I am co-com in a 20 player H2H keeper league (keep 9), first year. There has been a few good trades and some borderline (no vetoes yet), but this trade is really veto worthy unless you think differently
Player A gives Miguel Montero Justin Verlander 2013 Draft Picks * Round 4 * Round 6
Player B gives Carlos Ruiz Brett Myers 2013 Draft Picks * Round 1 * Round 3
So we're talking about the best pitcher in baseball, a top 5 catcher for a so-so closer, a good catcher AND a round 1 and 3 draft picks! You see, the draft picks makes it look fishy... Thoughts? WHIR.
First of all, make sure you post these kinds of questions in [img=http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=189]Commissioners Corner[/img] in the future (I went ahead and had it moved over there this time).
So, let me preface by saying I'm in the camp that you NEVER veto trades unless you can prove clear collusion. That said, this deal falls right under that rule as well - I see absolutely no problem with it. Montero and Ruiz are more or less a wash for me at this point, and while I prefer Montero it's not worth even dissecting. Verlander is clearly head and shoulders above Myers if you compare them in a vacuum, but both draft picks that Team A is getting are WAY more valuable than the picks he's giving, and I think it more than balances this deal to where it's understandable. While the guys he gets won't probably wow you, the players you get with top-60 picks (especially the kind of guy you could get with a 1st rounder in this format) are going to be much more usable than a guy in the 61-80 and a guy in the 101-120 range (which will make the late pick the 300th player overall).
Would I rather be on the side getting Montero, Verlander and the late picks? Absolutely. Is this vetoable? Not even in the realm of being close IMO. Anyone who votes to veto this is simply crying because they weren't able to pull it off - easily the most common (and misguided) reason for trade veto votes.
It's often easier to objectively look at these things from the outside and I don't see a veto here. The team who 'lost' this trade currently looks like he improved on 3 of the 4 commodities swapped. That both picks received are better than those he traded can't be refuted, looking right now he won big on the C swap too. Interesting how you presented that commodity swap too BTW, glossing Montero a top 5 C and somewhat dissing Ruiz as 'a good catcher'. Right now, 5x5, Montero is C#7 and Ruiz is #1, miles ahead in 4 cats, barely ahead in RBI. While I don't personally agree that Ruiz is the top C going forward, you have to realize that the guy trading for him probably sees him a big upgrade on Montero. He has 1/2 season of data supporting this and could see an even bigger 2nd half with Utley back and Howard starting his rehab. The area he likely veiws as losing, like most of us is the pitching. Then again his roster and how he's been doing each week might make saves to him (at least in his thinking) more valuable than the stats Verly tallies. Again here you state Verly is the 'top pitcher in baseball (that can certainly be debated)' as if trying to convince us to your side. As co-commish try to look objectively and from the outside. The way you described some of the dynamics lends me to believe you haven't. I agree, It's a poor deal in a vacuum, Verly should get more, but there could be reasons that are valid to the 'losing owner' that lead him to believe he won the trade.
Last edited by dannahann on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:11 am, edited 3 times in total.
61* 70**73**762*** MVP****NL11,AL07,AL05,NL04,ALNL03,ALNL02,NL01,ALNL00,AL99,ALNL98,ALNL96 RIP Cammi Cmon Bud, NOW is the time to sack up and force feed an Olympic style drug program down Fehr's fat throat. Save OUR game from these blatant cheaters!
Player A is retarded for not at least getting a better closer for Verlander, on top of the picks. Veto though? It's hard to say without knowing how valuable the picks are. Borderline for sure. I would let it go through, but I would make sure to let player A know how utterly stupid he is for not getting more for Verlander.
Here's the pitch on the way, a swing and a belt! Left field! Way back! BLUE JAYS WIN!
silverZ wrote:Player A is retarded for not at least getting a better closer for Verlander, on top of the picks. Veto though? It's hard to say without knowing how valuable the picks are. Borderline for sure. I would let it go through, but I would make sure to let player A know how utterly stupid he is for not getting more for Verlander.
If the closer was a triple-A prospect you couldn't veto this deal - I don't think it's "close" since it's not clearly collusive in any way. Let people make "bad" deals and run their teams however they want. Verlander could tear his shoulder this week. That first-rounder could net the next stud prospect. The possibilities are limitless, but the lesson has been learned time after time - you never know what is going to happen and you don't always know best how people should run their teams - sometimes we have this flawed idea that we always know best in fantasy, but without a track record of 100% championship success that none of us can claim, it's OK to accept that there are many ways to improve your team and our perspective is probably not quite as perfect as we think. Just my $0.02
exm wrote:Interesting feedback and thanks for the 'move'. Note that we are keeping 9 keepers, so a round 1 pick will need you a 10th rounder in a normal league... Does that make any difference?
No, this doesn't make a difference to me. I accounted for about where those picks would fall in my post