SF - MIA

[Deleted]

@millertime89 receives:
OF - Alex Jackson - SEA - $0.30M

Marlins GM (Travis) receives:
1B - Logan Morrison - SEA - $3.70M (75%), $4.10M
OF - Austin Slater - SF - $0.30M

I accept this trade. I had a logjam at 1B with the current trades. So trading Morrison was a need. Alex Jackson is a top-20 prospect, so the value I get here is through the roof! I'm very, very excited about this deal. Good trade, Travis!

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

I accept. Some may think I'm losing in this deal. Truthfully i don't believe Alex is a top 20 guy. He's struggling in Single A, and i don't think he'll do any better at AA and AAA. I receive a bat for bigs, and a prospect that i think will help my team out down the road.

[Deleted]

I'll approve, but I think it's a clear loss for Travis.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

I'm going to abstain from this trade. I believe Jackson is a top 30-40 prospect and that dealing him for 2 role players is erroneous in a dynasty league. I don't really believe in vetoing unless someone really doesn't know what they are doing, so I will hold off.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Approve. For every highly touted prospect that makes it, there is one who never even reaches the majors.

[Mike (Former Mets GM)]

I'll abstain from voting as well, but Travis could have gotten a lot more for Jackson. I really don't get this.

[D'backs GM (Kyle)]

Approve. Jared said it best.

[Brewers GM (Tim)]

Approve

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

I'll throw a veto in here. Alex Jackson is a top draft pick... and he's only had 16 games this season, way not enough time to know. Morrison is hitting under .200... I think we can call THAT slumping. Slater is hitting .260 and isn't top 20 on like... any prospect lists for the Giants. So... it's just like... garbage for Jackson. Which isn't fair. And I think if it's... not really any return that shows any value, it's fair to veto. Like, there's no reason to trade Jackson, I get what you're saying Jared and Max, but there's nothing... coming back that would warrant a deal even for an underachieving top prospect.

(4-1)

[Mike (Former Mets GM)]

I'm going to go ahead and veto as well. If you look at previous trades involving top prospects, there usually is a much bigger return. I definitely wouldn't feel right if this trade went through.

[Matt (Former Padres GM)]

Veto. I really hate vetoes and everyone has their own evaluations but the return is just not enough for a guy who was drafted so highly last year.

[Mike (Former Mets GM)]

(4-3)

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

Veto. I hate using rankings in explanations, but Slater doesn't even make a top 200 list, and Jackson has great potential. Look, we know what Morrison is going to be now, he's not getting any better. And right now, he's nothing more than a starting 1B on a non-playoff team. That's not worth a top 30-40 prospect (he's not top 20). You could do a lot better with Jackson. I feel bad vetoing it for Giants because it would really help the team, but this is poor.

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Deal is cancelled. (4-4)

[Deleted]

So now Alex Jackson becomes everyone's target... how's this fair? I get screwed over for making my team better and now I get left in the dust whole everyone bids on Jackson.. vetoes are trash... I have a huge problem with this.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Remember when vetoes were for collusion and trades that we thought would hurt the league? Yeah, good times. Now vetoes are for an 18 year old kid, who as Alex pointed out, has only played in 16 games. If it was Bubba Starling and not Alex Jackson would this trade go through??? Remember how high Starling was drafted and how he was going to be the next perennial All-star?

At least Morrison made it to the show ad is contributing to a degree. Your vetoes make no sense and I think THEY are hurting the league.

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

This happens in every league Giants, trades get vetoed when they're unfair and you have to learn to deal with it. Rework it and make it better. No need to complain, everyone has had it happen to them.

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

Apr 27, 2015 13:21:36 GMT -5 Braves GM (Jared) said:

Remember when vetoes were for collusion and trades that we thought would hurt the league? Yeah, good times. Now vetoes are for an 18 year old kid, who as Alex pointed out, has only played in 16 games. If it was Bubba Starling and not Alex Jackson would this trade go through??? Remember how high Starling was drafted and how he was going to be the next perennial All-star?

