Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

I have a kind of a long drawn out question just trying to get some objective opinions on it.

 

 

So basically I'm in first place in a keep 3 roto league that I'm in on Yahoo!  A player (the comish, who I know in real life) offers me a trade for Aaron Judge who I have as a 23rd round keeper (best keeper in the league right now).

 

He offers me:  Billy Hamilton, Chris Archer, Carlos Carrasco, deGrom, and Darvish (none of these players would be kept where they were drafted)

 

for Aaron Judge (23rd round keeper)

 

With the tag line saying if you don't accept this trade I'm going to offer similar offers to 2nd place and 3rd place (said their actual names though).  I reject with the response that I will not be extorted into giving up the best keeper in the league.  

 

As yeah that trade would have sealed first place for me but I'm already in first place by 4-5 points depending on the day with tons of trade fodder (Sano 22nd round keeper, Syndergaard 19th round keeper) and guys about to come off the DL (trade deadline is a week away).

 

Minutes later he then turns around to trade for Jose Altuve (8th round keeper)

 

He gives him the same thing accept + Ryan Zimmerman (ranked 34th overall but wasn't drafted so can't be kept).  So it looked like:

 

Hamilton, Archer, Carrasco, deGrom, Darvish, and Zimmerman

 

for

 

Altuve (8th round keeper).

 

 

The team who received all that pitching for Altuve earlier in the season towards the end of June with the team in 2nd to last place they have about 25 points in roto just pretty much out of it.

 

He gave up:

Nolan Arenado Col - 3B (1st round keeper + $20 to keep)

 

To get:

Justin Turner LAD - 3B (10th round keeper, ranked 90 on per game league rankings)
Giancarlo Stanton Mia - OF (3rd round keeper)
Greg Holland Col - P (18th round keeper)
Corey Knebel Mil - P 
Masahiro Tanaka NYY - P 
Aaron Nola Phi - P 

 

A few people disputed the legitimacy of the trade.  It was the first time in the season anyone was willing to let go of closers.  I chimed in with Stanton could very well by himself out rank Arenado and the people involved in the trade got real butt hurt and said I didn't know what I was talking about yadayada but needless to say Stanton ranks #5 and Areando is rank #11 right now.

 

This same person already made a trade earlier in the season on May 31st (Mad Bum was 2 weeks from returning) with another team who recently is a top 3 team now:

 

Trevor Story Col - SS (19th round keeper)
Wil Myers SD - 1B,OF 
Dee Gordon Mia - 2B 
Jeff Samardzija SF - P 
Madison Bumgarner SF - P 


Robinson Canó Sea - 2B 
Eduardo Núñez Bos - 2B,3B,SS,OF 
Drew Smyly Sea - P DL (hasn't played)
Garrett Richards LAA - P DL  (hasn't played)

 

Story is the only player with real relevant keeper value but comes with his risks.  This trade was between the comish of the league and his best friend.  

 

What is to be thought of this?  Obviously I have my bias here as I may get screwed out of first place in my eyes.  But it just seems like we are letting bottom teams decide who they want to place at this point.  Never have keepers like this been traded for by giving up so much in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also some fore-text:

 

I am clearly the commissioner's least favorite player in the league (as I do win this league quite often and it pisses him off).  He didn't even make an attempt to tell me when the draft was this year so I showed up late to the draft when I had to find out from other people in the league the day of the draft.  Because of that I had the last pick therefore first waiver right?  No he said because I showed up late it was his justification to do waivers reverse from normal.  Now it is FAAB so not the end of the world but it has cost me from getting a few players already.  But just more s--- I've had to deal with in this league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, exm said:

What's your point? It's obvious what's going on in this league.

 

No kidding they are colluding their asses off those trades are not even close to real trades.  They should be reversed immediately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been here @Rotocious.   When you have keeper leagues in this format, prrety much anyone you cant keep is worthless to you if you're not able to place.  It's a bad setup for keeper leagues.  It's really hard to tell what trades are legitimate, which are bs, which are marginal upgrades for maybe a keeper or not. It gets really messy.

 

Best way to solve this is either eliminate keepers or add a lot more keepers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brockpapersizer said:

I've been here @Rotocious.   When you have keeper leagues in this format, prrety much anyone you cant keep is worthless to you if you're not able to place.  It's a bad setup for keeper leagues.  It's really hard to tell what trades are legitimate, which are bs, which are marginal upgrades for maybe a keeper or not. It gets really messy.

 

Best way to solve this is either eliminate keepers or add a lot more keepers. 

 

Well the real problem lies in the fact that better keepers in years past have been traded for far less.

 

Of the 3 teams out of it one is inactive the other two have decided to just push all their players onto other teams to help the propel forward.  Both of those teams have made at least one lopsided trade with the same two teams.  Ignoring other teams who had equal if not better keepers.

