Explain how this is a Fair Trade.
by Bardwell on Jan 29, 2012 12:43 AM EST
Email
PrintOur commissioner has made a trade with the guy in last place in our one year league. This is what was traded.
Note: Eric Staal was picked up on Jan. 25 the day of the trade by our Commish.
Last Place player gives:
Vanek, Hartnell, Lidstrom, Letang, Franzen to our commish for flippula, bieksa, campbell, eriksson, and Eric Staal.
I had sent a veto for this trade am I reading too much into this? This seems like a pretty lopsided trade. I have not said anything else to this point.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Holy crap.
I don’t usually comment on posts but I just had to for this one because this trade is absolutely brutal. The last place player’s players are all having MVP-like years for their teams with great stats. The commisioner’s players are decent, but no where near worth the value.
4-0-1
assuming a standard scoring…
Vanek > Filpulla
Hartnell > Eriksson
Lidstrom > Bieksa
Franzen = EStaal (or close enough)
Letang > Campbell
In a player-by-player comparison, it does look like one side is clearly winning.
However, most advise that a trade should NOT be vetoed just b/c one side appears to have “won.” Opinions may vary/reasonable minds may differ.
To veto on this basis, it would have to be extremely lopsided.
Is this deal “extremely lopsided?”
Idk, but it is close.
Next consideration is whether there was any collusion.
Hard to know even when you are in the league. Even harder from this great a distance.
That said, when the LAST place team is giving up what must be ALL of it’s core players, that does raise a red flag.
You clearly feel strongly about this, so nothing wrong w/ voting for a veto.
Hopefully, there is a process in place in your league for ALL members to vote.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
Nice analysis Dio.
You could make a case that Hartnell = Eriksson. They have the same amount of points, though Hartnell wins in PPP and PIM going away. Still, I don’t know which I’d rather have going forward.
Same thing for Letang and Campbell. Especially when you take into account the injury risk. I probably would rather have Letang but it’s close.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
by Michael Benedicks on Jan 29, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
Collusion. Who knows.
Thanks for the analysis like michael said. I kept wondering if getting rid of Bieksa and Eriksson was simply to make it seem fair. But at least it gives me more to think about.
Thanks Again.
I wouldn’t say it’s that bad, but the Commish is clearly the winner. As Dio just said, the only real reason to veto is collusion. That being said, I know people veto trades that appear one sided all the time, so if you really feel that way, there’s no harm in pressing that veto button. If the rest of the league is paying attention, chances are a few of them will do the same.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
by Michael Benedicks on Jan 29, 2012 10:48 AM EST reply actions
It made me wonder because they are best friends and the last post (the last place guy) made about two months ago. He was disgruntled with all the “terrible” trade ideas given to him. He posted a topic saying he would trade all his core players away and split the winnings if any more terrible trades came through. I laughed when he wrote this thinking how can he make any trade now without it being scrutinized?
I agree, smells fishy, so I say you have a legitimate beef.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
by Cam Collingwood on Jan 29, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
I’m normally pretty anti-veto but this one seems a bit off.
Definitely worth a veto in my eyes.
When a owner has nothing to gain and is clearly the loser in a deal it’s not cool.
I would like to hear a justification on how he things this improves his team.
Also… what the hell was Staal doing on the wire?
Fantasy Hockey Scouts: a fantasy hockey blog on SB Nation
staal on the wire
Everyone keeps saying that about staal. His +/- was atrocious and everyone is so close in that category i think that may have been part of it. he has been on the wire for over two months in our rotisserie league. he kept getting picked up then dropped.
I like the idea of the justification. Does it improve his goals, ppp shots. what?
this is really bad:
the last post (the last place guy) made about two months ago. He was disgruntled with all the "terrible" trade ideas given to him. He posted a topic saying he would trade all his core players away and split the winnings
it is hard to say for sure w/o being, but from what you are saying, this sounds like a veto — regardless of any “justification” he concocts after that fact.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
I posted a message for a justification of this trade but none came through and my veto does not matter because the Commish has full control the trade went through anyway.
never play in a $$ league
where you can not physically reach the person holding the $$ – Justin Case
by MasterOfPuppets on Feb 2, 2012 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
sorry to hear that Bardwell.
i don’t recommend playing in leagues where a Commish has that much control. even when they are run completely on the up-and-up, inevitably someone will be disappointed.
trades being the most contentious issue, they are best left to a league vote.
SBN Fantasy Hockey Blog: Fantasy Hockey Scouts
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Fantasy Hockey Scouts
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
