Vetoable? Young for Wells

[Mordraken]

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]

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.

[Fireball Express]

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.

[Onyx]

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.

[Subversive]

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.

[slomo007]

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.

[rich101682]

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?

[GEBaseball3]

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

[Tavish]

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.

[BitterDodgerFan]

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..