At least Morrison made it to the show ad is contributing to a degree. Your vetoes make no sense and I think THEY are hurting the league.

Lol yes, Morrison made it to the show and is contributing a real solid 1.3 points per game. What a superstar! I know you guys hate vetoes and want every trade to go through, but please at least be realistic and understand that Jackson has incredible potential compared to Morrison. Yes, prospects have a high bust rate, and yes he could be complete crap, but they have to have some value, yes? Or did Lucas Giolito just become less valuable than Kyle Lohse? because I would say that is a fair comparison to this trade.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Apr 27, 2015 13:58:42 GMT -5 Jacob (Former Tigers GM) said:

Apr 27, 2015 13:21:36 GMT -5 Braves GM (Jared) said:

Remember when vetoes were for collusion and trades that we thought would hurt the league? Yeah, good times. Now vetoes are for an 18 year old kid, who as Alex pointed out, has only played in 16 games. If it was Bubba Starling and not Alex Jackson would this trade go through??? Remember how high Starling was drafted and how he was going to be the next perennial All-star?

At least Morrison made it to the show ad is contributing to a degree. Your vetoes make no sense and I think THEY are hurting the league.

Lol yes, Morrison made it to the show and is contributing a real solid 1.3 points per game. What a superstar! I know you guys hate vetoes and want every trade to go through, but please at least be realistic and understand that Jackson has incredible potential compared to Morrison. Yes, prospects have a high bust rate, and yes he could be complete crap, but they have to have some value, yes? Or did Lucas Giolito just become less valuable than Kyle Lohse? because I would say that is a fair comparison to this trade.

That's the problem right there. "I would say..." You don't have a say. It's not your trade. It's not your prospect or MLB player evaluations that went into this trade. It's the owners of the players. Vetoes are for collusion and trades that hurt the league. "Incredible Potential" never hit a game winning home run. "Incredible Potential" never threw 7 innings of 1 run ball. "Incredible Potential" leads to getting drafted, and if hard work ever meets the tools required, you might get a useful big league player. Might. The "incredible potential" is why an actual MLB player and a prospect are in the deal at all. Let teams value there players how they want, and if a trade comes by that looks suspicious or that it may hurt the league, we will veto. But don't veto based on your VAST prospect and prospect development knowledge. Don't you think that every team wishes they drafted Mike Trout with their first round pick??? I bet you wouldn't veto this trade if Jorge Sanchez, Grant Green, Bobby Borchering, Jiovanni Mier, Jared Mitchell, or Randal Grichuk was the prospect involved!?!? All taken prior to Trout. All considered "better prospects" with "incredible potential", or else they wouldn't have been drafted where they were drafted. Even if Jackson becomes a Superstar, who would care about this trade??? Both teams take on risk here and it should be allowed to go through.

[Deleted]

I think I'm entitled to complain. This is pure garbage. Your league needs to reevaluate your veto rules because in no way does this trade effect the wellbeing of the league. Both owners have valid explanations reasons trade and why it worked for them. Yet we have a vetoed trade based off 4 owners and their arbitrary ranks of players. Your vetoeing of this trade is a smack in the face to me and completely discredits my and Travis' ability to manage to our own liking.

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

Apr 27, 2015 14:12:52 GMT -5 Braves GM (Jared) said:

Apr 27, 2015 13:58:42 GMT -5 Jacob (Former Tigers GM) said:

Lol yes, Morrison made it to the show and is contributing a real solid 1.3 points per game. What a superstar! I know you guys hate vetoes and want every trade to go through, but please at least be realistic and understand that Jackson has incredible potential compared to Morrison. Yes, prospects have a high bust rate, and yes he could be complete crap, but they have to have some value, yes? Or did Lucas Giolito just become less valuable than Kyle Lohse? because I would say that is a fair comparison to this trade.

