Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **miracles716** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:00 pm

I am the commish of a 12 team league and this trade was consummated immediately after the draft that I am somewhat suspicious of, is it fair and if not should I veto it?

Team A gets

Miguel Cabrera (Det - 1B)
Brandon Phillips (Cin - 2B)
Ian Desmond (Was - SS)
Mike Moustakas (KC - 3B)
Felix Hernandez (Sea - SP)
Tim Lincecum (SF - SP)
Brandon Beachy (Atl - SP)
Wandy Rodriguez (Hou - SP)

Team B gets
Asdrubal Cabrera (Cle - SS)
David Ortiz (Bos - Util)
Clayton Kershaw (LAD - SP)
Justin Verlander (Det - SP)
Dan Haren (LAA - SP)
Alexi Ogando (Tex - SP)

by **Brainstorm** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:30 pm

I don't see this being lopsided enough for a veto

by **miracles716** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:33 pm

explain

by **Element** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:34 pm

Team A is getting the better return. It is a little suspicious, but I wouldn't veto. I would monitor it though.

by **dannahann** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:26 pm

I tried to look at it without my own opinion on players clouding things and it doesn't look horrible and certainly not veto material. Using the median draft position listed here as what could be considered an unbiased look the 8 for 6 deal breaks down like this:
A gets the #1player, B gets # 2 and #3, A gets #4 and #5, B gets #6, A gets #7, B gets #8 and #9, A gets #10 and #11, B gets #12, A gets #13 and #14. By giving up 4 of the 5 worst players B gets two free roster spots which could easily be better than the bottom guys he dealt. Would I rather be Team A? Yes. But it's not a trade I'd veto and begin the year on hostile terms with my league members.

Another way to tally using MDP in your 12 teamer, A gets a 1st rounder, B gets a 1st and 2nd, A gets a pair of 3rds, B gets a 4th, A gets a 5th. B gets a 6th and a 9th, A gets a 10th and a 16th, B gets an 18th, A gets an 18th and a 19th, B gets 2 roster slots, A has to cut 2 players. I like A's take but it's possible to defend it from B's position too.

by **jaywrong** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:21 pm

Honestly, I see no problem here.

Only veto when there is obvious collusion. Any other reason is either selfish or fascist.

by **jtsandwich** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:36 pm

I think I would let it stand.

by **MaudDib** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:40 pm

It should stand. There are studs going both directions so it is unlikely collusion is going on. I would be worried if Kershaw and Verlander were not in the trade but with them you can make an argument in both sides.