Fantasy Baseball: Must We Always Allow Even Trades?
by acr on May 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
Email
PrintSo there are a few unwritten rules of ethics involved in fantasy baseball. One of which is not to vote against even trades. Who came up with this? In every league I have ever been involved in this unwritten rule existed- kinda like the unwritten rule in the real game not to steal signs.
A NL only h2h league I have this year had a couple owners with an agreed upon trade: Ted Lilly straight up for Ryan Howard. Seems a little iffy to me. But the two owners thought it was fair. It was vetoed by the league. Then came the mesage board posts- mainly with the Howard owner claiming that NL only leagues are usually won by the team with the best pitching staff. And because of that Howard for Lilly is actually fair. The trade was proposed again and this time it went through with a couple objections.
I asked myself, who cares if it's fair? Here we have an owner saying pitching rules NL only leagues yet he decided to draft Ryan Howard instead of a starting pitcher. Now he wants to trade for pitching to make his team better. The Lilly owner may have a need at first as well. But why should all the other teams in the league be obligated to approve these two teams getting stronger?
It seems to be a classic finger pointing argument- if you veto a fair trade you are obviously a jerk who knows nothing about the unwritten rules of the game. So trades go through and the teams get stronger. I am not really buying into it. And I would appreciate comments from others.
28 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Trades
There are always perceptions about them. You never know what is really going to happen in the end.
I have not been able to execute a trade in my league because i’ve been in first the majority of the season. Every single trade I have had accepted has been vetoed.
I hate to veto trades.
But barring injury there is no way Lilly outperforms Howard. If he wanted pitching he should have targeted somebody a lot better than Ted Lilly.
IMO...
You can’t veto a trade unless there is obvious collusion. If you don’t think it’s fair and you want to veto it, then it means that you’re just jealous that you didn’t get to the sucker first. Your loss.
Veto
I’d have vetoed a 1st round hitter for a mid-round starting pitcher. No debate necessary.
If you allow vetoes, you have to live with the consequences of getting a trade vetoed.
So...
just because one owner is blatantly getting the better end of the deal, it means it can’t go through? What’s the logic behind your stance?
Yeah
If you give me the right to vote for or against a trade, I will exercise that right. Isn’t the whole point of the veto to stop the lopsided trade?
No
I think the point of the veto is to stop collusion. I don’t think it’s intended to prevent unfair trading.
Then....
…the question should be asked whether or not you believe the trade is a result of collusion. Right now, that is not what is acted on. It is the perceived fairness of the deal.
How one comes to that conclusion – personal valuation of pieces, principle, or how it hurts my standings – is left entirely to the voter.
OK
You believe it is within your right to veto a deal based on fairness, which I agree with. The veto option does not specify what constitutes grounds for a veto. You are correct in that regard. I guess my question is this: if a league you were in wanted to abolish the ability to veto a deal, except in the case that there was OBVIOUS collusion, would you support this?
Define
What is obvious collusion? Is it like porn – you know when you see it?
I was offered Chad Qualls for Ryan Howard and then offered Qualls for Lincecum after I countered. If I accepted, wouldn’t that look like collusion?
Well...
that’s really here nor there I think. Are you saying you suspect the Lilly for Howard deal, for example, was fishy? If there is any possible semblance of a strategy behind the trade then it is not collusion. I suppose your porn analogy is probably true.
Hell yes
Abolish the veto!!
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on May 15, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Define lopsided
Do you already know what’s going to happen for the remainder of the 2009 season? If not, I’m not sure how you know that a trade is lopsided…
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on May 15, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
vetoing
Vetoing trades without proof of obvious collusion is idiotic. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean you can veto it. Could Billy Beane “vote” against a trade between Walt Jocketty and Omar Minaya? Of course not.
You people sound like 13 year olds.
Agree 100%. Unless there is proof of obvious, blatant collusion....
…..I don’t see how you can veto the Howard for Lilly deal.
You just need to go make a trade of your own now to better your own team.
The Artist formerly known as "DenverCardsFan" .
Go Nuggets!
a couple comments
Can Billy Beane “vote” against a trade between Walt Jocketty and Omar Minaya? Not really because he does not have the means to do so. If he had the means, would he do it? Maybe so. I believe MLB trades after the trade deadline forces the players involved (not the Player to be named later types) to pass through waivers first. In the past there have been MLB clubs claim a player on waivers just to not allow them to be traded. The reason for claiming the player was to prevent another MLB club from acquiring the player later via trade and becoming a stronger team.
Also, trades involving a certain dollar amount (maybe $1 million?) must pass the Commissioner’s approval. Though I don’t remember one not being approved.
This is all just discussion. But it brings up some good points. Is there an ethical duty to allow any “even” trade even when it means one or two other teams in your league will become stronger? Are other teams in the league ethically obligated to allow this to happen? Maybe there should be rules to allow any trade or no trades at all? I know that takes some of the fun out of the game. But if a trade is shot down by veto do the complaining parties really have much of a gripe? Maybe they should have drafted better? Of course, losing a key player due to injury then trying to compensate via trade is a whole different issue.
by acr on May 8, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Vetoes
That is the problem with allowing vetoes… it allows the individuals who have a personal stake in the ultimate standings to undo it. You should be on an honor system to approve a “fair trade” whatever that is?
But our league is an auction league with keepers and we do not veto trades altho we have had outrageous trades over the years.
