Sign in to follow this  
CrypTviLL

Do I veto this trade as the Commish?

Recommended Posts

League Settings: WEEKLY setting 12 team H2H

R/HR/RBI/NSB/OBP/SLG
W/K/ERA/WHIP/NSV/ (K/BB)

Relatively deeper rosters (30 men on a team, 3 DL, 1 NA)

The trade:

Team A Gets: Aaron Judge and Jacob DeGrom

Team B Gets: Rasiel Iglesias, Luke Voit, Max Fried, Chris Paddack, Asdrubal Cabrera

 

Notes: That's a pretty awful trade. Jacob DeGrom is worth all 5 of those and more IMO.

Team A has also made some rather crazy trades as well with a different owner. 

Prior to the season he tried to trade Travis Shaw, Randall Grichuk, and Will Smith for Mookie Betts and Chad Green.
I actually vetoed that trade and set the rosters back for just how awful this trade was (people on here confirmed my veto belief). 

He also made this trade last week, but it's more reasonable IMO: He gets Chris Sale and gave up Will Smith+Tyler Glasnow. No problem here.

 

What do you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough call.  He seems to just be really dumb.  You cant blame him for being dumb,  it’s the other owners that make trades with these guys that ruin fantasy baseball. I hate guys that make these trades and then brag about how shrewd they are.  As far as vetoing goes, you have to let  the league do it, not you.  It’s an awful trade in my opinion,but I can kind of understand it at least.  It’s not like it’s degrom for matz.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not big on vetoes.  But you've already set the precedent.  Since you've gone both ways regarding his trades (with apparent league approval), I'd say you're alright to cancel this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jahweedum said:

I assume it's a keeper?  If not, then you certainly allow the trade because of Judges injury

No, not a keeper.

So you think the 5 guys there are good enough for DeGrom alone? The Judge injury here and the DeGrom struggles is the only reason this is in question and not an outright veto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CrypTviLL said:

No, not a keeper.

So you think the 5 guys there are good enough for DeGrom alone? The Judge injury here and the DeGrom struggles is the only reason this is in question and not an outright veto. 

 

It's not a good trade by any means.  Do you have any reason to expect foul play other than you don't like the trade?  What places are the teams in? Does the trade benefit the teams? 

 

In redraft I think you let people play their teams for the most part.  I offered Luke Voit AND Josh Donaldson for Hunter Dozier early last week after someone grabbed him a few minutes before me.  It was a 'bad' trade - but I didn't need Donaldson and wasn't planning on playing him long when I drafted him, and it opened up a bench spot early in a league where we have small benches.

 

Judge doesn't have a time table yet even and sometimes owners would rather play to get ahead early, than wait to catch up late.  Anyway, just some random thoughts - if you do veto, make sure most everyone in your league agrees though 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im never one to veto but this trade is absolutely vetoable. You cant give up TWO top 10 guys for a bunch of guys that most likely werent even initially drafted. Not to say theyre not valuable at the moment - Im just sayin.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more opinions would be helpful here. I appreciate all your comments.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bandito said:

I'm not big on vetoes.  But you've already set the precedent.  Since you've gone both ways regarding his trades (with apparent league approval), I'd say you're alright to cancel this one.

 

What he said.  Totally agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Not vetoable,  both judge and degrom are hurt.  Paddock could very well end the season ranked higher then degrom. Not collusion and not vetoable at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like 2 people are for NO Veto and the small majority are for the veto. Would like more discussion before I act on this. Any further thoughts from other members? Thanks for your help guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of the veto unless you think two teams are colluding. The veto doesn't exist to allow people to decide what's best for everyone else's teams.Would I do that trade for my team? Hell no but again... if you don't believe these guys are working together to ruin the league then you have to let it go through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for vetoing unless there's collusion involved. However, when there's a trade so heavily lopsided, like this one, I think you have no choice but to veto. Allowing such terrible trades to go through will ruin the integrity of your league. You can no longer draw the line on any trade.

