Veto worthy trade? (1 Viewer)

[kevjones22]

Carl Crawford for Cody Ross, Rich Harden, and Andre Ethier.

The team who is giving up Crawford is in a great need of OF depth and SP. Should this trade be allowed, both parties are agreeing to it but the commish is being difficult...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I personally wouldn't trade away Crawford for that trio, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen. No reason for the commish to veto it, IMO.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I personally wouldn't trade away Crawford for that trio, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen. No reason for the commish to veto it, IMO.

 

[chet]

only veto if there's collusion

 

[Mr.Pack]

only veto if there's collusion

While this for the most part, is 100% true in FF, in FB sometimes guys take real advantage of others who are just playing for fun, and really throw the competitive balance of the league out of whack.However this trade isn't veto-worthy

 

[cheese]

I'm with the majority here. Good deal for the guy getting Crawford, but the deal should go through.

 

[Greco]

deal good. commish bad.

 

[trogg78]

If you are worried about trades like that, why don't you just not allow owners to trade players?

 

[shuke]

only veto if there's collusion

While this for the most part, is 100% true in FF, in FB sometimes guys take real advantage of others who are just playing for fun, and really throw the competitive balance of the league out of whack.However this trade isn't veto-worthy

How is FB different from FF?

 

[Captain Hook]

Are there no trade rules in this league?

Leagues that allow trading should have very specific rules about what is legal and what is not and take the Commish out of decision making.

Agree with all those who have said there should be no Veto votes unless there is some suggestion of collusion.

The trade is fine and should be put through.

There is always "TRADE COURT" at www.fantasybaseball.com

 

[thehornet]

whats the problem here?

 

[destro]

The problem with the trade is that, obviously, this is not the whole story. I am the commish in question, and I at least 3 other people in this 9 team mixed 5x5 roto league think this trade is suspect or worse. The rest of the actual details:

The Crawford owner (Cubs Fan) was an absolute non-participant in the league for over 2 months. He had multiple guys in his lineup for weeks that were on the DL. He was starting Matt Weiters several weeks before he was even in the majors. Until this trade went through, he had made literally zero roster moves the entire season. At this point, he is in 6th out of 9, mostly buoyed by power numbers and his ratio standings. He's dead last in Ks and runs without much hope of making headway, largely because he did not manage his team at all for over 2 months. He's currently on pace to get about 120 starts out of the Catcher position (woefully short of the 162 game cap all other teams will meet or be near) and be about 40 starts under at the OF position. It's basically impossible for him to place, let alone win the league.

As for the "great need of OF depth," here is his current OF:

Carl Crawford

Nelson Cruz

Vladimir Guerrero

Sure, he needs to make up starts, but the problem is you can't start more than 3, and Ethier and Cody Ross aren't upgrades. As for "depth," this is a 9 team mixed league with pretty short benches. Guys like Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, Denard Span, Juan Rivera, Melky Cabrera, and Colby Rasmus are sitting on the wire. If he was desperate for OF "depth" he does not need to trade Crawford. Carl Crawford is on pace for 90 SBs and is basically the most valuable OF in the game right now. He's arguably one of the top 10 most valuable players overall and can significantly improve a teams chances, particularly if you're lacking in SBs (which, obviously, the OP is). Also, in a 9 team mixed league, Harden, Ethier, and especially Ross are kind of marginal players. That is a very shallow league with tons of talent available. It's a ridiculously lopsided trade.

So, to me, it seems pretty clear that this guy obviously doesn't care at all and has been a non-participant in the league. Many feel that it's not right for someone who is out of contention and made zero efforts to manage his team to suddenly show up and immediately deal one of the most valuable players in the league to a contender. I feel like there is some merit to that.

And if there's any doubt as to what his intentions are, this is Cubs Fan's actual quote:

"my team sucks so i want to load up with cubs"

...so, yeah. Obviously, some in the league are not comfortable with this.