 

I offered Syndergaard 19th round keeper for Darvish straight up... 1/6 (he gave up 5 players in the top 60 and Billy Hamilton ranked 130) of what he gave away to get Altuve as an 8th round keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brockpapersizer said:

I've been here @Rotocious.   When you have keeper leagues in this format, prrety much anyone you cant keep is worthless to you if you're not able to place.  It's a bad setup for keeper leagues.  It's really hard to tell what trades are legitimate, which are bs, which are marginal upgrades for maybe a keeper or not. It gets really messy.

 

Best way to solve this is either eliminate keepers or add a lot more keepers. 

 

Yeah but just because you're out of it one player shouldn't all of a sudden be worth all those top 60 players. That is just going to throw everything out of wack. It is basically letting last place teams decide the fate of the league and you can't have that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So he gave up the world to get Cano then used him later as a part of another trade? Seems very fishy it isn't like Cano is hurt or way out of line from the norm. I know father time is catching up but if you paid that much for him less than 2 months ago I'm not sure how his value just all of a sudden disappears. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rotocious said:

I offered Syndergaard 19th round keeper for Darvish straight up... 1/6 (he gave up 5 players in the top 60 and Billy Hamilton ranked 130) of what he gave away to get Altuve as an 8th round keeper.

 

Maybe he's not sure about Syndergaard's return or arm health in general. But for just Darvish I think 99% of people would rather just get Syndergaard in the 19th next year for just Darvish rather than give up all that for Altuve in the 8th.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TrueShoe said:

 

Yeah but just because you're out of it one player shouldn't all of a sudden be worth all those top 60 players. That is just going to throw everything out of wack. It is basically letting last place teams decide the fate of the league and you can't have that.

 

Exactly and I've been in leagues where this has happened and the same reactions.  It's just bad rules, because sometimes it does make sense to trade like 7 players for one if the player you're getting is worth more next year than any player you're giving up and the others have no value to your team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

Exactly and I've been in leagues where this has happened and the same reactions.  It's just bad rules, because sometimes it does make sense to trade like 7 players for one if the player you're getting is worth more next year than any player you're giving up and the others have no value to your team.

 

Yeah but value to a losing team and value to the rest of the league shouldn't be so out of whack. These trades are essentially letting the winner of the league be whoever gets to the lopsided trade first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrueShoe said:

 

Yeah but value to a losing team and value to the rest of the league shouldn't be so out of whack. These trades are essentially letting the winner of the league be whoever gets to the lopsided trade first.

 

That's why they are bad rules, but if the last place team is actually making his team better for next year, I don't blame them.

 

I'd trade trout Harper stanton and Betts for Chris taylor if I had no chance at placing and the trade made me somehow better for next year.  Not that I have done this, but I see the logic. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TrueShoe said:

 

Yeah but just because you're out of it one player shouldn't all of a sudden be worth all those top 60 players. That is just going to throw everything out of wack. It is basically letting last place teams decide the fate of the league and you can't have that.

 

 In keepers leagues I actually think this is essential for year over year league balance. One guy in second place is shopping Goldy right now. the guy in 11th could make the deal and next year have Trout, Stanton and Goldy as his first 3 keepers, not a bad start. The guy giving up Goldy is getting volume to try and win the league. But if he doesn't win, he starts next year without Goldy and the trade will be a disaster.  It's a risk for the guy going for it and a no-brainer for the guy in 11th (though he isn't accepting yet because he's a terrible manager, hence 11th place). 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrueShoe said:

 

Yeah but value to a losing team and value to the rest of the league shouldn't be so out of whack. These trades are essentially letting the winner of the league be whoever gets to the lopsided trade first.

 

Well, it's always a risk to trade top end talent for a quantity of lesser players. 1) you are mortgaging the future for now  2) Nothing guarantees you a championship, especially in H2H. 

 

If the losing team has assets wouldn't they be stupid not to try and trade them when they are out of it? This 11th place team has 3 high end closers who are worthless to him. He would be a fool for not trading those guys for a possible keeper. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mickey Donovan said:

 

Well, it's always a risk to trade top end talent for a quantity of lesser players. 1) you are mortgaging the future for now  2) Nothing guarantees you a championship, especially in H2H. 

 

If the losing team has assets wouldn't they be stupid not to try and trade them when they are out of it? This 11th place team has 3 high end closers who are worthless to him. He would be a fool for not trading those guys for a possible keeper. 

 

 

 

Yeah but does it make sense for them to make a trade that is so out of line with reality solely based on the fact that they are out of it?  There is 0 risk for the bottom team and trading should trade and share risk.  Just because you are out of it you shouldn't be able to give away your entire team for 1 guy catapulting a player from 5th place to 1st. 

 

Also they said this is a roto league which it is so much easier to project the standings in roto.

 

Where I think the problem lies is the OP is saying he could have gotten those guys for less than he paid for but he wanted to over pay his buddy.  It seems to be the same 2 teams out of it trading to the same 2 teams who are now in it because of those trades and that isn't a situation that should be allowed.  Ever.  Keepers or not.

