by CBMGreatOne » Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:45 pm
Couple of things.
Amazinz, you are right, everybody has slightly different ideas of value. Winning managers are the ones who take risks occasionally, but stay fairly grounded in their knowledge of the game and temper their risks with their calculated moves.
I'm all for taking risks too, but picking Tim Hudson with the first overall pick is not advisable to anyone, under any circumstances, though the pick could turn out to be exactly what the future seasonal numbers dictate would have been most appropriate.
There are only a couple of rules about vetoes that I hold as FAIRLY ironclad. One of them concerns the time period between the draft and opening day, during which time I personally am much more conservative in what I feel is allowable.
Immediately following the daft, I will not allow players to trade picks that were made markedly earlier than another player's picks (as long as the picks were made in appropriate rounds). While the exact parameters can never be perfectly defined an example of a trade I would definitely veto is something like this:
Team A gives: Mark Mulder (Round 5) and Jose Reyes (Round 7) for Team B's: Miguel Tejada (Round 2) and Mike Mussina (Round 4)
You'll notice that Team B could have simply selected each of the players he's trading for at or later than the positions he drafted the players he's giving away. This shows abysmal preparation for the draft and poor judgment after the draft. While we can't necessarily expect adequate draft preparation, this is a clear example of the "moron factor."
I hate to use a harsh term, but clearly poor decisions were made somewhere along the line, and allowing this trade to go through doesn't help matters. Meanwhile, just like that Manager A has a team made up of players drafted in rounds 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 8, etc. (Team B is now in a hole at 1, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7 etc.)
Don't underestimate how much even this can change the nature of the league, often for the worse. Team A now has 6 picks in the first four rounds. Team B is left with 2!!! This can't be a good move for Team B, and is probably bad for the whole league.
In some situations it's less clear cut, for example, in our Cafe League a manager traded Manny Ramirez (1st round pick) and Jerome Williams (15th round pick) for Kevin Brown (5th round pick) and Milton Bradley (10th round pick).
Here, although you could make a case for this being a fair trade, I personally see it as veto-worthy. There is a scientific method for determining the value of draft selections predraft, and though I can't tell you precisely how it is figured or how to come up with it (I've only seen the software and used it briefly), I can say that the approximate value of a first round pick is MUCH greater than the combined value of a fifth and tenth round pick. It is actually closer to something like a 2 and a 4, a 2 and a 3, or a 3 and a 4, depending on whether the 1 is early or late, and whether the later picks were early or late.
With a 5 and a 10 being so far behind that, I feel a veto is in order. On the other hand, while I feel that a 3 and a 5 or a 3 and a 6 for a first rounder is lopsided, in this situation I would let it pass. I would probably even let worse trades like a 4 and a 6 or a 3 and an 8 pass. It's all a matter of judgment, and again, it must be clearly lopsided.
To simplify, I often look at the draft position and determine whether the trade would have been lopsided removing the names and considering only the position where they were drafted (again, the players must have been drafted in APPROPRIATE rounds).
For instance, if someone offered you their 2nd, 6th and 10th picks for your 1st, 3rd, and 5th picks before the draft, would you accept? Well of course you wouldn't, so why wouldn't you expect the other members of your league to be upset just because these picks have names attached to them now?
Other trades that deserve a review are the two classic fantasy sucker plays that fantasy managers see ALL the time. (If you can get away with them in your league, I STRONGLY suggest you try them, if you like this kind of action).
Sucker play #1- Good player + marginal player (nearly waiver wire quality) = Stud player (top 2 or 3 rounds)
Every league I play in one or more of these goes through. Not all should be vetoed, but some deserve a look. For instance, how about a?: Team A gives: Jose Vidro + Juan Gonzalez
Team B gives: Vlad Guerrerro.
Popular defense: "But Team B's second baseman is Junior Spivey, and if Juan Gonzalez stays healthy, it helps his team."
OK, I see where these defenders are going with this one, but consider the heist relative to draft position. Vlad Guerrerro was selected in round 1 or early in round 2, and Team A has only given Team B his tenth and 20th round picks for him. Allow or Veto?
In this case I say veto, though a veto is not necessarily automatic, it depends on the atmosphere of the league. If it's a serious league with a lot of tough players, don't expect that it'll ever go through.
I would allow it if it were closer, say something like Jeff Kent and Jim Edmonds for Todd Helton (I wouldn't expect any cafe member to make this trade, but if someone did, at least they're giving up two legitimate players)
Sucker Play #2- Marginal Hitter + Lower Tier Closer = Stud
Again, a trade I used to make all the time (or at least attempt) only problem is, if the players in your league are dumb enough to accept these trades, it probably isn't worth playing in this league in the first place.
Example: Team A gives Frank Thomas and Rocky Biddle
Team B gives Albert Pujols.
Perhaps Team B has ZERO closers, and perhaps his team name is ChiTownSluggers. I've seen it before.
Popular defense: "But he can't win without closers and Biddle had 35 saves last year. Frank is going to hit forty HRs again, I'm not even sure HE isn't getting the better of the deal."
Yeah, but he picked Pujols 2nd overall, and you gave him your 10th and 20th picks. Veto or Approve?
No question in my mind it's a veto.
And again, it is still allowable if it's closer, even if lopsided.
Perhaps a trade like Mark Teixeira and Armando Benitez for Richie Sexson. Sexson side still makes out pretty big, getting what could have been a 3rd round pick for what figure to have been picks around numbers 7 and 13, but at least they are giving up SOMETHING of value.
When the season starts however, more variables are introduced. Now we have numbers to play with too. This clouds the differences in value and makes trades harder to evaluate objectively. While my above rules still apply as far as I'm concerned, the cloudier the situation, the more doubt is introduced, and the more doubt is introduced, the less inclined I am to veto.
Of course, if somebody tries to trade Dontrelle Willis for Curt Schilling in the second week of the season after Willis throws fifteen scoreless innings, I'm still probably going to veto, but when Colon throw's a shutout and Kerry Wood gets shelled, and they all of a sudden get swapped, I'm not going to give it a second thought.
OK, that was more than a couple things, and certainly more than 2 cents, but it pretty well wraps up my philosophy.
/snoopy.gif){kind=small}
).
