Pending Trade Between Lordz of Flatbush and Italian Ice

[Big_E]

Lordz of Flatbush has agreed to trade Jeff Weaver, (4-7, 5.52) to Italian Ice in exchange for Mike Cameron, 13 HR, 55 RBI, .270 BA

Both players have been on the bench for a while.

[patrick.o]

Ok, you'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but how is it that a trade of a good closer for a barely mediocre pitcher raises 4 objections, but a starter who can't score fantasty points to save his life (88.9 entering today) for an OF who is leading his team in scoring (290 points!) doesn't rate a single objection? One guy has scored over 200 points more than the other! Is there some sort of league wide collusion going on where some bad trades are ok but others aren't that I wasn't sent a memo about? Jeff Weaver has scored less total points and scores less per start (4.9) than any SP on the entire Ice team, while Cameron leads his team in overall scoring and is third in per game points (3.41). Hell, Weaver has been so bad it's questionable whether he sould even be taking up a roster spot in this league. The first 2 guys I checked on the available list both score much more per start than him. Cameron could take the rest of the year off and Weaver won't catch his points total.

I never thought this would happen, but formally object to this trade. I'm loathe to formally object to any trade, but how can this one be okay when the other 2 that were voided weren't? This trade is so lopsided it makes anything suggested by the Dawgs managment this season seem even.

[Bozidar]

I didn't object because I saw what was coming today. I think most did. Weaver hasn't been much this year, and Cameron is a stud.. but Weaver seems to be really turning it on.. IMO

[Ansky39]

Originally posted by patrick.o
Ok, you'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but how is it that a trade of a good closer for a barely mediocre pitcher raises 4 objections, but a starter who can't score fantasty points to save his life (88.9 entering today) for an OF who is leading his team in scoring (290 points!) doesn't rate a single objection? One guy has scored over 200 points more than the other! Is there some sort of league wide collusion going on where some bad trades are ok but others aren't that I wasn't sent a memo about? Jeff Weaver has scored less total points and scores less per start (4.9) than any SP on the entire Ice team, while Cameron leads his team in overall scoring and is third in per game points (3.41). Hell, Weaver has been so bad it's questionable whether he sould even be taking up a roster spot in this league. The first 2 guys I checked on the available list both score much more per start than him. Cameron could take the rest of the year off and Weaver won't catch his points total.

I never thought this would happen, but formally object to this trade. I'm loathe to formally object to any trade, but how can this one be okay when the other 2 that were voided weren't? This trade is so lopsided it makes anything suggested by the Dawgs managment this season seem even.

wtf did i miss... weaver for cameron is less even than say the dawgs deal of helton and hudson for burrell and jordan, a trade you admittedly did not object to???

whatever, object if you want, but lets not distort the facts here, this deal is above board, i like joe, but i want to beat him as much as anyone else in here, i don't need to deal weaver, especially the way he's been throwin since his slump, i'm dealing him because i have depth in my rotation and no depth on my lineup...

you cite alot of numbers in your post but i don't know how relevant season totals are in this deal... weaver struggled early but clearly is on top of his game... cameron is at best an avg fanatsy baseball outfielder fielder puitting up good not great numbers...

her'es a brief comparison:

Yahoo ranks weaver 202 in last month, (27th in last week)
Last 5 starts:
w/l = 2-2
ip increased from 5.1 to 8 innings in yesterday’s win…
k’s increased from 1 to 8 in yesterday’s win

July
1-1 w/ 2.87 era .83 whip and .203 ba agst

Starts for a team w/ the 3rd most productive offense in the AL

Yahoo ranks Cameron 147 in last month, (246th in last week)

Last Month
Ba = .272
Hr = 5
Rbi = 15
Obp = .361
Slg% = .475

[joltinjo]

I have never objected to anyone's trade. I believe that as the owner of a team you run things the way you see fit. I accepted Weaver because I like to root for him. I believe he has potential. If he does well I would feel real good about it. That is also why I have Erstad on my team... I like the way he plays the game. Stats-wise Jeter is not the big dawg, however, he was my first choice because I love the way he plays.
The auto-draft dealt me a bunch of scrubs and two top players that were D.L. all year (Nevin and Nen) . Well tough luck, just make the best with what you've got, trade, and have some fun.
With the way they handled Terry14420's trade veto and these objections, the fun is gone and so am I. I will finish the season, but will not participate next year.
At this point, if the trade is vetoed or not--- does not matter to me.