I know some people are firmly of the mind that "If there's not actual hard evidence of collusion, let it go through!" but I think in extreme cases of teams like this, at the very least, it is reason to consider a veto. I haven't vetoed a trade in any of multiple leagues I commish in at least 4 or 5 years. Personally, I think guys who obviously don't care shouldn't be allowed to ruin the competitive integrity of the league with ridiculously lopsided trades for no good reason.

If this was simply a bad trade between two contenders, or two guys who had actually participated in the league, then I wouldn't consider a veto.

 

[shuke]

You can't veto a trade because a guy's dumb. The rest of you are just jealous you weren't able to get to him first.

 

[Daywalker]

The problem with the trade is that, obviously, this is not the whole story. I am the commish in question, and I at least 3 other people in this 9 team mixed 5x5 roto league think this trade is suspect or worse. The rest of the actual details:The Crawford owner (Cubs Fan) was an absolute non-participant in the league for over 2 months. He had multiple guys in his lineup for weeks that were on the DL. He was starting Matt Weiters several weeks before he was even in the majors. Until this trade went through, he had made literally zero roster moves the entire season. At this point, he is in 6th out of 9, mostly buoyed by power numbers and his ratio standings. He's dead last in Ks and runs without much hope of making headway, largely because he did not manage his team at all for over 2 months. He's currently on pace to get about 120 starts out of the Catcher position (woefully short of the 162 game cap all other teams will meet or be near) and be about 40 starts under at the OF position. It's basically impossible for him to place, let alone win the league.As for the "great need of OF depth," here is his current OF:Carl CrawfordNelson CruzVladimir GuerreroSure, he needs to make up starts, but the problem is you can't start more than 3, and Ethier and Cody Ross aren't upgrades. As for "depth," this is a 9 team mixed league with pretty short benches. Guys like Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, Denard Span, Juan Rivera, Melky Cabrera, and Colby Rasmus are sitting on the wire. If he was desperate for OF "depth" he does not need to trade Crawford. Carl Crawford is on pace for 90 SBs and is basically the most valuable OF in the game right now. He's arguably one of the top 10 most valuable players overall and can significantly improve a teams chances, particularly if you're lacking in SBs (which, obviously, the OP is). Also, in a 9 team mixed league, Harden, Ethier, and especially Ross are kind of marginal players. That is a very shallow league with tons of talent available. It's a ridiculously lopsided trade.So, to me, it seems pretty clear that this guy obviously doesn't care at all and has been a non-participant in the league. Many feel that it's not right for someone who is out of contention and made zero efforts to manage his team to suddenly show up and immediately deal one of the most valuable players in the league to a contender. I feel like there is some merit to that.And if there's any doubt as to what his intentions are, this is Cubs Fan's actual quote:"my team sucks so i want to load up with cubs"...so, yeah. Obviously, some in the league are not comfortable with this.I know some people are firmly of the mind that "If there's not actual hard evidence of collusion, let it go through!" but I think in extreme cases of teams like this, at the very least, it is reason to consider a veto. I haven't vetoed a trade in any of multiple leagues I commish in at least 4 or 5 years. Personally, I think guys who obviously don't care shouldn't be allowed to ruin the competitive integrity of the league with ridiculously lopsided trades for no good reason. If this was simply a bad trade between two contenders, or two guys who had actually participated in the league, then I wouldn't consider a veto.

I'd veto it. Stuff like this ruins leagues. You aren't protecting a dumb owner from himself. You are protecting a dumb owner from ruining the league. An inactive owner does not get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[eagles2007]

is this a pay league? did cubs fan pay his dues? if he did, let it go .. if he didn't just freeze his team.

 

[dparker713]

A) Vlad sucks - using Either when he's hot is certainly an upgrade.

B) Shallow leagues suck

C) You should have done something about the absentee owner a while ago

D) If this is the only move the owner makes, he should get booted from the league next year. This condition of the trade should be public knowledge.

E) We're not even halfway into the season, you can make up alot of ground in that time if you try and if the waiver wire is as deep as you say this guy could certainly make up alot of ground in starts.

 

[Balco]

I agree with the others, not vetoable, although with the commish's post, it looks like a friend is hooking another friend up. The key here is to make sure that the guy who traded Crawford is not invited back to the league next year. Not for the trade, but for the inactivity.

