I offered two pitchers who can pitch a little over 150 innings each and give you a 4.40 ERA or so. Player I asked for in return is a reliever who, when developed, will give me 90 innings and a 3.50 ERA or so. I thought this was a fair deal and worked out well for both teams as I'm dealing from excess and the other team has a terrible staff and could use the 300+innings.
So he accepts, but in a world where a vetoed trade is nearly unheard of, 17 owners rally together to give 'er the ol' veto.
I'll post the players later, but not right now because I think OVR is the issue here. So 300innings of 4.40ERA for 90inngs of 3.50ERA. Fair or no?

Context.  Your trade partner:

gatorwrath
	Owner Profile
	Send Sitemail
	Block

gatorwrath

member since: December 25, 2010

Right or wrong, trading with n00bs gets a lot more scrutiny than trading with an established veteran.

Not having seen anything but what is here in the first 3 posts of this thread:
90 Innings at a 3.5 ERA can contribute positively to a Championship/Playoff team
300 Innings at a 4.40 ERA is not positively contributing to a Championship/Playoff team and likely has to be compensated for by other parts of that team.  IMO, a player that I expect to post a 4.40 ERA doesn't have any trade value (not no value to a team, just no trade value since they are pretty easily replaceable.)
So for the fact that you were trading with a new coach, I would probably have vetoed.

Wrong world, buddy....and irrelevant.

Thanks for the responses. FWIW, I think its fair. I have a team I expect to win 90-92 games and those pitchers will contribute. Was just dealing from excess and thought it odd that thats the trade everyone vetoes rather than some of the lopsided ones we've had in the past.

Then list the players, pal.

Yes, I would definitely veto that trade between a vet and a noob.

Truthfully, I wouldn't care about that deal between two experienced owners.   I'd have to know how the world played to make a true opinion on that deal with a n00b.

Can't see the projections on Valentin, but looking at his age and current ratings he looks like he has potential to be a very good RP.

The two guys you are dealing are basically clones of what one can typically pick up from the FA pool after the FA period has ended at a discount.

So, yeah.  A bad deal.  A very good prospect for two replacement-level players.

Impossible to make that call without more info. 

You've got 900+ career IP at 1.35/4.50 WHIP/ERA.   Between them, they can eat up 1/3 of a team's required IP in a season.   They're not bad pitchers.  On a team in need of pitching, giving up 90 innings of very good pitching in 3 seasons isn't a big deal.   Neither pitcher is making big bucks.  It's not a horrible deal between two experienced owners.     But one is new.

My point is that if the new guy can pretty much pick up those same guys from the FA pool, why give up a top prospect?

From booger's point of view, he can trade those two guys, also replace them (if he wanted) with their FA clones, and walk away with a top prospect.

Getting something for nothing from the n00b.  Classic rape job.

Plus, around 600 of their combined IP's were in Tacoma, an extreme pitcher's park.  They'd get lit up in Colorado like Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Booger it was very clearly explained to you why this trade was vetoed. The RP you were getting in return projects to be a very good setup/closer. As for saying only 1 of 17 people said they would have vetoed if the other pitcher was involved is very misleading. I was the "1" that said I would still veto but no one else answered you. You are making it seem like 16 said they would let it go through which couldn't be farther from the truth. Also, for about the hundredth time, it has nothing to do with overall ratings. You were giving up 2 guys you can pick up on the waiver wire at any point during the season for a very good young prospect. That trade most likely would have been vetoed no matter who it was between. It just made it worse that it was someone in their 1st season. Also, for 17 people to veto, says something.

First, I meant 1/5th not 1/3rd of required innings.
Second, if you're not in that world, you have no idea what's available at the end of FA or on the WW. 
Third, they probably do get lit up in Colorado but so would the RP. 
Fourth, I don't think you know the pitching situation on either team.
Fifth, I don't think you blink if that happens in Coop, MG and, I assume, Mantle.
Last, it's not a "classic" n00brape as both pitchers are cheap.

All that said, I can certainly see why a vet/n00b deal like that is vetoed.  IMO, n00bs shouldn't trade their first season.   With 17 vetoes, not 10-11, I'd say it's a pretty crap deal but I know nothing about that world.   I do know booger was removed from a world for some reason(trading away all his BL talent and tanking, I think) so it's very likely his rep follows him around.  Combine that with a n00b trade and you get what you get.