Vetoable? Young for Wells

[Mordraken]

Don't veto a trade for not being even. Veto trades for collusion.

Exaclty. This is a bad trade, but not obviously collusion.

Micheal Young is a great SS, but there seems to be a number of very good SS's out there (young, Jeter, Furcal with his SB, Tejada, Rollins, Garciaparra, Renteria, Guillen), and that's not even including the up-and-comers like Kaz Matsui, Crosby, Figgins, Uribe. Now, if you've got a 12-team league, that's 8 SSs that are right around Young's level, and another 4 that COULD be around his level. I'm willing to bet that the team with Young has ANOTHER SS, so while they are giving up a good player, chances are he's got someone to step in and replace him. For example - if he's got Furcal on his bench, Young is much more "tradeable".

As for Wells, he is still a servicable pitcher. Three concecutive years of a WHIP under 1.25 makes him a decent starter; he's started at least 30 games 3 years in a row, got more than 100Ks each of those years, and averages under a 4.00 ERA. While it's not studly numbers, and he may have been able to do better, Wells is still capable of a 12 win, 140 K, 3.50 ERA, 1.15 WHIP season (those are only a little better than his numbers last year).

This trade is NOWHERE near veto status. A veto-able trade would be more like Alex Rodriguez for Tyler Yates....

[CrimeDog]

I don't care if its collusion or not, when a trade is made where the two players values are that far apart I say veto it.

[pokerplaya]

Wow, that's one horrible trade. I would veto, that's pretty much collusion in my book...unless the team getting Wells posts his thoughts and they're at least coherent.

I agree, this trade is terrible. I never veto, and I'd have to consider here. I think there is a decent chance of collusion, but I definitely would ask the owner what is up.

I don't care if its collusion or not, when a trade is made where the two players values are that far apart I say veto it.

I definitely disagree here though, Crime Dog, I think the veto is only to be used in situations of collusion. That might have been collusion, but you have to be at least fairly certain that it was. Just because someone gets the better end of a deal doesn't make it vetoable.

[Mordraken]

I don't care if its collusion or not, when a trade is made where the two players values are that far apart I say veto it.

Are you being sarcastic (a serious question)?

Would your answer change if these were their numbers at the end of the year:

Young - 77 runs, 9 HRs, 62 RBIs, .262 AVG, 6 SB
Wells - 20 wins, 130 Ks, 3.50 ERA, 1.20 WHIP

Those are very possible, and are almost identical to their 2002 numbers. What if Wells drops his ERA down to about 2.90 and WHIP of 1.15 (in line with Roger Clemen's numbers last year) and ends up winning 25 games? Last year Wells had an ERA .8 higher than the NL Cy Young award winner, a WHIP 0.01 less, and only 6 fewer wins. Now, I'm not saying that Wells will win a Cy Young this year, but he is still a top-40 pitcher (and based on 5 starters per team, that would put him about equal with the top 4 SSs).

If this was September 2004, then yes, you can say it's a bad trade (but not terrible - depending on the situations of both teams). But in March of 2005 prior to spring training, there is NO way you can say this is a terrible trade that should be vetoed....

[xtrm84]

id veto it just cus id try to get young myself!

[bleach168]

From the Cafe cheat sheets,

Wells is the #56 ranked SP.

Young is the #3 ranked SS.

I'd say that's a big gap.

[slomo007]

I don't care if its collusion or not, when a trade is made where the two players values are that far apart I say veto it.

Are you being sarcastic (a serious question)?

Would your answer change if these were their numbers at the end of the year:

Young - 77 runs, 9 HRs, 62 RBIs, .262 AVG, 6 SB
Wells - 20 wins, 130 Ks, 3.50 ERA, 1.20 WHIP

Those are very possible, and are almost identical to their 2002 numbers. What if Wells drops his ERA down to about 2.90 and WHIP of 1.15 (in line with Roger Clemen's numbers last year) and ends up winning 25 games? Last year Wells had an ERA .8 higher than the NL Cy Young award winner, a WHIP 0.01 less, and only 6 fewer wins. Now, I'm not saying that Wells will win a Cy Young this year, but he is still a top-40 pitcher (and based on 5 starters per team, that would put him about equal with the top 4 SSs).

If this was September 2004, then yes, you can say it's a bad trade (but not terrible - depending on the situations of both teams). But in March of 2005 prior to spring training, there is NO way you can say this is a terrible trade that should be vetoed....

That is pretty poor logic....Young was just being discovered 2 years ago as being better than scouts had planned, and Wells was 2 years younger 2 years ago, and on the Yankees.

Face it, this trade is a joke. I don't see any logic whatsoever that shows this is not at least some form of collusion. If you are expecting Arod for David Weathers before vetoing, then it would be awfully easy to collude in your league.

[J35J]

....Now, I'm not saying that Wells will win a Cy Young this year, but he is still a top-40 pitcher....

[stumpak]

I initially thought Veron Wells and said what's the big deal, but Young for fattie David is a raw deal. Still, I don't think it should vetoed unless there is a sign of collusion.

Vet you owners better and this sort of thing should not happen.

[Ajax]

I'd veto the deal only if I were prepared to offer up a far better SP for Young. I'd also post a message explaining my reason for the veto, and state which SP I'd be willing to trade for Young.