See Ya,
Joe

[Big_E]

Joe,

Sorry you feel that way. I hope you will change your mind before next season. However, this brings up an interesting question, which is better addressed in the feedback for 2004 section, so I'll address it there

[Ansky39]

Originally posted by joltinjo
I have never objected to anyone's trade. I believe that as the owner of a team you run things the way you see fit. I accepted Weaver because I like to root for him. I believe he has potential. If he does well I would feel real good about it. That is also why I have Erstad on my team... I like the way he plays the game. Stats-wise Jeter is not the big dawg, however, he was my first choice because I love the way he plays.
The auto-draft dealt me a bunch of scrubs and two top players that were D.L. all year (Nevin and Nen) . Well tough luck, just make the best with what you've got, trade, and have some fun.
With the way they handled Terry14420's trade veto and these objections, the fun is gone and so am I. I will finish the season, but will not participate next year.
At this point, if the trade is vetoed or not--- does not matter to me.



See Ya,
Joe

i really hope you don't bail joe, you're a true fan of the game and we need more true fans in here, that are genuinely in love w/ the game not just winning or losing.. me i love my team.. yeah we suck and may not make the post this seas, but i like the group i've assembled, and wouldn't even mind keeping my entire roster for another run next seas...

i think this trade thing is a little confusing and i'm hoping that w/ sax and big e and boz and the rest of the good baseball minds in here we can get this thing figured out.. sax has gone out of his way to try to accomodate everyone, but it is a work in progress.. all i can say brother is give it a chance, if we lose you we'll be losing a great baseball mind and better yet a great baseball fan...

[Saxmania]

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Sorry, really couldn't resist. Joe, I really hope we can turn you around on this - as one of the founding franchises, it would be a real shame to see you leave. Personally, I was really impressed with the way that you had a rough 2002 but came right back at the DiMaggio Division this year, and if more people had such a positive approach to Fantasy Baseball it would be a great thing.

We're going to carry on trying to fix this thing, as Ansky says, and I'll be the first to hold up my hands and say that it isn't good enough right now. I hope that, withyour help, we'll be able to create a rule that works.

Does anyone's league have a rule in place that we could adapt for our purposes? This can't be a new problem.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[terry14420]

This league does not allow one to speculate on how a player may perform in the future nor does it allow you to surmise that a player has been playing over his head. It is strictly HIS NUMBERS VS. HIS NUMBERS and that's it. It also keeps you down by forcing you to keep the same players you currently have. If you plan to do it by picking up those in the pool, forget it. You'll get some serviceable players that way but the last time I checked those who turn teams around were not available. Therefore, Joe, keep the guys you have, keep your mouth shut and keep losing. That's what they want. BESIDES, YOU NOW HAVE ROCKY ................ING BIDDLE! ! !

[Ansky39]

Originally posted by terry14420
This league does not allow one to speculate on how a player may perform in the future nor does it allow you to surmise that a player has been playing over his head. It is strictly HIS NUMBERS VS. HIS NUMBERS and that's it. It also keeps you down by forcing you to keep the same players you currently have. If you plan to do it by picking up those in the pool, forget it. You'll get some serviceable players that way but the last time I checked those who turn teams around were not available. Therefore, Joe, keep the guys you have, keep your mouth shut and keep losing. That's what they want. BESIDES, YOU NOW HAVE ROCKY ................ING BIDDLE! ! !

still bitter huh...

[SanFrANSKY]

The key word here is "speculate."

Speculation is subjective. Numbers are objective.

IMO nothing needs fixing. The system we have in place represents a compromise between 100% trade approval and 0% trade approval. As with all compromises, no one is completely thrilled, but I've addressed this issue over the years in my own league and voting system is the best way to reconcile the two camps.

[Saxmania]

I'm forced to agree. I think that the guidelines for what is "unbalanced" and what isn't should be better defined, but how many trades have been vetoed so far? Two? I'd rather it was none, but two doesn't suggest to me a league staggering on the verge of collapse.

And to go the other way, does anyone want to argue that this league (2 vetoes) is less competitive than last year (0 vetoes)?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[SanFrANSKY]

By my count there have been 30 trades and 2 vetoes halfway through the season. In an 18-team league that is hardly excessive...in fact, I'd say we've all shown great restraint in blocking deals.

Vetoes are an important check on trades that GMs feel are imbalanced. However, I've voted against trades that have subsequently gone through but I refuse to complain about it: it was the will of the league and the hard-working commisioner and that's what I agreed to up front.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by SanFrANSKY
The key word here is "speculate."

Speculation is subjective. Numbers are objective.

IMO nothing needs fixing. The system we have in place represents a compromise between 100% trade approval and 0% trade approval. As with all compromises, no one is completely thrilled, but I've addressed this issue over the years in my own league and voting system is the best way to reconcile the two camps.

