That is not even close to being "one sided". It isn't even, but most trades in MLB are not even. Someone always gets the better of the deal. If the league wants to mandate who gets traded and who doesn't then veto it, otherwise let the guys play and stay out of their business. If they are colluding, then veto. Otherwise just step back and have fun.
Totally agree with Big Mike on this. Quit trying to force others to follow your personal valuation of players, and let trades go through. Everyone has the same opportunity to trade with all owners, and if one owner finds a way to get an edge in a deal, kudos to his hard work and ingenuity.
Vetoes of trades, in my opinion, is just a way for owners to control others. Much of the time guys are vetoing trades more because it hurts their position in the standings, more than because it's an extremely lopsided deal.
Owners need to understand that their valuations of players are not very good. None of us are that good at evaluating how good a player will do the rest of this year. Use Lincecum as an example. Is he just bad or hurt this year? Or is he about to turn it around and become the Lincecum of the past.........stud? I don't know and no one else does. So whatever he was traded for in a deal couldn't be questioned......in my opinion.
Sit back, allow all trades to go through, and beat the other owners to the punch on good deals. Quit trying to control everyone and have fun!
Thanks for the opinions, guys. I agree with most of what you all said.
However, talked to the guy getting Stras/Hamels and he told me point blank he was getting the "trade rape of the century" because the other manager doesn't really follow baseball. In my book, that was grounds for a veto.
Still, moving forward I will be more conscious of just letting people do what they want even if I don't agree with it.
yolksfolks wrote: However, talked to the guy getting Stras/Hamels and he told me point blank he was getting the "trade rape of the century" because the other manager doesn't really follow baseball. In my book, that was grounds for a veto.
.
So someone tells you that he got a good trade and your first reaction is "VETO". That isn't right. Maybe next time you will get a good trade, just be sure and don't tell anyone, they might Veto.
yolksfolks wrote:However, talked to the guy getting Stras/Hamels and he told me point blank he was getting the "trade rape of the century" because the other manager doesn't really follow baseball. In my book, that was grounds for a veto.
If this is a (non-casual) league you care about, and you're concerned that this is going to turn into a pattern of noob abuse, here's what I'd do:
Pull Manager 1 aside and privately let him know why you think that trade is so bad. Don't mention what Manager 2 told you later. Just put the numbers out there. Ask him why he thinks the trade is good for him. Either he's playing a deeper strategy than you think (good or bad, you have to let him play it out), or he'll fess up to not paying enough attention and taking a bad offer put in front of him because it was there. If it's the latter, firmly-but-gently ask him to be a bit more diligent in the future. And no, you will not under any circumstances vet pending his trade offers.
There's people who traded for kemp when he came back this week who though they pulled a slam dunk...
Theres no reason to veto here
Id rather be team 2 but
what if aviles stays hot, what if lahair gets back on track (they wont but its possible and the owner could think that and its his team)
tons of clouds you could draw over the other side too
Strasburg and Hamels have a lot of injury risk/injury history Furcal has started well but gets hurt as well Walker had one good year, this could be the real him or he could rebound
I wouldnt even think twice about this deal for a veto
"I'm the man with the ball. I'm the man who can throw it faster than F***. So that's why I'm better than anyone in the world." - Kenny Powers
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by yolksfolks » Mon May 28, 2012 12:06 pm 
