquez for Jared Weaver.....that would leave me with Rollins as my starting SS....i have Aviles and Theriot as backups
Frankly, that second deal deserves the veto more than the first. Javier Vazquez?????? A back of rocks is worth more lol. And if Rollins gets the veto, what makes you think Al. Ramirez will not? Seriously, while you could argue that Rollins for Weaver is an OK deal based on SS scarcity, Rollins' ADP and reputation, it is still a really bad deal for the guy losing Weaver imo. Veto worthy..probably not but it pushes close to the line of common sense so you really should not be upset if your Commish vetos it. He is a hard liner and I would have no problem with that as long as he is consistent with it. Just because you throw in a barely fantasy worthy late round SP pick does not make it a good deal.
And from a purely philosophical point of view, I have never agreed with the theory that some subscribe to that trades are laisse-faire and as long as no collusion can be proven anything goes. That is utter nonsense imo. If you have a league where someone is a fool and deals Pujols for James Loney and Sergio Mitre, then it should be vetoed. Trades are supposed to be essentially fair. They do not need to be equal, but they should be reasonable. It is not fair to the other members of a league if one fool can ruin it for everyone else. Fantasy baseball is not a competition to see who can find the league fool and cut a lopsided deal with him to gain a decisive edge. Any league that allows that is a bad league imo. It upsets the balance of power unfairly and no one wants to play with idiots. And winning a league that way proves what?
by footballisbetter.com » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:50 pm
triple3play wrote:Comish says that the ramirez trade would be approved because he is younger than rollins and would be better for the other team in a dynasty league
This commish is a tool. Find another league buddy.
triple3play wrote:Comish says that the ramirez trade would be approved because he is younger than rollins and would be better for the other team in a dynasty league
Your commish has issues. If he vetoed the firrst, the second should go down as well imo. I would find another league as well. Not because he vetoed the first, but actually because he obviosuly has issues. Like I said, if he is a hard liner I would have no problem with that, but he has to be consistent in that and apply the same standard throughout and at this point I just think he has no clue.
And on the flip side, what would you be debating if he is going to allow it and you are getting Weaver? Javiar Vazquez and a SS that at best is mediocre and an early teen round pick for a SP that is not worse than a round 6 pick and could produce at the level of a fanatsy #1 SP if the Angels actually scored some runs for him?
Yeah I've been a commish for years and you can't ever let your personal opinion decide a trade bc you never know the exact thinking of the owners doing the trade. You have to let the whole league speak and if they all think it's a really bad trade then you step in. You only use your power if it's obvious collusion like 3 top tier players for a no-name mid reliever or something like that. The fact of the matter is that most trades aren't completely even... somebody usually comes out ahead but it just depends on each teams needs and how much they are willing to give to fill them.
I've always thought that a Commish should step in only in a worst case scenario. I even think crazy trades sometimes make a team better. In a keeper roto league I am in, I was getting killed near the end of the year in saves. My only chance to win the league was to trade a keeper bat for 3 closers from a last place team. The trade was something like:
Utley for Terrible relievers x 3
Yes, the trade was horrible for me....but it won me the league. The other guy was out of contention and built for the future. If I had an overprotective commish it would have never happened.
Who cares if the Rollins/Weaver trade isn't equal on value. It's not going to shake the balance of the league.
tanyon wrote:I've always thought that a Commish should step in only in a worst case scenario. I even think crazy trades sometimes make a team better. In a keeper roto league I am in, I was getting killed near the end of the year in saves. My only chance to win the league was to trade a keeper bat for 3 closers from a last place team. The trade was something like:
Utley for Terrible relievers x 3
Yes, the trade was horrible for me....but it won me the league. The other guy was out of contention and built for the future. If I had an overprotective commish it would have never happened.
Who cares if the Rollins/Weaver trade isn't equal on value. It's not going to shake the balance of the league.
There is nothing wrong with dealing to fill a need in that way in that case. Teams out of contention in a keeper should be looking to do that type of deal wherein they give a contender what they need in order to improve their keeper lot. Of course that is happening in August, not in March lol. As long as it worked for you it was a good deal for you. That said though, I probably would have found a team where at least the 3 closers coming back were not terrible lol.
A few years back I did a similar thing in a keeper I was out of and dealt Gregg and another stiff (I forget who) to a contender for Kershaw (who was just beginning to show signs of being really good). Traded guys that were not worth squat to me at that point to a team that might be able to use them for a guy that given my keeper situation was worth the shot. I still own Kershaw in that league.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by triple3play » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:25 pm 