 

5 for 2 trades shouldn't even be allowed. Not only is he getting the 2 best players by a long shot, but he also gets to pick up 3 FA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jahweedum said:

 

It's not a good trade by any means.  Do you have any reason to expect foul play other than you don't like the trade?  What places are the teams in? Does the trade benefit the teams? 

 

In redraft I think you let people play their teams for the most part.  I offered Luke Voit AND Josh Donaldson for Hunter Dozier early last week after someone grabbed him a few minutes before me.  It was a 'bad' trade - but I didn't need Donaldson and wasn't planning on playing him long when I drafted him, and it opened up a bench spot early in a league where we have small benches.

 

Judge doesn't have a time table yet even and sometimes owners would rather play to get ahead early, than wait to catch up late.  Anyway, just some random thoughts - if you do veto, make sure most everyone in your league agrees though 

I agree with this. Its a hidious trade but unless you really feel there is collusion you let it go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not veto able .  Degrom is better.  The other pitchers  will average more.  wins  and k's per week .  Judge is not going to win you anything for at least a month more.  Of course maybe you playing him next week .

Edited by srf1957
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I am (for the most part) a 'no collision, no veto' guy.  By my answer earlier, I was saying that you've already vetoed at least one trade. So you've already shown that you seem to be a 'for the good of the league' guy, and not necessarily a 'collusion only' guy. Using that framework, you should veto because it's a pretty lop-sided deal. Now, there is the question of how long Judge will be out.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrypTviLL said:

Seems like 2 people are for NO Veto and the small majority are for the veto. Would like more discussion before I act on this. Any further thoughts from other members? Thanks for your help guys!

Judge is done until waaaaay after the all star break and degrom just had an mri or his elbow.  Degrom is valuable when healthy but I really think he hits the DL for a very long time soon. 

 

To to be honest the guy dumping degrom and judge might be making the best move of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bandito said:

Just to be clear, I am (for the most part) a 'no collision, no veto' guy.  By my answer earlier, I was saying that you've already vetoed at least one trade. So you've already shown that you seem to be a 'for the good of the league' guy, and not necessarily a 'collusion only' guy. Using that framework, you should veto because it's a pretty lop-sided deal. Now, there is the question of how long Judge will be out.......

Thanks for the thoughts. Just to clear up my stance on it:

I cancelled a trade prior to the season starting and almost directly after the auction draft. Mookie went for near $60 in the draft and he was trading him for sub-$10 worth in value. That to me was completely asinine after the draft. 

This trade in question occurs early-mid season where both superstars are injured so IMO it's a lot more reasonable. 

I would have given this guy significantly better players compared to the absolute trash he got back in return and I think just about everybody would as well which is why there is an inkling of a veto here just for sanity and integrity of the league. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First question: Is there evidence of collusion?  If yes, immediately veto regardless of how fair/unfair the trade is.

Second question: Is the trade so unbalanced as to distort the league's competitiveness for the rest of this year?  IMO, the answer is definitely no (i.e. no veto) in this case.

Judge has a "significant" oblique injury.  To my non-expert ear that sounds like 6-8 weeks, with risk of sapped power thereafter. With nearly 400 players owned in your league and replacement-level being quite low, it's possible that Luke Voit puts up comparable counting stats the rest of the way.  Say, .270 / 22 HR / 65 RBI from now through the end of the season. That's a fair expectation for both.

Assuming Asdrubal is useless, that means the trade comes down to Fried, Paddack and Iglesias for deGrom.  That's a classic sell-high on Fried and Paddack. I sure as heck wouldn't fall for it, but I can see a how a novice owner could think they are doing the right thing by trading a faltering deGrom for a high-flying Fried plus some additional value in Paddack and Iglesias.

Dumb trade? Yeah. Totally outrageous? No.

Edited by Ben Edelman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is anyone ever going to get evidence of collusion? Unless you go through cellphones or have a recording of the collusion discussion taking place it ain’t happening.  This isn’t the mueller report. It’s one guy that found the pool idiot  and took advantage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.