Vetoes
That’s why we play the game…..just like real baseball, the commissioner would step in when a team is tanking their season and having a fire sale (Oakland A’s in the mid 70’s dumping Joe Rudi etc). Other than that…. it’s all part of the game.
I’ve had tons of trades rejected based upon what a guy did last year…. God forbid you tried to trade A-rod for anybody else. If it seems like I offered a fair trade, I post a message to the league explaining the pros and cons of it… sometimes they agree… sometimes they don’t and I live with the decision.
Anytime you veto a trade you risk retaliation of the people involved… so why have trades at all? Because fantasy baseball is “fantasy” and you are “pretending” to be a general manager…..and real GM’s get to make trades.
Interesting article about blocking real trades in MLB
The link is below. Players such as Andruw Jones and Randy Myers have been claimed on waivers just to block a trade which could make a rival team stronger.
Quotes- Detroit Tigers President Dave Dombrowski says. “You might not really want him but were just trying to make sure they couldn’t make a trade.”
“Take Atlanta Braves center fielder Andruw Jones. Earlier this month the New York Post reported the Braves put him on waivers and the New York Yankees were one of four teams to put in a claim.
The Yankees had no place for him but made the claim to keep the Boston Red Sox from going after the All-Star."
“The Toronto Blue Jays had Randy Myers, the relief pitcher, and they put him on waivers,” Gillick says. “San Diego thought they’d block him from going to another team (Atlanta). (Myers) was sitting on a $12 million contract, so Toronto let him go to San Diego even though they didn’t want him.”
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/columnist/bodley/2006-08-28-bodley-trades_x.htm
I'm with the camp that says...
…a veto is only for collusion. (Forgive me for switching to NFL for a sec.) This fall, a Matt Forte for Randy Moss trade was vetoed in one of my leagues because it was “unfair” (Moss was thought to be good and Forte unproven). Matt Forte then proceeded to run wild and Moss, well, wasn’t quite the same without Brady. Point being, we may THINK we know more than some other owner, but perhaps we’re wrong. And unless collusion is happening, we let the trade go through and find out who is right. Lily for Howard? I’d rather have Howard. But then again, I also would have preferred Moss over Forte back in Sept. of 2008. So what do I know?
veto
i would not play in a league that would allow vetoes outside of obvious collusion. there are just way too many gray areas when it comes to player valuation, roster needs, etc…i have been in a mixed league for 9 years…and have won it 4 times…would it really be fair for someone who has never won/finished in the money, to veto a trade of mine, thinking i got a bad deal…
Trading as a religion?
There is something sacred about trading which does not seem to apply to any other aspect of fantasy baseball. Think about it. During a snake draft if it is time for your selection it is appropriate to check the needs of the other rosters to consider which player you should select. Even if your team does not need a particular position filled it is appropriate to select a position player many other teams need. That just increases the selected player’s value. You are kinda screwing the other drafters, but it’s considered fair game. When you make your selection do you have an obligation to ensure that all the other teams in the league have strong rosters? Hell no. That’s not even an argument.
When a player comes up on the waiver wire there is usually an order in most leagues based on the draft. The person who picked last in the first round usually has first dibs on waiver claims. That’s not the case in all leagues, but many of them. When a free agent pops up on the waiver wire does the entire league have an obligation to allow the team with the most need to have first shot at the free agent? I don’t think so.
Trading is different. A trade usually increases the strength of one or both teams involved relative to the other teams in the league. But there is an unwritten rule to allow this to happen.
If it's within the rules, then I say play to win
Malcolm Gladwell on this concept.
If somebody doesn’t like my veto then next season they can implement a veto the veto rule because I’m being “dishonorable”. :)
Veto
Vetos should not be allowed. If two people agree that a trade will make each of their teams better, what does it matter what the rest of the league thinks? Most people veto trades for BS reasons, e.g., not wanting a team in front of them in the standings to get better, and not for legitimate reasons (if any legitimate reason to veto a trade exists).
Here’s an idea: if a league does allow managers to veto trades, any person who chooses to exercise his veto power should be forced to do so publicly and forced to explain his reasoning for the veto. Then, the league members should be allowed to vote on that person’s decision to veto; that would at least allow for a check and balance.
I refuse to play in leagues that allow vetos because I think the veto power gets abused more often than not. I can’t see any reasonable justification for allowing vetos.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
Agree
If the veto is an option, then you must live with the fact others will vote as it helps their team – not the trade is close enough or its merits. The only way to avoid it is to not have it. Everything else is subjective.
Agree x2
If it’s there, and there are no guidelines or restrictions, then you have to be prepared to have deals vetoed based on your peers personal agendas. It is within the rules of the league, and although it is a faux pas in my opinion, you have to be prepared for it to happen.
Agree x3
You need a strong commissioner instead of one that wusses out by allowing votes.
I can’t imagine being in some of you guys’s leagues. I’m in a dynasty auction league that is EXTREMELY active, with 8 minor league roster spots.
Our hot-stove action starts right after NFL Week 16, and trading is active and heavy year around. There’s been over 100 trades this year alone.
Although I’ve only done about 12 this year, mostly for prospects, I would say I’ve got some kind of trade discussions or inquiries going on 5-7 days a week. We have had very, very few trading problems, just a couple of times guys questioned a trade, but none have ever been reversed for collusion.
As for whoever complained that they vetoed a trade because it made both teams better, I say what the heck? That is what you are SUPPOSED to do with trades. If someone else is getting better, then maybe you need to get on the horn with your other owners and try and improve yourself as well, instead of moaning and groaning about others.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
