PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy Baseball


Prince22
06-09-2006, 12:47 AM
I voted against a trade as did enough people to have the trade vetoed. I think this trade is BS but I just wanted an opinion from those who play fantasy baseball.

Team A gets: Hanley Ramirez and Isringhausen
Team B gets: Sizemore and J.Rollins

Team A is in last place in saves but this is rediculous. He's getting hosed. But yet he's the one thats pissed off the most.

I should point out that Team A has never played fantasy baseball before (obviously) and Team B has which is why he's been taking a few rookies to the cleaners.

What do you think? Is this a fair deal? Even close?

Miles
06-09-2006, 12:55 AM
Depends on your scoring format. Doesn't seem all that bad to me. I wouldn't question team A's ability much if he picked up Hanley on waivers.

Prince22
06-09-2006, 12:59 AM
Depends on your scoring format. Doesn't seem all that bad to me. I wouldn't question team A's ability much if he picked up Hanley on waivers.

He didn't Team B picked up Hanley off waivers a while ago and he's trading him to Team A. Team A has made 5 transactions all year. I'm suprised he know how to accept a trade.

tk13
06-09-2006, 01:02 AM
Well, I wouldn't do that that trade, but it's not totally absurd. Izzy does have a lot of saves. Rollins has been struggling. He was actually dropped in a public league I was in. I scooped him up and he's been heating up lately.

Isringhausen is really unpredictable right now though. He keeps racking up saves. He should have even more. LaRussa will probably remain pretty loyal to the guy I'd imagine, that's just how he is, even if every Cards fan in America starts screaming for Wainwright. Saves are a valuable commodity.

Miles
06-09-2006, 01:23 AM
Just to give you something to compare, Hanley was traded for Berkman in my league and no one objected. And the extra throw ins defintily favored the team that got Berk.

Infidel Goat
06-09-2006, 07:55 AM
If a majority of teams vetoed the deal, the manager of team A should accept the veto.

He should also learn that he'll have 15 chances to pick up the new reliever flavor of the month before the season ends.

Sfeihc
06-09-2006, 08:28 AM
I don't like it. Sizemore is the best player in the deal and JRoll is the second best player in the deal. Rookies are still rookies and closers' shelf lives keep getting shorter and shorter. Plus how many saves is Izzy going to get with Carp and Phat Al on the DL?

cookster50
06-09-2006, 09:14 AM
That trade should never have been vetoed. That is one reason I hate the veto rule. People veto trades based on whether or not it hurts their chances, not whether or not the trade is fair. SCREW YOU VETO LOVING, TREE HUGGING, NUT CRACKING, LEFT WING LIBERAL NUTCASES!!!

duncan_idaho
06-09-2006, 09:31 AM
That's not a horrible trade... but I probably would have vetoed it as well...

It's not as bad as the deal I was offered earlier this week:

Melvin Mora and Eric Gagne for David Wright (I have Wright).

The guy apparently thought I was a moron. My counter offer: Preston Wilson for Chase Utley and Grady Sizemore. He thought that was funny...

We've met in the middle, though. He's giving me Sizemore and Chris Ray (I need an outfielder and more saves) for Wright and Akinori Otsuka.

What do you guys think of that? I can slide Jorge Cantu to third base, and I think Frankie Cordero is going to get the Rangers' closing job back eventually.

KevB
06-09-2006, 10:20 AM
I don't think the trade was so bad that it should have been vetoed personally. I agree with Damark....it was vetoed because other owner's decided it would hurt their chances. Maybe the guy is very high on Hanley Ramirez....who are you to say he's wrong? Rollins hasn't been very good this year, and Izzy has a bunch of saves.

I don't think it's an even trade, but it shouldn't have been vetoed.

Prince22
06-09-2006, 10:23 AM
All this guy is getting out of this is Saves.

He's giving up RUNS, RBIs, HR, AVG, and SB for saves.

He's already too far behind the top dawgs in saves so all hes going to do is gain 2 maybe 3 points in saves and loose in all the other categories that sizemore brings.

And damark this doesnt hurt my chances at all. It probably help me pass this guy if he traded Sizemore.

broncoholic
06-09-2006, 11:21 AM
Who cares if it is fair?
Owners get hosed in trades all the time.

The ONLY reason to veto a trade in fantasy sports is collusion.

In your opinion was the trade collusive?

Sfeihc
06-09-2006, 12:33 PM
That trade should never have been vetoed. That is one reason I hate the veto rule. People veto trades based on whether or not it hurts their chances, not whether or not the trade is fair. SCREW YOU VETO LOVING, TREE HUGGING, NUT CRACKING, LEFT WING LIBERAL NUTCASES!!!

:shake:

StcChief
06-09-2006, 12:44 PM
Why I stopped playing Callusion always happens...
Not enough vetos to stop stuff.

HolmeZz
06-09-2006, 01:45 PM
That's definitely not a bad enough trade to get vetoed.

CHENZ A!
06-09-2006, 02:41 PM
Who cares if it is fair?
Owners get hosed in trades all the time.

The ONLY reason to veto a trade in fantasy sports is collusion.

In your opinion was the trade collusive?

I completely agree :clap:

before the seoson started, I was going to send Swisher/Manny Ramirez/Tim Hudson for Sheffield/Vlad and someone vetoed it... It ended up helping me, as Shefield is hurt, and Swisher is killing, but I was very pissed at the time. Point is, noone knows for sure how these players will perform the rest of the way, so they should be allowed to manage their teams. If you are able to pull off a "good" deal, then you did a good job.

I ended up just trading Manny for Vlad straight up.