Fantasy Trade opinon??

by goblue1 on Dec 31, 2008 4:03 PM EST Comment 12 comments

just wanted to see what everyone thought of a deal that just went down in a league I am a part of. It is a keeper league, no contract values, 6 x 6 with the extra categories beings holds and ops.

team A trades

logan morrison, 1b, fla

chris coughlan, 2b, fla

scott olsen, sp, fla

houston street, rp, col

jeremy jeffress, sp, mil

to team B for:

clayton kershaw, sp, lad

brian fuentes, rp, laa

ian stewart, 2b/3b, col

is this a fair deal? would you veto? thanks for the help.

happy new year!

Poll

veto or no?

no veto! it's fair.

50 votes

veto! team A is getting ripped off.

22 votes

veto! team B is getting ripped off

40 votes

112 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

IMO

Team B is getting raped.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Dec 31, 2008 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

By the way

IT IS veto worthy.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Dec 31, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm confused

I think the team gettng Kersaw was getting ripped off so I voted veto because Team A is getting cheated. Did I confuse them?

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Dec 31, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Team B is getting killed

But its not veto-able, since it looks like there’s at least a rationale, and not collusion. Vetos aren’t for preventing bad deals – just for preventing cheating

by Locke000 on Dec 31, 2008 4:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it is pretty fair. Olson is going to fall on his face in Washington, Coughlan will never really have a chance to start, Street has problems staying healthy, Jeffress might become a reliever, and the best thing I have hear about Morrison is that his ceiling is a Joh Olerud type player.

For team B though, Kershaw is a stud, Fuentes should get a lot of saves replacing the guy who just broke the saves record, and Ian Stewart will be given a chance to start somehwere and will probably tear it up because he will be hitting in Coors.

I think it is fair because once you take out the dead weight(Olson and Coughlan) it is pretty much Jeffress, Street, Morrison, and some average guys for Kershaw, Fuentes, and Stewart.

by joegonzo on Dec 31, 2008 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

regardless of who wins this deal

No veto. Vetoes are dumb (except for in cases of collusion, cheating etc). One owner gets the better of another, more power to ’em.

The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 31, 2008 6:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

veto are used incorrectly

A veto is supposed to be used if there is cheating or collusion. Veto has nothing to do with determining if this is a peceived equal trade.

Is there proof the teams are cheating?

past that, be men about the deal and stop talking veto.

by davidsabin on Dec 31, 2008 8:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Congo Hammer....

Yeah, or if it was a Mistake of a Trade Then You should Veto….

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 31, 2008 9:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not to sound like a broken record

theres no way this trade should be vetoed, its not a a pretty awful trade for team B, but that doesnt make it veto worthy.

veto’s should only be used in cases that scream collusion. Vetos are not a tool to save piss poor owners from themselves, nor should they be used to to block a good owner from improving his team. Just because you couldnt strike up a deal first, doesnt mean you should veto his.

by PHGold09 on Jan 1, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

I have the hardest time getting new owners in the leagues I run and/or play in to understand this fact. They think that veto power in their own personal opinion vote . . . it’s not . . . it is only there for collusion stopping purposes.

by mestifo on Jan 1, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No veto

I don’t mind sounding like a broken record, but I agree with the others. Yes it’s a bad trade for team B, but it sounds like a deal done in fairness with no collusion. You can’t just veto all one-sided trades.

by journeymen on Jan 2, 2009 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Yeah, I don’t like having vetos. Everyone sees and values players differently. They are looking at their teams and trying to do what they see is best. If it were always so black and white, we wouldn’t be having as much fun as we are and coming to sites like this – and the hundreds of others we visit! We wouldn’t always be posting our opinions – which differ quite often.

by discndat on Jan 2, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs