Berkman trade

[Wallpaper Paterson]

Berkman and Cingrani

For

Bumgarner and Molina


Fair trade or ridiculous?


Keeper league

[Mauddib]

Love the deal for whoever is getting Bumgarner. I think that side wins pretty easily but I could see why someone would want the Cingrani side. I just don't think Cingrani can keep this up all year.

[Wallpaper Paterson]

Now what if I told you the guy receiving Berkman and Cingrani just joined the league yesterday and is taking over a 7-37-4 team?

Now what if I told you the commissioner hand picked this replacement manager and the commissioner is the one receiving Bumgarner and Y. Molina?

Looks worse now, right?

[Mauddib]

A little dubious. But like i said, I could see why someone might take the Cingrani side. I would have to see more questionable stuff than one trade before I started raising the pitch forks.

[Dingbat]

I call shenanigans. Bumgarner > Cingrani, and Molina > Berkman. It's not even close, and it's not like Bumgarner is an aging veteran. He's actually a month younger than Cingrani.

[Wallpaper Paterson]

A little dubious. But like i said, I could see why someone might take the Cingrani side. I would have to see more questionable stuff than one trade before I started raising the pitch forks.

Thanks for the reply.

There have been other odd things in this league but I won't bore you with that.

The entry fee due date was extended to May 15 (only now there is a $10 past deadline fee at League Safe) due to some of the league problems. I have between now and then to decide if I believe the league might right itself and that things are good.

[thump]

GTFO that league yo..

[connman]

I don't think it's that bad. Some people just make bad trades. It has to be allowed. He is the new owner of a crap team in a keeper league. If he feels cingrani is the player with the brightest future in that trade he has a right to overpay to get him.

This isn't such a bad deal that you should consider vetoing it. It sould more like one of those times when a trade goes through and we as owners get annoyed because we would have offered more for a guy than was accepted. That's not a reason for a veto.

As for collusion it's always easier to make a trade with a guy you know and can talk to on a phone instead of just with back and forth email offers, the fact that this new guy knows the commish means they have advantages as trading partners in their ability to negotiate but again it doesn't mean they are cheating.

[Wallpaper Paterson]

Well, it went through. There was no way it was going to be vetoed. I checked the settings on trade vetoes (it is an issue I normally do not care about as I very rarely ever vote against a trade) and saw that the commish set it up for 7 votes to get a trade vetoed. Getting seven of eight people to vote against a trade in a 24-hour period is next to impossible no matter how egregious the trade may appear.

[connman]

7 of 8..., that's crazy.

I'm not a veto fan, but I mean your league basically doesn't have a veto if you need 7 of 8 votes. You could do Harper for Bonifacio by those rules and it would go through.