ron paul for pres wrote:It's not really about whether it's a good trade, or even a fair one. The standard is collusion. Say one guy is completely out of it this year, knows he can't win, and wants to help his buddy win. So he trades Cutch and Trout for two pieces of dead weight. You veto that. Not because it's a bad trade or unfair, but because one guy is deliberately trying to help the other guy.
That's what I always thought. It should be is each team getting value (based on there needs) back. I don't understand why some people base a trade on how fair it is to the league.
The first two trade was vetoed...
Andrew McCutchen Curtis Granderso, Elvis Andrus Michael Bourn Phil Hughes
Gio Gonzalez Mike Trout Alcides Escobar Trevor Bauer
Then Pence was added still vetoed so Ackley was added.
If anything I think forcing more players to be added was unfair because the other owner is looking for keepers and especially considering the way those two guys are playing they probably have 0 value to him. It was only to appease some of the other players who might complain its not fair
dannahann wrote:I take it the numbers after the player team 2 gets are the round they can be kept in? If so he's getting Trout, a top 5 overall pick next year, in the 21st round. There really isn't any way to overpay for that. Nevermind he's landing a few other nice keep values. No reason to question this trade.
Yes trout its a definite 1st round pick next year. Maybe if I replaced his name with albert pujols as a 21st rounder it would look better