Vetoable? Young for Wells - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Vetoable? Young for Wells

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Mordraken » Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:23 pm

xtrm84 wrote:id veto it just cus id try to get young myself!


Ah yes... the Ulterior Motive Veto.

You see a trade that makes you say "I'd give more than that to get Young" so you veto the trade and then make an offer to get the player yourself. The owner of Wells who was active enough to make the offer in the first place gets left out because the other owners are now in a better bargaining position because they know what the owner of Young will accept.

Another example - in 2004, what if someone had traded Jason Giambi (a perenial top-3 first baseman) for Johan Santana (a sometimes starter, sometimes middle reliever for the Twins)... I suppose you would veto that as well, and someone would have offered a "better" pitcher than Satana for the great Jason Giambi....
Mordraken
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 382
Joined: 24 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Postby Mordraken » Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:46 pm

slomo007 wrote: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.


Let's take a look at the raw numbers for the past 2 years (since I don't have easy access to stats back 3 years when the difference was even bigger):

2003 Wells - Ranked #41 among starting pitchers. On a "start 5 starters", that would rank him about equal with the 8th best SS

2004 Wells - Ranked #35 among starting pitchers. On a "start 5", that would be about equal to the 7th best SS

2003 Young - ranked as the #6 SS

2004 Young - ranked as the #2 SS

So... based on the numbers, this would be about equivelant of trading Jimmy Rollins or Orlando Cabrerra for Michael Young. Would I do it? No. But this isn't a case where somoene is unloading a useless player (remember - Wells has been VERY consistent for the past few years).

Also, there is a ton of potential out there. Maybe the guy has no SS on his roster, but will pick up Bobby Crosby off waivers (who might go off in 2005 and out-do Micheal Young). Maybe the guy is a David Wells fan... maybe he's a Boston fan. Again, all reasons not to veto a trade...

PS - the #2 SS in 2003 was Edgar Renteria, who ended up ranked #10 in 2004. Given your logic, the 2003 Renteria should not be allowed to be traded for a 2003 David Wells, even though Wells put up better statistical numbers as a pitcher relative to the rest of the league than Renteria did as a SS.
Last edited by Mordraken on Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mordraken
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 382
Joined: 24 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Postby Fireball Express » Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:46 pm

Two people should be allowed to make an agreement. If one person is smarter than the other, so be it. Never veto a trade unless you KNOW the future. I see Wells as a 16 game winner w/ servicable ERA and WHIP.

Never veto a trade out of jealousy. Make a better offer yourself instead.
Image
Fireball Express
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2516
Joined: 17 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Basking in the Sunshine

Postby Onyx » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:43 pm

Spartans Rule wrote:Collusion is the only reason to veto. A lopsided trade alone is not reason to veto - it may be reason to investigate, but not simply shoot it down.


;-D
Onyx
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 141
Joined: 6 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Postby Subversive » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:46 pm

What's the point of playing fantasy baseball if you can't prove you're 'smarter' then the next guy? I hate hate hate vetoing trades and will only do it under extreme duress. My advice is to let the trade go, and do your best for the rest of the season to fleece the guy who's getting Wells. Someone has to get last.
Bah, humbug.
Subversive
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 437
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Alberta

Postby slomo007 » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:59 pm

Mordraken wrote:
slomo007 wrote: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.


Let's take a look at the raw numbers for the past 2 years (since I don't have easy access to stats back 3 years when the difference was even bigger):

2003 Wells - Ranked #41 among starting pitchers. On a "start 5 starters", that would rank him about equal with the 8th best SS

2004 Wells - Ranked #35 among starting pitchers. On a "start 5", that would be about equal to the 7th best SS

2003 Young - ranked as the #6 SS

2004 Young - ranked as the #2 SS

So... based on the numbers, this would be about equivelant of trading Jimmy Rollins or Orlando Cabrerra for Michael Young. Would I do it? No. But this isn't a case where somoene is unloading a useless player (remember - Wells has been VERY consistent for the past few years).

Also, there is a ton of potential out there. Maybe the guy has no SS on his roster, but will pick up Bobby Crosby off waivers (who might go off in 2005 and out-do Micheal Young). Maybe the guy is a David Wells fan... maybe he's a Boston fan. Again, all reasons not to veto a trade...

PS - the #2 SS in 2003 was Edgar Renteria, who ended up ranked #10 in 2004. Given your logic, the 2003 Renteria should not be allowed to be traded for a 2003 David Wells, even though Wells put up better statistical numbers as a pitcher relative to the rest of the league than Renteria did as a SS.


Point taken, but if he really thought that highly of Wells.....assuming the draft just took place in the last few weeks:

Why in his right mind would he not draft Wells about 15 rounds later than Young? If he really likes Wells so much, and expects him to produce that well even though the season hasn't started and Wells has numerous warning signs around him....then I would think he could have spared a 18th round pick for him. Call me crazy, but I smell something strange going on here. I never said I would flat out veto....I said I would veto UNLESS the owner receiving Wells couldn't put out a decent argument with his logic. I don't think he can personally.
slomo007
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle Eye
Posts: 11960
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rich101682 » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:34 pm

The same 2 teams have done LoDuca for Mauer with the guy getting M. Young getting Mauer. 2 trades in one day. Any more reason to suspect?
rich101682
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 841
(Past Year: 55)
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby GEBaseball3 » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:39 pm

i would take Wells, becuase you know he isnt on steroids!!! No i would let the trade go but if something happens like it again i would veto
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.
-Archie Griffen, two-time Heisman winner
GEBaseball3
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 163
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Kansas

Postby Tavish » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:44 pm

Spartans Rule wrote:
rich101682 wrote:I'm thinking of posting a message for the guy trading Young to ask what the deally-o is. Thanks for the help everyone.


That's always the best way. Communicate with your owners. If the guy is desperate for pitching and deluding himself in to thinking that Wells is still a top pitcher, then don't veto. He deserves to lose Young.

Collusion is the only reason to veto. A lopsided trade alone is not reason to veto - it may be reason to investigate, but not simply shoot it down.

I suppose some trades are de facto collusion and you need to take swift action. Like say, Helton and Santana for Doug Waechter. But this does not fall in to that category. It's a bad trade, but it could be made by someone who is trying to get better but just isn't very bright. That's why you talk to the guy and find out his thinking.


Absolutely. More often than not you can find out if it is collusion or just plain idiocy by talking to the owners involved.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11067
(Past Year: 34)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby BitterDodgerFan » Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:36 am

i agree that for the most part collusions should call for vetoes. early in the season, however such trades should be less tolerable than later in the season. last year, towards the end of the year in my league, i was in 7th place or so and really wanted to move up. i was offering trades of very good players for stats i desperately needed. of course it wasn't an even trade but i was willing to give up my goods justs to make up some categories that i had a chance in catching up. the trades all got vetoed because the owners thought it was not equal value. such things should be less tolerable because later in the season, there are stats that some people need desperately and are willing to give up more than they will get but that stat means more to them than it means to other people. plus what can you do if you try to make near equal trades and it gets all rejected? however, early in the season when no stats have accumulated, it is more understandable that such trades get shot down. i mean there are always pitchers in the waivers that nobody drafts that goes on to have fabulous years. to resort to trading a top SS for an old fat pitcher shows hes not so smart..
BitterDodgerFan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 6508
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: City of Grigori

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: twistedude and 13 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Jul. 31
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi White Sox at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Colorado at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
St. Louis at San Diego
(3:40 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
LA Angels at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Atlanta at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact