Advice Please

[Clogged Basepaths]

I'm the commish in a dynasty league, and have never come across something so awful.

 

Trade of Manny Ramirez for Juan Pierre and Matt Murton.

 

I'm considering blocking the trade (first time ever), thought I'd toss this out there.

 

It's a smallish league, so Murton's value is almost nonexistant (the player who is giving up Manny is actually dropping Shannon Stewart to make room for Murton).

 

Thoughts?

[Tracer Bullet]

I've been a commish in a few private leagues for different sports and I'd step in on this one. I don't like to get involved often, but unless SBs are worth 50 times more than they are in most leagues, this crosses the line.

 

My 2 cents.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

You have to make a judgement call here. Does the team getting Pierre need stolen bases? If someone is just being stupid, you have to let it go. I don't believe the commish should block stupidity.It's tough the rest of the league didn't take advantage of his stupidity sooner. On the other hand, if you suspect cheating or something else, then block it.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I don't really see it as cheating or stupidity, depending on the league type. Murton and Pierre could combine for enough hits, RBI, and SBs to equal Manny's production. Like I said, depending on the league type. Otherwise, it's insanity.

[Drew Doughty]

this is the problem I have with most sim leagues, the trade committees/commish's get way to strict with trades. If they come to agreement and it's not completely absurd (Choi for Lee :lol: ) then it seems fine.

[K-Town]

Wow. Is Dusty Baker in your league? :wink:

[EricG]

how is your league set up? Is there a salary cap? Manny is getting older and could get hurt. Dynasty league usually means that you can keep all your players or drop players and draft from the pool of available players. Also if steals is a category weighed equally with HR then Pierre has value.

As commisioner you can't veto any trade just because it's not equal value for value. You have to let Bowden be Bowden. The only reason you should veto a trade is if you suspect collusion and this is mostly valid for money leagues where 2 teams can agree to split the winnings under the table. This probably should be moved to fantasy discussions.

[CubsWin]

The only reason to veto a trade is if the two teams are suspected of colluding to benefit one team at the peril of the other. To that end, some questions should be asked:

 

1. Is the team that is getting Manny one of the best teams in the league, and even though it is early, is the other team not expected to make the playoffs?

 

2. Are the two team owners close friends or relatives?

 

It doesn't sound like this is collusion to me because of Manny's age and the fact that this is a dynasty league. The guy acquiring Murton is probably a Cubs fan who is excited about the prospect Matt's future being a really good one.

[GhostRunner]

Why isn't this in the fantasy forum? Jus' wonderin' . . .

[cubs121]

man how many bad GM's could there ever be??? :lol: :lol:

[SouthSideRyan]

Just a dumb trade, not a collusive trade.

[Sweep The Leg Johnny]

Personally I'd find this trade difficult to overturn. Yes, in a 5x5 format, Manny is probably better than Murton and Pierre combined. But from the looks of it, the guy wanting Murton and Pierre is a homer. He's a Cubs fan and wants players he likes on his team. Plus its a keeper league, Pierre and Murton could be Cubs for quite a few years while Manny is getting older.

 

The trade could be fair depending on the league settings. If steals are weighted heavier, the trade could be balanced.

 

I personally only like to overturn trades when I feel someone is cheating. Interpretation of how 'fair' the trade is really depends on the fantasy smarts of the team owners involved.

[ChiCubsFan]

In the league I'm the commissioner of I just have a vote if the trades are ridiculous for whatever reason.

 

Also, I think that an occasional stupid trade is okay to have, but you don't want teams to become very unbalanced. In one dynasty league I'm in, a few teams took advantage of the "stupid" managers and have teams full of all-stars. Then there are a bunch of decent teams but with no chance to win the championship in the middle and then the bottom teams are hideous. Of course, those managers also got tired of losing all the time with their crappy teams so now new guys had to take over for them. So basically what I'm trying to say is if this manager keeps making horrible trades, you have to step in and replace him/her, but if this is a one-time bad deal, you gotta let it go.

[NCCubFan]

I'd let it go unless you suspect collusion is involved. In a league I'm in there are trades that at face value appear one-sided, but make more sense when you consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of the teams involved. I traded Vidro for Gagne and Rusch. On the face of it I think it would look like a bad trade for me. However, given that I already have Baez on my team, it means that I'm assured of having the Dodgers' closer for the rest of the year, along with Dempster, so I'm quite solid in the saves category. And I still have Walker and Weeks at 2B, so I could afford to trade Vidro. And I'm 19-1 in two weeks since making that trade, so obviously it didn't hurt me.

 

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Clogged Basepaths]

The league is just full keeper dynasty - it's only 8 teams, so the rosters are fairly sizable. With the smallish ownership, the depth is pretty good, making Murton less valuable.

 

It's just a head to head league, 14 cats, making SBs less of a priority than typical 5x5 roto leagues. This trade has created quite the furor in the league, to say the least.

 

I appreciate all the well thought out responses.

[Clogged Basepaths]

Also,

 

The owner being taken advantage of tends to not care as much as others, not even that he isn't baseball savvy, he just doesn't care. So if somebody bugs the crap out of him about a player (like Manny) there is a decent chance he'll come around to the idea.

 

It seems as though the thing coming out of this, is a creation of a 3 person (out of 8) "commish group" of sorts, that will have to ok any trade involving a top 10 or 20 player (preseason, or year to date).

[NCCubFan]

If the owner doesn't care, it sounds like it may be worth trying to find a new owner for that team.

[ChiCubsFan]

Also,

 

The owner being taken advantage of tends to not care as much as others, not even that he isn't baseball savvy, he just doesn't care. So if somebody bugs the crap out of him about a player (like Manny) there is a decent chance he'll come around to the idea.

 

It seems as though the thing coming out of this, is a creation of a 3 person (out of 8) "commish group" of sorts, that will have to ok any trade involving a top 10 or 20 player (preseason, or year to date).

 

Sounds like you definitely need to replace him. I kind of like the idea of the commish group, but you may run into problems if everyone wants to be in the group and you have to chose only 2 others (I'm assuming you are one of the three). You could just put any trade that someone voices a disproval to a vote. It's an 8 team league and the two doing the trade wouldn't vote, so if 3 of the remaining 6 or 4 of the 6 decide to veto, it gets vetoed. Or you could remain neutreal and say if 3 of the remaining 5 (not including yourself and the two involved in the trade).

 

Just throwing some ideas out there. I know in my one league, I wouldn't like it if the commish and a couple of his buddies got to decide on all trades without the rest of the league getting an input.