Posted by isack24 on 10/26/2010 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2010 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2010 1:22:00 PM (view original):
You don't play in a vacuum.  Your deal, from a strong team to a middle of the road team, is between two of thirty two teams.  Those thirty teams get to decide if they like your deal.

Here

I understand your concern about this trade.

But using the above statement as some sort of standard for vetoing is ridiculous.

I don't like any trade that helps any team get better.  But I'm not going to veto because it helps other teams.

Posted by jtrinsey on 10/25/2010 4:07:00 PM (view original):
philo,

With regards to your incredibly long-winded example, it would depend on how you went about proposing the deal. I have no problem with wanting to dump salary (although "dumping" an MVP-caliber player is baffling to me), but if so, it needs to be posted clearly in the World Chat and can't be rushed. If I see a trade went down sending an MVP-caliber 3B being dealt for 2 bench players I would veto that in a heartbeat and freak out in the WC. If you posted in the World Chat that you were looking to move that guy and, after 3 days, that was the best deal you could get, then I wouldn't veto.

But in any reasonable league, that would not be the best you could get.

It's funny, because I was part of a very similar trade in Happy Jack. I acquired a guy who was a former MVP-caliber 3B on the 4th year of a 5 @ 20M/per deal. He's still very good (~.900 OPS with good but not outstanding 3B defensive ratings), but not quite the MVP-quality player he once was. He's also in decline and next year his once excellent range will be in the low 60s and his once-93 power will probably be in the mid-70s. The owner posted the guy in World Chat for a while and the deal that got hammered out sent a solid ML starter (LF with 72/66 range/glove and career .810 OPS) who was in his first arb year and a prospect who will be good defensive 2B (borderline CF) with a somewhat weak bat. I would call the first guy a definite ML starter and the second a borderline starter or bench guy.

Your trade is not totally ridiculous, but should get vetoed if it came out of nowhere. It would probably (and should, IMO) pass if you posted him in the World Chat for a couple of days and that was the best offer you get.

This is a load of crap. I've heard other guys say this on many occasions and it just isn't fair to put that kind of statement out there. I rarely put one of my big names up on world chat. Instead, I look for teams that the guy would fit on and I trade chat them to see if my guy can help their team of vice versa. Often times I will also look at teams doing terrible and offer prospect(s) for their expensive players with years left on their contract. It works for me and I've had this discussion where other owners have said the deal should be vetoed but if I take the time to search out trade partners that fit and we work something out why should I (or the other owner in the deal) be punised for not putting it up on World Chat? I think everyone has their own way of doing things and not everyone is going to agree with it. I really don't care if a few loud mouth owners want to put up a fuss about a deal that would otherwise not be talked about if a post was put in World Chat. If you don't like the deal that happened maybe you should have done the leg work to inquire about the guy you think didn't fetch 'fair market value'.

Fair market value is a perceived value. Some owners don't know how to interpret ratings and therefore don't understand the term. A player who is a 90 overall but only hits .280/.340/.450, has never won any major awards and makes $9M a season isn't a stud, even if his overall suggests otherwise. If that guy was a good defensive SS maybe the 90 overall would be an indication the guy is a stud, but that line isn't so good for a 3B. You said it yourself, overall is not a good barometer for true value. Ratings like temper and bunting can skew an overall, thus leading noobs to believe the deal isn't fair.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/26/2010 5:15:00 PM (view original):
While you're correct, you're disputing the market's ability to determine "fair market value".   Do you see the problem with your argument?

OK, so let me ask you a question, MIke: if someone puts their player on the world chat, offering that player and a prospect for salary relief, and ends up getting only a few responses, all "unfair, in your opinion, would you still veto the trade despite knowing that the person received FMV (the price of a player between a willing buyer and willing seller, neither feeling compelled to do so)?

The ground rules you laid out previously have nothing to do with actual market value, at least not as it's defined by any economist or area of law that I'm aware of.. 

If the market defines market value, and the best someone can do in an open, honest market, is something that you consider "bad for the world" and would veto, then you shouldn't even bring up FMV, because it has nothing to do with your vetoing policy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Did I say it did?  

If I am selling tomatoes at the market I really don't care about the guy who doesn't like tomatoes. I am only interested in the guys who do like tomatoes and more importantly, the guy who likes tomatoes the most. If someone does not like tomatoes their opinion of what tomatoes are worth is not relevant in the marketplace. I am a businessman and I am looking for the person that is willing to pay the most for my product, or on the other side, I am looking where I can buy tomatoes for the lowest price. The point is only one person is going to determine market value and that is the guy buying the product, not the guy that doesn't like the product or the guy that likes the product but not enough to pay the price for it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2010 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I probably didn't read your question.  Or it was worded in such a way that I ignored it.  Try again if you'd like.

The market, in a HBD world, is comprised of 32 owners.  The market is not two owners.   While one may not be willing to offer FMV, that doesn't mean he can't help determine it.    And they may do so by voicing their disagreement or pressing the veto button.  

As an example, the market value for tomatoes, for me, is ZERO.  I don't like tomatoes, I don't eat tomatoes, I don't want tomatoes.   That doesn't mean that tomatoes have no value.   You may love tomatoes.   You may be willing to trade a Mercedes for a bushel of tomatoes.  However, even though I don't want any tomatoes, I don't want you de-valuing my Mercedes by trading one for a basket of tomatoes.  So I object.  If we were in a HBD world, I'd hit the veto button.