 

[Captain Hook]

The problem with the trade is that, obviously, this is not the whole story. I am the commish in question, and I at least 3 other people in this 9 team mixed 5x5 roto league think this trade is suspect or worse. The rest of the actual details:The Crawford owner (Cubs Fan) was an absolute non-participant in the league for over 2 months. He had multiple guys in his lineup for weeks that were on the DL. He was starting Matt Weiters several weeks before he was even in the majors. Until this trade went through, he had made literally zero roster moves the entire season. At this point, he is in 6th out of 9, mostly buoyed by power numbers and his ratio standings. He's dead last in Ks and runs without much hope of making headway, largely because he did not manage his team at all for over 2 months. He's currently on pace to get about 120 starts out of the Catcher position (woefully short of the 162 game cap all other teams will meet or be near) and be about 40 starts under at the OF position. It's basically impossible for him to place, let alone win the league.As for the "great need of OF depth," here is his current OF:Carl CrawfordNelson CruzVladimir GuerreroSure, he needs to make up starts, but the problem is you can't start more than 3, and Ethier and Cody Ross aren't upgrades. As for "depth," this is a 9 team mixed league with pretty short benches. Guys like Michael Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, Denard Span, Juan Rivera, Melky Cabrera, and Colby Rasmus are sitting on the wire. If he was desperate for OF "depth" he does not need to trade Crawford. Carl Crawford is on pace for 90 SBs and is basically the most valuable OF in the game right now. He's arguably one of the top 10 most valuable players overall and can significantly improve a teams chances, particularly if you're lacking in SBs (which, obviously, the OP is). Also, in a 9 team mixed league, Harden, Ethier, and especially Ross are kind of marginal players. That is a very shallow league with tons of talent available. It's a ridiculously lopsided trade.So, to me, it seems pretty clear that this guy obviously doesn't care at all and has been a non-participant in the league. Many feel that it's not right for someone who is out of contention and made zero efforts to manage his team to suddenly show up and immediately deal one of the most valuable players in the league to a contender. I feel like there is some merit to that.And if there's any doubt as to what his intentions are, this is Cubs Fan's actual quote:"my team sucks so i want to load up with cubs"...so, yeah. Obviously, some in the league are not comfortable with this.I know some people are firmly of the mind that "If there's not actual hard evidence of collusion, let it go through!" but I think in extreme cases of teams like this, at the very least, it is reason to consider a veto. I haven't vetoed a trade in any of multiple leagues I commish in at least 4 or 5 years. Personally, I think guys who obviously don't care shouldn't be allowed to ruin the competitive integrity of the league with ridiculously lopsided trades for no good reason. If this was simply a bad trade between two contenders, or two guys who had actually participated in the league, then I wouldn't consider a veto.

ALL this tangental BS may be true......but the root question is still "Does the league have trade rules or not?"I have been commishing leagues for almost thirty years - YOU need to take charge - set rules; manage the owners......WHY was this guy allowed to be a bad owner for months and then when he does something you or some other team doesn't like he is prevented from doing it?If it is a free league, you can stop him........IF he paid his entry he can do whatever he wants within the RULES of the league - this trade is not veto material IMPO

 

[destro]

Still not vetoable but keep an eye on the inactive owner going forward. That should be the end of it.If the guy hasn't participated and now you aren't really allowing him to participate within the rules of the league, what do you think that's going to do to the chances of him participating going forward?Also, if a guy had DL players in his starting lineup for a good amount of time, I would have fixed that issue some time ago. You can't use it now as a reason not to allow a trade if you did nothing about it before. As a commish, you should be going in there and setting the lineup FOR him if he's just not getting it or not logging in. To veto the trade now after not doing anything about his absenteeism for so long seems to be self serving.

So, let me get this straight: you think it's ok for the commish to actually manage someone else's team, but it's not ok to prevent a ridiculously lopsided trade from a team that packed it in after the draft and has no chance of winning, sending one of the best players in the game to a contender? Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all, sorry.

You can't veto a trade because a guy's dumb. The rest of you are just jealous you weren't able to get to him first.