That's the problem right there. "I would say..." You don't have a say. It's not your trade. It's not your prospect or MLB player evaluations that went into this trade. It's the owners of the players. Vetoes are for collusion and trades that hurt the league. "Incredible Potential" never hit a game winning home run. "Incredible Potential" never threw 7 innings of 1 run ball. "Incredible Potential" leads to getting drafted, and if hard work ever meets the tools required, you might get a useful big league player. Might. The "incredible potential" is why an actual MLB player and a prospect are in the deal at all. Let teams value there players how they want, and if a trade comes by that looks suspicious or that it may hurt the league, we will veto. But don't veto based on your VAST prospect and prospect development knowledge. Don't you think that every team wishes they drafted Mike Trout with their first round pick??? I bet you wouldn't veto this trade if Jorge Sanchez, Grant Green, Bobby Borchering, Jiovanni Mier, Jared Mitchell, or Randal Grichuk was the prospect involved!?!? All taken prior to Trout. All considered "better prospects" with "incredible potential", or else they wouldn't have been drafted where they were drafted. Even if Jackson becomes a Superstar, who would care about this trade??? Both teams take on risk here and it should be allowed to go through.

I see it differently. There is no risk for the San Francisco Giants in this trade, and all the risk is on the Miami Marlins. The worst case scenario for the Giants is that Jackson is a bust and they lose 2 years of a 1.3 ppg Logan Morrison. Wow, that is some risk right there. All the risk is on the Marlins. The Marlins worst case scenario is getting a 1.3 ppg Logan Morrison and losing a superstar in Jackson. Is their best case scenario (Getting a 1.3 ppg player in Morrison and losing nothing) really worth that risk? If you think yes, you're insane, but please keep running your team like this and making it easier for me (an all out rebuilding team) to be able to build a division favorite team in a matter of two years through a farm system. What is the point of a trade committee if we can't see trades as unfair? Should Alex just decide then from now on? Absolutely not. Alex is one of the smartest owners in this league but even he isn't the smartest ever. That's why we have owners vote on trades to try and make sure all teams are competitive and we have a balanced league. It's trades like this that keep teams down in the long run and other teams up. No, it's not collusion, and no it doesn't kill the balance of a league, but it's significantly un-equal.

[Mike (Former Mets GM)]

What if this trade was Carlos Correa for Delmon Young? Would you still accept it? And who's to say whether a trade hurts the league or not? I see a very lopsided trade here that should not go through.

[Jacob (Former Tigers GM)]

Apr 27, 2015 14:22:24 GMT -5 @millertime89 said:

I think I'm entitled to complain. This is pure garbage. Your league needs to reevaluate your veto rules because in no way does this trade effect the wellbeing of the league. Both owners have valid explanations reasons trade and why it worked for them. Yet we have a vetoed trade based off 4 owners and their arbitrary ranks of players. Your vetoeing of this trade is a smack in the face to me and completely discredits my and Travis' ability to manage to our own liking.

You're right. You should probably be our commish now because you know so much about how it all works. I've been in this league 5 years and everything has worked just swimmingly. Everytime a trade gets vetoed this stuff comes up and everytime people complain saying they know how to run their teams. Then they leave one week later. Don't come in here and act like you know how everything should be run when you've been here for a week.

[Matt (Former Padres GM)]

I think there is a middle ground. I don't feel like this was a passable deal. I don't veto often but I felt this deserved it. Sorry to the two owners who are upset about the deal getting vetoed but its part of fantasy baseball. I don't feel this league is overly veto happy. Most of the deals in my eyes that are vetoed deserved a veto

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2015 14:25:08 GMT -5 Jacob (Former Tigers GM) said:

Apr 27, 2015 14:22:24 GMT -5 @millertime89 said:

I think I'm entitled to complain. This is pure garbage. Your league needs to reevaluate your veto rules because in no way does this trade effect the wellbeing of the league. Both owners have valid explanations reasons trade and why it worked for them. Yet we have a vetoed trade based off 4 owners and their arbitrary ranks of players. Your vetoeing of this trade is a smack in the face to me and completely discredits my and Travis' ability to manage to our own liking.