 

Now if every team out of it was just giving away their players for keepers then sure but from what I have read it seems to be the same 2 teams who are out of it working with the same 2 competing teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TrueShoe said:

 

Yeah but does it make sense for them to make a trade that is so out of line with reality solely based on the fact that they are out of it?  There is 0 risk for the bottom team and trading should trade and share risk.  Just because you are out of it you shouldn't be able to give away your entire team for 1 guy catapulting a player from 5th place to 1st. 

 

Also they said this is a roto league which it is so much easier to project the standings in roto.

 

Where I think the problem lies is the OP is saying he could have gotten those guys for less than he paid for but he wanted to over pay his buddy.  It seems to be the same 2 teams out of it trading to the same 2 teams who are now in it because of those trades and that isn't a situation that should be allowed.  Ever.  Keepers or not.

 

Now if every team out of it was just giving away their players for keepers then sure but from what I have read it seems to be the same 2 teams who are out of it working with the same 2 competing teams.

 

Yeah, this league seems to be a complete cluster f---. But don't league dynamics usually play into deals?  For instance, I play with a bunch of guys with whom I grew up. Our league has personality conflicts all the time that are part of the league story. Some guys wouldn't want to help another manager even if it helped themselves. I think that is ridiculous but it does happen. Maybe they really don't want this guy to win for some reason. In this situation it does sound fishy considering the same 4 teams are dealing with each other. I'd probably leave this league if I am the OP. 

 

 But I was more talking in general as this is a common topic of discussion as we approach the trade deadline this weekend. I can see how this is more of an issue with Roto than H2H. I'd say the zero risk is a formality for any team completely out of it. If the eliminated team drafted some valuable players, such as closers, him turning those into a keeper is the reason he is interested in the league at this point. He should do everything he can to improve his team for next year, that is his sole purpose of still being engaged. He would be a fool not to trade away any non-keeper valuable pieces.  Right?

Edited by Mickey Donovan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can call this collusion simply because the trade happened with the commish and his best friend. After all, he offered a very similar deal to you.  Its obvious to me at least, that the commish is out to improve his team for next year at all costs.  

 

Let me ask you this - if you were in 3rd or 4th place instead of first and this offer came thru to you, if you felt it would propel you into first this year would you have made it? (the original trade he offered).  I think almost everybody would have.  In fact I think a lot of people I first this year in your spot would have taken the trade. I give you credit for keeping first and keeping a grip on your future as well.

 

If there is no collusion there is no problem.  The manager giving up all those guys is improving for next year obviously feeling like he has no shot this year. So he's actively managing his team and doing what he feels is best for his team.   Its not your job or anybody else's job to tell him he's managing his team wrong.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that is failing to be gone over here is the fact that this owner who has already made unrealistic trades with these teams basically told the first place team that if they didn't accept this trade they would trade their guys to their opposition.  Are those the only 2 teams with good keepers?  The original poster seems to mention some pretty damn good keepers.

 

It certainly is shady that minutes later he goes and trades a better trade to your competition for Altuve as an 8th round keeper, clearly Judge as a 23rd round keeper holds more value.  This same team he already has made a bad trade too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PRoSPx said:

T

 

It certainly is shady that minutes later he goes and trades a better trade to your competition for Altuve as an 8th round keeper, clearly Judge as a 23rd round keeper holds more value.  This same team he already has made a bad trade too.

 

I'd say judge plus whoever you could get in round 8 is probably fair for altuve. It's not an amazing deal or difference but I don't think Judge carries that much more if any value than Altuve there. You're looking at a pretty decent bust rate in round 8 and Altuve is one of the best and consistent fantasy assets to have. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the trade as that is the nature of the keeper leagues.  Sometimes its a buyer's market and sometimes its a seller's market.  Personally, would have just done the Judge deal if it effectively locked in the championship.  But you elected to play for more than this year - and that's cool too.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

I'd say judge plus whoever you could get in round 8 is probably fair for altuve. It's not an amazing deal or difference but I don't think Judge carries that much more if any value than Altuve there. You're looking at a pretty decent bust rate in round 8 and Altuve is one of the best and consistent fantasy assets to have. 

 

 

 

And hes made multiple trades like this to the same team?

 

 

Also I'd easily take Judge and the 8th round pick over Altuve and the 23rd round pick in a heart beat.

Edited by FouLLine
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mickey Donovan said:

 

 In keepers leagues I actually think this is essential for year over year league balance. One guy in second place is shopping Goldy right now. the guy in 11th could make the deal and next year have Trout, Stanton and Goldy as his first 3 keepers, not a bad start. The guy giving up Goldy is getting volume to try and win the league. But if he doesn't win, he starts next year without Goldy and the trade will be a disaster.  It's a risk for the guy going for it and a no-brainer for the guy in 11th (though he isn't accepting yet because he's a terrible manager, hence 11th place). 

 

 

 

 

Yes but you're talking 2nd to first not the to first... Do you think he'll net 5 top 50 players for Goldy?  And if he did you don't think that drastically and unfairly improves their chances?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...