No, you're wrong, but thanks for telling me how I feel. I actually told OP that this trade is ridiculous and I, personally, would not accept trades from Cubs Fan. He essentially removed himself from the league, and for him to show up after missing 40% of the year and being hopelessly behind, trading away elite players... it's a joke. The fact that people still find this totally kosher is beyond me. My initial reaction was to veto and lock his team to minimize his effect on the competitive integrity of the league. I'm sure it would've upset at least one league member other than Cubs Fan, though. He was a friend of a friend, but his connection to the league is not involved in the trade.

I'd veto it. Stuff like this ruins leagues. You aren't protecting a dumb owner from himself. You are protecting a dumb owner from ruining the league. An inactive owner does not get the benefit of the doubt.

I agree. It seems painfully obvious to me, but...

is this a pay league? did cubs fan pay his dues? if he did, let it go .. if he didn't just freeze his team.

Yes it is, and no he hasn't paid yet. I, of course, suspect he wont pay at all now, and I only hope that his friend in the league can make him pay.

A) Vlad sucks - using Either when he's hot is certainly an upgrade. B) Shallow leagues suckC) You should have done something about the absentee owner a while agoD) If this is the only move the owner makes, he should get booted from the league next year. This condition of the trade should be public knowledge. E) We're not even halfway into the season, you can make up alot of ground in that time if you try and if the waiver wire is as deep as you say this guy could certainly make up alot of ground in starts.

Of course Vlad sucks, but as I mentioned above, there are tons of viable options on the wire. Cuddyer, Kubel, Span, etc... Ethier is the best player on that side of the trade, and there's literally multiple better options on the wire as I type. That just highlights even further how horrific that trade is. I also agree that shallow leagues suck. This league was meant as a way to get a group of buddies into fantasy baseball who were in a fantasy football league that several of us are in. I didn't want to make it super deep or AL only or something and intimidate some guys who haven't played roto before. Most of them know baseball well, and most of them are fantasy football veterans, but we had a couple of friends of friends (like Cubs Fan) fill out the league.I don't know what I could have done about the absentee owner. I mentioned it on the league site and to Cubs Fans friend in the league, but nothing happened. Apparently he was out of town for a week or two early on, which kept me off the friends back for awhile. Ultimately, when he's not someone I know personally and have used all methods of contacting him that I have, what can I do? Just run his team for him, like the other guy suggested? That feels pretty wrong, to say the least.He has no chance of cashing in the league. He could potentially make up ground in innings pitched, but he'd have to shoehorn everyone off the wire into his lineup constantly. Judging by his lack of commitment 40% of the way in, I doubt that would happen, and those certainly wouldn't be great innings, anyways. Everyone in the league has an ERA in the mid to low 3s.... he's done. He certainly isn't finding a way to get in 40 extra starts from his OF either. He's also 40 behind in catcher starts and behind a lot in other areas also. He's done.So, short of simply taking over that owners team, which certainly would be quite a conflict of interest, there wasn't much to be done about this guy. When someone absolutely checks out for this much of this season, it's going to be a bad situation, no matter what you do, and it's only made worse when the owner in question suddenly shows up and dumps his elite players for Cubbies. And since apparently the consensus of most everyone in the fantasy world is that you need videotaped evidence of collusion and a signed confession in order to veto, I decided to let the trade go. It still makes absolutely no sense to me, and I find the whole situation pretty disgusting. The OP, of course, still maintains it was a completely fair trade and is not shady at all, even though his OP here obviously didn't give you anywhere near the whole story, and, to make matters worse, he immediately flipped Crawford to one of his buddies. Yeah, not shady at all...Needless to say, Cubs Fan won't be in this league next year, if the league even makes it to year two. I am feeling like maybe it was a bad idea to begin with...