You're right. You should probably be our commish now because you know so much about how it all works. I've been in this league 5 years and everything has worked just swimmingly. Everytime a trade gets vetoed this stuff comes up and everytime people complain saying they know how to run their teams. Then they leave one week later. Don't come in here and act like you know how everything should be run when you've been here for a week.

So you're okay with the outcome of this veto? 

You're okay that I get screwed over in this deal entirely. We are going to have managers racing to offer trade for Alex Jackson because a deal that was accepted BY BOTH MANAGERS wasn't accepted by a few guys who believe this deal is unfair. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF A KID WHO HASN'T EVEN SUCCEEDED... Travis knew darn well that Jackson was touted, but he used his own knowledge and decision making to come to the conclusion he doesn't think Jackson will be successful... He got what he wanted in the deal and was happy with it. Where in the world does something like that hurt the league? 

So I get left out to dry here... what a waste of time... 

PS: I will come in and give my opinion, because If I'm apart of this league, my opinion matters just as much. 

[Deleted]

As long as both parties are working in good faith -- and your assumption should always be that they are until evidence is presented otherwise -- you've got to let people make the trades they want to make. Especially in a long-term league, where you will be playing with the same people over and over. An active trade market is a key for a great Fantasy league, and you don't want to stifle that by assuming your owners don't know how to handle their team. As a rival owner or commissioner, you might disagree with one or the other owner's assessment of the talent involved, but you have to give them a chance to justify it.

In a competitive league, the best remedy to an owner who consistently makes bad trades is to replace him or her. Using the veto is simply masking the symptoms of a broken league. I’ve seen leagues where trading stops completely, owners leave, or the veto is used tactically to prevent other rivals from improving.

My advice regarding vetoes is to enact a league constitution with clear guidelines regarding when a veto can be used. In my own leagues, a trade must be “clearly unconscionable.” Owners participating in such trades, especially the seller, are subject to removal at the commissioner’s discretion.

These are some of my high level thoughts about vetoes. They’re a dangerous tool that can take away from the enjoyment of a league. A veto is like taking advil for a sore pitching shoulder. It will mask the pain, but it won’t fix your problem. In fact, if you keep pitching, the advil will just let you do more damage. Vetoes are the same way, they just make the league even worse. I always prefer to attack the cause of a problem rather than a symptom.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Apr 27, 2015 14:23:35 GMT -5 Mike (Former Mets GM) said:

What if this trade was Carlos Correa for Delmon Young? Would you still accept it? And who's to say whether a trade hurts the league or not? I see a very lopsided trade here that should not go through.

What if??? At least Correa has more than 16 games played.

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Settle down everybody . This is one trade in thousands in this league's history. I've seen many leagues die due to parity, and the way I like to run my league is have a check and balance system with trades just to keep it fair. It's not down to stats like, oh man this guy's getting a total of 100 points more combined with players so it's no fair. Plenty of deals that I see as, unfair, go through and I approve them. As commissioner of 30 teams in a baseball league where I have to replace new owners every few months or so, one of my main jobs is make sure that teams are in shape in case people quit. That's the only reason why vetoes are okay, it's not that I'm meddling with people's business, I'm just always thinking long-term would it be best to veto and keep a very lop-sided trade from happening or approve and just.. "See what happens" and hey maybe he's bust? Trades... 95% of the time, pass. I don't think that's unreasonable

I know that many don't like this, it seems there's an argument every few months or so, but I'd ask you all to trust me on this, as I've run this league for five years and hey? Look at how many teams are in it, it's great parity right now! This helps our league a bunch, because, to be honest, some owners just put way more time into it than others. So this helps balance it out. Not calling anyone out, not arguing, I didn't even read half the comments. This is just my view as commissioner.

[Deleted]

How is this a justifiable veto?

[Braves GM (Jared)]

This issue comes up every few months, because it's a continuing problem.