I disagree if I understand what you're saying. Yes, speculation is subjective, and the owners who are making the trade should be allowed to speculate. That's what real baseball GMs do. I've had a major gripe with the whole trading system this year and at one point I considered leaving after the season as well, but decided not to. I must agree with terry that the vetoing of his trade was absolutely ridiculous. terry was figuring that perhaps Biddle was playing over his head and Redding still had room for improvement, and it appears that he might have been right. However, the owners in the league just looked at the numbers and called for a veto. This is wrong. As long as there is nothing collusive about the trade, it should be allowed to go through, no questions asked. That's why I haven't made as many trades this year as some, I don't want to deal with the headache that accompanies virtually every trade in this league where the other owners criticize your move and scrutinize each stat. I know that the league has the best intentions in mind, especially Sax, who works his ass of and has been extremely fair all year, but it really is somewhat of a joke at this point, at least to me.

[Saxmania]

Thanks, Soriambi - you need to update your sig, you're actually at 11-4.

I agree that numbers aren't sufficient to evaluate players. For example, if two outfielders have earned 150 points each so far, is it fair to trade them for a starter who's earned 300 points so far? Not necessarily - if the OFs are barely better than those available on the waiver wire, then they have very little value, but the SP could be one of the best in the league. Value is dependent upon points earned, but also upon age, round drafted, form, team played for, position scarcity, flexibility, replacement players' value, and team balance.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[SanFrANSKY]

Agree with the points made above, but by it's very nature subjectivity is unique to each owner's perspective. In other words, my judgement is as valid as Annie's, which is as valid as Boz's, which is as valid as Pete's. I'm not going to agree with all of them all of the time, but I respect the fact that they are proceeding with their own information and imperatives.

However, if the owners' subjective opinions were against the latest trade, there is no reason not to try to rework the deal so that it would be more acceptable. There is a precedent for this in the league this year: the first Pujols/Millwood trade proposal was vetoed, but a second redesigned deal was accepted. If the owners of Biddle and Redding were determined and flexible enough to attempt a renegotiation, they could surely try again.

[joltinjo]

Thanks for the kind words Sax and Kurt.

I would never veto someones trade. It's their team, they should do what makes them happy. I just don't like my integrity questioned. Weaver was offered to me and I believe he's going to improve. If he tanks....well I screwed up then. It would be my loss. No different than betting on a horse.

Cameron is ok. I just would rather root for Erstad. So he was destined to sit. Ain't that my perogative? Since you guys vetoed the trade Biddle for Redding, Biddle has blown saves and gotten lit up like a Christmas tree. Redding has two wins---- who'd a thunk it? Redding happens to have grown up in a Rochester suburb and Terry and I have followed his career since his early days-- so there is a connection there, not related to stat collecting.

If someone was doing a trade for a malicious reason.... then you should question his brains or integrity.

[patrick.o]

Ok, first off I want to make it clear that I'm not questioning the integrity of either of the owners involved in this deal. My collusion comment was meant to be no more than sarcasm but in the context of the rest of my post that was easily lost I guess. Second, I want to apologize to Joe for whatever role I played in you not having fun and wanting to quit the league. I hope you reconsider.

The truth is I didn't object to this trade because I found it objectional, I objected to it because I was/am still irritated about the Senators/Swingers deal being shot down. I couldn't and still can't understand how that deal didn't go through, but this one didn't raise a single objection, and I question the fairness to the Swingers and Senators of denying their deal without denying every deal that isn't for close to equal commodities.

In any case my irritation has at least spurred some conversation on the topic, and hopefully we can either create a better system or at least better define when a trade should be questioned. As I've said before, except in rare instances I personally don't think any trade should ever be denied unless there is reason to suspect real collusion or underhandedness.

And for whatever little it's worth at this point, I recind my objection.

[patrick.o]

Originally posted by patrick.o
And for whatever little it's worth at this point, I recind my objection.

Well I guess it wasn't worth anything at all - I just noticed that the deal has already been completed. I now officially have an objection on my resume

[joltinjo]

patrick.o, perhaps I misunderstood the point of your original post. I am fully aware of Weaver's early season woes. He has been on an up swing lately and he has a healthy young arm, good velocity and great movement on his pitches. He may well be a Yankee future ace.... If they can shake the cobwebs out of his thick skull. Then again he can tank and get himself traded to a chump team. Cameron could proceed to hit .300 and drive in 100 runs while leading Seatle to a title. It's all a crap shoot. I could languish as a bottom feeder and do nothing or I can gamble on the future. I chose the latter.
When I traded Thome I was flooded with offers for that guy--- some were insulting. I saw one I liked and took a shot with Millwood and Erstad and scored 119 pts in one night. Thome? Who gives a rip about that guy. Not me.
If I have my druthers, I'll compile my team with players that I enjoy rooting for. It can't always happen. But it's worth a try.

A manger does the best he can with the horses he's got. No pain... no gain. As far as I am concerned, this whole mess can be forgotten and let it be water under the bridge. I'm ok if you are ok.

Joe

[patrick.o]

A-ok here, Joe