Jack-In-A-Box wrote:The only players on this guys team from Draft day are Schmidt,Mantei. Everyone else he got from basically the guy who loves Redsox players. No cheating involved.. he just happend to have a lot of Redsox players and so to trading they went. Now this is the lineup he has in a 10 team league. What fun is fighting for 2nd place? Those of you out there that think 2nd place is fun, then you let your league allow way lopsided trades to go through.. AS LONG AS YOU MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CHEATING THO!
So if the Red Sox fan had kept his team intact then he'd have the team that would have dominated the league? So isn't it a matter of who you'd be fighting for 2nd place behind?
Yankfan, you raise an interesting point about standards for public vs. private leagues.
In public leagues where you don't know anyone, I think that vetoing a trade that is extremely lopsided can be justified by trying to maintain league integrity (or hell, just for strategic purposes!). However, if it's a private league, then you shouldn't veto unless you have grounds for thinking there is collusion, cheating or something else that threatens the integrity of the league.
Collusion or other kinds of cheating are obvious grounds for vetoing a trade. What about other trades that threaten the integrity of a league? I think that the test here is whether a manager is sincerely trying to compete. Trading Bonds for Bernie may not be a good
trade, but it doesn't mean that the manager getting Bernie isn't trying to compete. (Maybe he thinks Bonds has hit the wall, and that Bernie has a few more good years left in him, I don't know.)
In a private league, the commissioner has to play an active role. Presumably they know all the members of the league well enough to know whether they are acting in a competitive manner. But you have to respect other managers autonomy as long as they are not violating the spirit of the game. Some managers enjoy having certain players on their team and are willing to pay a premium for it.
I used to be quicker to veto trades, but then many of the trades I thought should have been vetoed turned out to benefit the player I thought was getting screwed. I decided I wasn't as smart as I had thought, and am now very hesitant to veto a trade just because I think it's not fair. It has to be extremely lopsided before I think it calls for a veto.
Biggio and Day for Bagwell? Is this a 'needs' trade? Biggio is a decent player to stick in at 2nd, and Day has pitched well. I certainly wouldn't do this trade, but I'm not sure that it is necessarily vetoable. It depends on each team's roster and whether you think that both teams consider this trade an improvement of their squads. Consider this: Bagwell is the 10th ranked 1B in Yahoo, Biggio is the 9th ranked 2B and Day is the 50th ranked SP. If you are stacked at first, and desperately need a 2B, then you might be forced to pay high.