Wednesday, June 02, 2010
When it comes to fantasy trades and a leagues veto power I tend to be a little bit more lax than others. If someone in your keeper league is dumb enough to trade away a young Jose Reyes for Danny Graves, than perhaps the bigger problem is that they are in your league period and not that people take advantage of their idiocy. In reality you are just mad that you weren't the one to profit in the first place*.
Anywho, earlier this season my buddy at work comes to me and says that there is a trade in his league that everyone is bitching about and is probably going to veto. On one end the player is absolutely positively desperate for a third baseman after poor draft strategy and a few injuries so just a few weeks into the season he's looking to make a deal for a third baseman. On the other end one guy has Chipper Jones and a need in the outfield. A deal is arranged where one party gets Chipper Jones and the other gets Bobby Abreu. On face value this is a bad deal. Chipper Jones is always injured and had a poor 2009 and was off to a horrible start while Bobby Abreu had a solid 2009 and was off to an ok start. The league voted and the trade was rejected saying that Abreu was too much to get in return for Chipper Jones, quite arguable given the one players needs (he had no third baseman).
So not to be deterred the two struck a new deal which the league would grant. On one end the player would still receive Chipper Jones but instead of Bobby Abreu he would send Alex Rios, a player who had a bad 2009 season but not as bad as people really perceived.
Fast forward 2 months and... Alex Rios is the #4 ranked player in all of fantasy baseball. He is hitting .315, he has 16 SBs, and has hit 11 HRs. Meanwhile Bobby Abreu is significantly behind Rios in all three of those categories. So in retrospect, the league vetoed a deal saying that Player #2 was getting too much in return for an aging Chipper Jones and the end result is that they wound up giving Player #2 even more in return for Chipper Jones. Good job, jackasses.
*Collusion trades are a different story. There should be no under the table dealings where profit is shared thanks to trades. That's just BS.