• Draft and Trade Talk Message Board

  • PeDRo PeDRo Mar 3, 2009 12:07 PM Flag

    Trade vetoes

    Here's a topic with a wide range of opinions... a recent post titled "Accused of Cheating" had a manager who wrote about a trade that got veteod in his league.
    the trade was:
    Miguel Cabrera and Ichiro
    for Nick Markakis, Chris Davis, and John Danks.
    This manager didn't understand why this trade was veteod, and he had a lot of support saying that this trade shouldn't have been veteod.
    Let me say this: The veto option is there because of you managers out there that say that this trade is fine. In no way do Markakis, Davis, and Danks make up for the value you get from Cabrera and Ichiro. If the trade was just Markakis and Davis for Miggy... then sure.. it's fine. But that leaves Danks straight up for Ichiro. HELLO MCFLY!?!? One of the arguements in favor of this trade claimed that it doesn't matter what round a player is taken in, so long as your addressing your team need. Fine. I can agree with that too a point, but how does this trade address any specific need?
    That all being said.. I do not agree with vetoing just for the sake of vetoing. If there isn't a glaring discrepancy, let the players play.
    I can use one of my own experiences as an example: last year, right around this time, I offered Nick Markakis and Clay Buchholz for Evan Longoria and Billy Wagner, the manager accepted... and the trade got veteod. The whole league let me know what a retard I was for trading Markakis for Wagner, which is how they broke the trade down... tossing out Buchholz and Longoria. This particular trade addressed my team need... a stud closer. And I argued since I already had a jacked line-up, I could afford to subtract a bat, with the risk/reward being Longoria. It all fell on deaf ears. The consensus was I was retarded for thinking trading Markakis and Buchholz for Longoria and Wagner would help my team. And how did this turn out? Come the end of July... Longoria was EN FUEGO, Wagner was a top 3 closer and top 20 pitcher, Markakis was Markakis, and Buchholz was back in the minors.
    I hope you guys can see the difference in these two trades. If you can't, don't bother lending any more fantasy advice to anyone ever.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You made Miggy pretty uber as well. How does he jump to 45 homers and 145 when he's never hit more than 37 bombs or driven in more than 127 in a season?

      I'd say 32/110 is MUCH closer to reality for Davis than 45/145 is for Miggy.

    • I can't believe this thread is still at the top...

      Anyways... Are you actually comparing Danks to Taylor, Bullington and Benson?

      Taylor was an absolute bust the moment he climbed about A+ and, unless I'm mistaken, he never threw a pitch in the bigs.

      Bullington has had moderate success in the minors, but has never translated it to the bigs. (He's still only 28 and he tossed a bit for Cleveland last year.)

      Benson may be the closest comparison to Danks, but he's never shown anything close to the talent that Danks showed last season.

      The big difference between Danks and these three chumps is that Danks has taken his pedigree and transformed it into big league success. And there's no reason to believe he won't improve upon that success in 2009.

    • exactly my point bedwetter how do you know it can't happen to miggy? you don't have a crystal ball do you? so unless your from the future why should 2 managers not be able to trade because of your opinion?

    • Gee, people who drafted Brady didn't know he was going to get hurt? What a bunch of morons. You're a dipshit. Iggy #2.

    • The main thing you're forgetting though is that the current owner of the first-round pick which in this case is Miguel Cabrera was the owner who proposed the trade in the first place.

    • cling to your previous years stats. damn all those idiots who picked up d.williams for there playoff run. should have been as smart as those brady owners I mean he did have good STATS LOL

    • You can throw out as many stats as you want to try to explain why it got vetoed, but the bottom line is the trade SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VETOED. Do you think every manager, when they opened their e-mailbox and saw this trade proposal, sat there for 20 minutes going over each of the players stats to come up with an educated reason why they should or should not veto this trade.....NO. Most veto because they are morons and p u s s i e s, afraid to do their own trades to improve their team.

    • yea, he likes socialist no trade leagues. veto every trade that doesn't benifit your team. I guess a league where every trade is vetoed would be more "challenging"

    • we all got completely off the topic. I was not supporting trade vetoing... i was offering an explanation for why a trade like this got vetoed.

      This is the last post i will have on this thread.... if you want a first round pick... you have to do better than "ifs" and "maybes"

    • That is what I have been trying to tell these 2 kids for over an hour...apparently they missed the day in kindergarden where the teacher said everyone is entitled to their own opinions and that opinions are not facts

    • View More Messages