Fantasy Baseball Trade Review Help

by jbrobe04 on Jul 24, 2010 12:14 PM EDT

Team A gets

Team B gets

Is this trade LM vetoable? If not, can it in good faith be at least voted against? Or do you allow it/vote for it?

If the specifics factor in, Team A is that annoying guy who's trade proposals you aren't even opening anymore because they're all of the same quality as Jay Bruce and Andres Torres for Miguel Cabrera. Team A is in 7th place (on the cusp of the playoffs) and Team B is in 11th place and 26 games out. 12 team league, 3 keepers.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not Vetoable

I am a firm believer that trades should not be vetoed unless they are literally horrible. Sure, I would rather have player A’s side.

But look at it this way. ESPN ranks Fielder No. 22, Carpenter 51. In a 12-team league Stubbs is above replacement value and Hunter probably is too. While I don’t know the details, it might make sense for Team B’s needs.

Follow me @TheRealSethW

by Seth Walder on Jul 24, 2010 12:45 PM EDT reply actions

+1

I hate leagues where trades are voted on….but team B appears to have a couple decent keeps there. But, I don’t know who else he has on his team. on the face of it, appears fair.

raygu
www.faketeams.com
www.sbnation.com

by Ray Guilfoyle on Jul 24, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions

I would say that trade is probably reasonable, it just depends on the keepers. I see it’s only 3 per team, so only Carpenter is really a keeper option here for team B (at least we would hope so anyway). I probably ignore that and let it go through.

Jason's Baseball Blog

Follow me on Twitter

Writer at FakeTeams

by Jason Hunt on Jul 24, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

I am very laissez-faire in keeper league trading. I assume that everyone in a good league knows how to run his or her own team, and their decisions are their own to make. Sure, it sucks that Annoying Guy gets the best player in the deal, and might make the playoffs because of it, but that’s the way the game goes.

Definitely not veto-able, even if most people in the league don’t particularly like it.

by pooptallica on Jul 25, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

My 2 cents worth is it is difficult to speculate whether this trade is fair or not. Prince is having a bad year rbi- wise because he’s on a bad team. Carpenter probably has Dr. James Andrews on speed dial. Drew is streaky but decent, Hunter is pretty nice. If a person is protecting any of the three (Carp, Stubbs, Hunter) in a 12 team league then odds are the team is not very good. Fielder is a protectable type player but is not worth the Carp, Stubbs, Hunter package IMO unless the receiving team is pretty sold in pitching. Either package could put a receiving team over the top though.

If you don’t like the trade because it hurts your chances of winning your league then vote against it. Don’t try to come up with some sort of unfairness argument because there really isn’t one. Just look out for #1 and let everyone else know where you stand. We hear about trades being veto’d for this or that all the time. Sometimes a veto is because of unfairness but 90% of the time a veto is because the trade hurts the voter’s chances of winning the league – and there is some BS unfairness tag asserted as the reason.

by acr on Jul 24, 2010 2:48 PM EDT reply actions

Seems fair enough to me. Don't see any reason to veto it.

by bezeerk on Jul 25, 2010 5:56 PM EDT reply actions

Veto's

I think if there is a right to veto a trade it should only be held by certain teams. No team in last place should able to veto anything- unless there has been an unusual rash of injuries, a team manager in last place does not have the intelligence to decide whether a trade is fair or not. I would propose that only managers with a .500 record or better should be allowed to veto anything.

by acr on Jul 25, 2010 10:38 PM EDT reply actions