Dawgpound 1613 wrote:TheYanks04 wrote:Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.
I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.
Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:
So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).
Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.
You would still veto the trade?
You are telling me that the best the Pujols owner can get is Crisp and Baez? Come on. Even in a ten team league I am sure you would find 6 other owners willing to pay more than that for the #1-3 rated player in MLB. Stupidity to that extent is simply ridiculous and just because some moron comes along willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from a passer by does not mean it has to be allowed. Get something resembling fair value. It does not have to be equal, but something that lopsided gets the ax, I do not care what BS is spun.