There is no reason to suspect collusion given there is no money on the line in this league. Both players are well-established members of Redszone. This was the 1st trade between the two teams. The league is a dynasty league in its second season.
At the time of the trade, the owner trading away Pujols was in 3rd place and the other owner was in 4th. The vetoing owners were lower in the standings. The vetoing owners didn't ask for or wait for an explanation from the more experienced owners before voting against the trade, which shows they were more interested in protecting their own interests than preventing a rookie owner from being taken advantage of.
According to his Yahoo fantasy profile, the player trading Pujols is certainly no rookie and in fact has a long track record of winning fantasy leagues. He is a very experienced and skilled owner. He knows what it takes to win. He knows the goal is to field a balanced team that is good in all ten categories. He had large leads in all offensive categories except stolen bases. For example, he leads the league in batting average with a .306 AVG while the 2nd place team has a .276 AVG. In RBI he has 293 compared to 255 for the 2nd place team. He also comfortably leads in Runs and Home runs. So he can definitely afford to trade some offense for some pitching. His pitching ranks were awful. Since it is impossible to gain any more points on offense he will have to gain ground in the pitching stats if he wants to win the league. It only made sense to trade a stud hitter to obtain lots of wins, saves, strikeouts and good ratios with a promising young catcher thrown in as well.
Winning a roto league is about obtaining good numbers in every category. You don't win by having players with great "ESPN reputations". It is about the numbers, and you can get good numbers in a variety of ways. This is especially true in a very deep NL-only league where there simply are not enough players to go around. When players get injured the owner is often forced to play with an empty spot in their starting lineup. The top-ranked player on the free agent list is Matt Diaz who is ranked #673 and has only 77 ABs on the season and is owned in only 1% of Yahoo leagues. So an every-day player in the major leagues has a lot of value in an NL-only league with 29 man rosters and 19 starting slots. In our league the key to winning is to maximize your games played by making sure you have someone to fill every starting slot rather than trying to collect the most productive players. Often it is better to have two decent every-day players than one stud player. It is a lot different than a mixed league.
Speaking from my experience as a former Commission and a constant player of keeper and re-draft (on-line and off-line) leagues for 15+ years, I can say that giving the owners the power to veto trades without a majority of them agreeing to it is asking for trouble. And why would the people involved in the trade vote? Their votes can't count as they already agreed to the trade. Where is the other owner that made the offer and why isn't he/she explaining why he voted against his own offer??? My belief is that if you have 10 league 'owners' and you are going to use the 'veto' option (which I will never use again), then at least 5 owners would have to vote against a given trade for it to be vetoed (this would be 5 owners not involved in the trade out of 8; a majority). Ideally, the Commissioner should handle this and in a league like this only trades where collusion is PROVEN should a trade be overturned. No willy-nilly trade vetoing.
Dynasty league...hmmm...I'm in a couple of keeper leagues (13 team in the NL and 12 team in the AL) that are very competitive...it sounds fun if you are there from the start.
Well, let's see. The player trading Pujols lost offensive performance. Not a little, but a lot. Oswalt for Cueto is nearly a wash. which leaves the key to the trade Lidge.
BTW, I've won a few leagues myself, and that sure as hell didn't help the guy getting three players. Now bad trades, and yes, this is a bad trade are part of fantasy baseball. 4th place guy, if he's the one getting the three players isn't going to win this league. 3rd place guy might. sometimes guys give up a bit on their fantasy teams and "try" things. That's one of the problems I have with it. Maybe he thinks Iannetta COULD hit .320 w/ 25 HR's as the catcher, and he wants to gauge his performance for a team he has that actually has a shot at winning.
but yeah, it's a crap trade.
by comparison I traded Wieters, Berkman and Slowey for Beckett, Kazmir and D. Lee.
The guy was willing to wait on Wieters. I had offense to spare and needed pitching. he was in the opposite boat. I ended up dropping Lee a week or so later. I know not every trade is fair and balanced, But I'm not seeing how getting Iannetta, Lidge and Cueto benefits anyone over what was given up.
Last edited by TRF; 05-27-2009 at 03:29 PM.
Raisel Ghul, the Demon's Head
Imagine if real ML baseball used the Yahoo vetoing system. It would probably be impossible to trade a star player or improve your team for the pennant chase. The shenanigans would be wild and crazy. The game would be changed completely.
In Yahoo it is an anonymous vote where only 1/3 of the owners can overturn a trade. So in MLB it would take only 10 teams to shoot down trades. They wouldn't have to give an explanation or a reason, nor would we even know who vetoed the trade. The decisions would be made purely on how the trade affects them, rather than any noble thoughts of protecting one of the participants.
The teams would announce a trade and the fans would all get excited. The players would be held out of action and begin the move to the new team. Then all of a sudden the league would jump in to say the trade has been canceled. Nobody would know why the trade was nullified nor who vetoed it. The fans would be irate. Conspiracy theories would run rampant.
Trades like last year's Sabathia trade would never happen. The NL Central teams and the other contending teams in the NL (and probably the AL too) would have voted against it.
Voting blocs and alliances would form. There would be unwritten agreements between teams to support each other during votes.
The fight between the Yankees and Red Sox would reach new levels as they struggled to veto every trade made by the other.
Imagine the anger and hysteria among Reds fans if the Adam Dunn trade last year had been vetoed by other teams. Marty would have had a stroke.
based on the limited information I don't see the collusion aspect but if I had the opportunity to veto I would. The clear-cut best player in fantasy baseball deserves a much better return regardless of the format or cats. Again, if your league or Yahoo doesn't require discussion or explanation or if none is offered, those owners are free to veto at will. Your anger/disgust is misplaced in my opinion, it should be towards the rules rather than those exercising their right to veto as they wish. I think NJ should be praised for stepping up and offering an explanation when none is required
More often than not, when someone is telling me a story all I can think about is that I can't wait for them to finish so that I can tell my own story that's not only better, but also more directly involves me.
I disagree: if you want to push veto button, you better have the stones to step up and say why you did it; people curling up like a coward under a rock is what makes this function a huge problem in these leagues. But, all the Yahoo Public League crowd thinks this option is for their own personal amusement without recourse. In a league of friends, this option just tears up the league. Responsibility still exists if you push that button (the veto button). In my leagues, cowards aren't welcome; as a commissioner if all 4 owners don't step up with their reasons I would overturn the veto.
As I said before, I didn't vote against it. That means that 4 out of the remaining 9 managers did. (It is NOT only 3 to veto, it is 4 of 10 that must approve a veto). We know AD didn't vote against it, and Basecloggers has said he supported it (not that it was an even trade, but that he wouldn't veto it). We also know that the other manager involved in the trade voted against it, and NJ has also stated why he did. So 2 of the remaining 5 voted it down also, and haven't said anything. I'm fine with that.
To me, it goes back to the initial rules. When there was no rule requiring public voting, and no rule requiring explanations, it is unfair to retroactively impose such a rule now and force a trade through. Of course, if a majority of the managers want to impose those rules for the future, I would certainly agree.
I have also said that if it appears that trades are rountinely vetoed, I will consider changing the approval process from 'league votes, to commissioner decides'. But to my recollection, this is the first trade that has been vetod in the two season that this dynasty league has been running...and at least one has already said he would not vote to overturn it again.
Let's move on.....
ďA healthy Reds team is a strong Reds team"