 

[destro]

DestroSettle down a bit. Someone posted on here asking for our opinions on this trade. Any opinion contrary to yours you seem to think is pretty stupid. If you can't handle the truth, don't read the thread any more. It's clear you're going to do whatever you want to do anyway, why continue the debate?The deal is not vetoable, I think that's the clear consensus. If you are against the consensus, ultimately you are the commish and can do whatever you want but I probably wouldn't bother returning to your league next year if you did veto it. That's all.If there are trade rules, then enforce them.If there are no set trade rules, you have to pass the trade and let people vote on enacting a new rule going forward. Hindsight is 20/20

Yes, "clearly," I'm just going to do whatever I want! The problem with that is that you didn't actually read the post that you are responding to. I explained above how I let the trade go through, even though I feel it is clearly going to ruin the competitive integrity of the league, as at least two other posters mentioned possible. No one has offered logical explanations as to why this kind of trade was ok, except maybe that there were no complex trade rules in place to prevent such a thing. I didn't call anyone or anything stupid, but I did point out some obvious contradictions and shoot down a snide remark from someone who claimed to know how I felt about something. I posted to respond to those comments, and explain what happened in the end, and post how disappointed I was in the whole thing. That seems pretty reasonable to me.I guess you could say that there should have been complex rules in place to prevent such shady dealings, but I didn't think it was necessary. In the many leagues that I've played in over the last 7 or 8 years, across different sports... complicated rules weren't necessary to simply make sure people participated and didn't dump players to other teams. I think the most disappointing thing here is that such a thing would be necessary with this group of guys.

 

[Wrigley]

Can you find someone to take over said, "dead" team?

 

[eagles2007]

if you veto the trade you stand no chance of getting paid by this guy and i probably wouldn't pay either under the circumstances. you're making a decision - either he's allowed to run his team the way he sees fit, or its no longer his team.

 

[dparker713]

I don't know what I could have done about the absentee owner. I mentioned it on the league site and to Cubs Fans friend in the league, but nothing happened. Apparently he was out of town for a week or two early on, which kept me off the friends back for awhile. Ultimately, when he's not someone I know personally and have used all methods of contacting him that I have, what can I do? Just run his team for him, like the other guy suggested? That feels pretty wrong, to say the least.He has no chance of cashing in the league. He could potentially make up ground in innings pitched, but he'd have to shoehorn everyone off the wire into his lineup constantly. Judging by his lack of commitment 40% of the way in, I doubt that would happen, and those certainly wouldn't be great innings, anyways. Everyone in the league has an ERA in the mid to low 3s.... he's done. He certainly isn't finding a way to get in 40 extra starts from his OF either. He's also 40 behind in catcher starts and behind a lot in other areas also. He's done.

Your options pretty much were either to find a replacement owner if you could, or just lock his team. If a giys does nothing a month into the season thats probably all the time he should get. And I didnt say it would be easy, but only 2 months in there's always still time to atleast get competitive.

 

[Captain Hook]

I don't know what I could have done about the absentee owner.

Okay, this is clearly the root of the problem.I think YOU as commish have to share the blame with the owner, but

#1 - You NEVER let a person draft a team without getting the $! Never. Personally I feel that if you do, you have to bear the financial responsibility and if you can't get him to pay or get his friend to get him to pay or pay for him, then the responsibility is yours.

Having slipped on that you should have been on him every day to get that taken care of and if NOT, you don't let him make trades with other teams in the league.

 

[love4win]

I don't know what I could have done about the absentee owner.

#1 - You NEVER let a person draft a team without getting the $! Never. Personally I feel that if you do, you have to bear the financial responsibility and if you can't get him to pay or get his friend to get him to pay or pay for him, then the responsibility is yours.Having slipped on that you should have been on him every day to get that taken care of and if NOT, you don't let him make trades with other teams in the league.

Tough position. Night of draft, everyone there and a manager cries poor. Amoung friends and friends of friends. Do you just tell him to leave. Way to kill the party mood.People duck calls all the time. He tried to use his channels. I don't know what your experience is w/ fantasy leagues but I'd guess they were all pretty hardcore. I have never been in a league that didn't have its share of slackers.

That being said, I would have managed his team (all that work, sucks to be commish). Based on what you are saying I doubt he drafted well and it seems llike he would never have been a threat to place in the league anyway. If the period grew too long I would have given him fair warning (posted to the league) and then frozen his team.