Controversy in the Cafe Challenge league??

[VaderFin]

I find it interesting that the post Warpigs put on the Baseball Cafe had pretty much the same reaction there that it did here. The vast majority of people think it's a trade that shouldn't go through. I don't think Mookie did anything wrong other then take a trade that was to his advantage. What I do question is the last place teams reason for the deal and the "answer" he gave is lame at best. Either way a FFCer is winning this league!

[A Fleshner Fantasy]

Madison, how can you say the name doesn't matter? Trading is about value, and the name is what holds value. If you have two guys like Sizemore and Hamels, you trade them for other guys of similar value. The name has value because of reputation, and what you expect them to produce. You don't trade someone who is a top 15 player for a scrub SS because right now their numbers are similar. A guy like Sizemore can get you a much better player in return, because he has a certain value. The same goes for Hamels and Marshall. Obviously these are not separate 1 for 1 deals, but Renteria does not come close to balancing the difference between Sizemore/Cust and Hamels/Marshall. I hate to say it, but I have a hard time believing you'd still be defending the deal if it was not 2 mods of the Cafe.

And about what kent said, I agree with Omaha. Selling your underachieving ( ) studs off for what he's getting back is an odd way of shaking things up.

I don't think Madison was saying names don't completely matter. What he was saying was that ultimatly it is the numbers that win leagues, not who has the most big name players, and that trading away names for someone less known isn't ALWAYS a bad decision.

[Madison]

Madison, how can you say the name doesn't matter? Trading is about value, and the name is what holds value. If you have two guys like Sizemore and Hamels, you trade them for other guys of similar value. The name has value because of reputation, and what you expect them to produce. You don't trade someone who is a top 15 player for a scrub SS because right now their numbers are similar. A guy like Sizemore can get you a much better player in return, because he has a certain value. The same goes for Hamels and Marshall. Obviously these are not separate 1 for 1 deals, but Renteria does not come close to balancing the difference between Sizemore/Cust and Hamels/Marshall. I hate to say it, but I have a hard time believing you'd still be defending the deal if it was not 2 mods of the Cafe.

I'll be nice here to start...

Does name cause reputation, or do stats make the case? If I name my son Arod, does that mean he will have value in fantasy leagues, or will he actually have to go out and produce to earn that reputation? Name means squat. Stats, trends, projections, etc, are what matter. Was Ryan Howard a name two years ago? Nope. Why's he a first rounder now? Stats. Has zero to do with "Ryan Howard" being a cool name or anything. Name holds ridiculous value for those owners that don't know any better. When someone drafts Andruw Jones (great example Fleshner ), Adam Dunn, Ritchie Sexson, etc, I always chuckle and make note of it. Why? Because that's someone that puts too much value in a name. All 3 of those guys hit plenty of homers typically, but they also destroy (I don't mean hurt, I mean destroy!) your team's batting average. Yet all of them go way, way too early based solely on stats. Sexson might be an exception, I've seen him fall to reasonable levels before. If I owned Vernon Wells this year for example, I'd target the guys that drafted the aforementioned players. Odds are they would give up the most due to V-Dub's name, regardless of the poor season he's having.

There's also a very basic concept called "selling high". The outlook for the rest of the year for Hamels is bleak. Odds are that his innings will be limited like I explained above, so his perceived value based on name is much higher than his actual value is. Moving him now is not a bad move at all. And as to Sizemore, if an owner doesn't believe he will duplicate his stats the second half, then why not sell high there too? How many guys steal 50 bags a year? Not many. Sizemore's not a power hitter, so if you can move him to a speed needy team and get power in return, that's not a bad move either since you've already banked the majority of his steals and no one can take them away. Take Arod as a perfect example of moving a producing player. Sure, Arod's having a MONSTER season. Awesome and fun to watch. Personally I hope he breaks the RBI record. However, what owners have to look at is who's going to produce more from this point forward, not what they've done so far, as owners don't get credit for that. Someone asked in this thread earlier "what about Hamels 10 wins?". Those 10 wins are 100% irrelevant as the owner trading for Hamels doesn't get credited for those 10 wins. How many 20 game winners are there each year? A handful at best, and with Hamels most likely being limited, you can toss those 10 wins out the window because he won't be duplicating that in the second half. Anyway, back to Arod. Anyone think he will duplicate this monster first half? Sure, he's capable of it, but if he *only* hits 24 homers and has 60 RBI, while another player from this point forward hits 28 homers with 70 RBI, who was more valuable to their owner? Trading Arod for that player would have been a smart move, no? Sure, Arod would have better season numbers over the other player, but the owner benefitted from the trade. And there would be people screaming and yelling "veto" over a 1 for 1 deal involving Arod right now, even though that would be silly.

Now tack on the fact that based on what Mookie said, half the league is gunshy about trades, and the baseball guys understand name holds some water, but not nearly as much as others think, and one can definitely see how this deal happened. Tack on Kent's explanation that he wants out of the cellar (which makes sense, doesn't it?), and people make moves accordingly. We are not privy to the standings, but guessing by looking at Kent's roster, he blew his first round pick on Ortiz and is struggling in the power/rbi department and Sizemore's help in those categories is basically zero. If gaining points there will get him out of the cellar, who is anyone to tell him he can't try to avoid finishing last? And here's another thing, and it's quite big. Who is anyone really to decide who's projections are right and wrong? Good example, everything on the face of the planet lead me to believe Hamels will be shut down and/or limited in his workload. As I said before, I've got him pegged for about 60 more innings. Now that really doesn't have a whole lot of value, so who is anyone to tell me I can't trade him for a guy I know won't be shut down and will provide reasonable numbers? Hey, I admit Philly is strange. They demoted one of their top starters to a closer this year (Myers), so who knows, they could toss Hamels out there every start for 100+ pitches and I could be very wrong about what I think he's worth at this point. However, no one KNOWS what's going to happen, it's simply our own projections, and isn't that what the entire game is about? If we're not allowed to make moves based on our own projections, then why do we have drafts? Everyone should have the exact same rankings if we're not allowed to tweak them based on what we project.


Now, since you decided to turn this personal, and you've done nothing but take shots in these two threads at others.....

Teddy, frankly, I don't expect you to understand. You took Magglio Ordonez at #5 overall in a midseason mock, so I know there's no way you can follow the thought process going on. For those that don't know, first four picks were: Arod, Pujols, Utley, Jose Reyes. Teddy at #5? Magglio Ordonez. You're out of your depth here Teddy. What happened to "name recognition"? Only applies if it's not you involved? That pick was so bad that when you were asked about it in the Midseason Mock forum, you deleted the post (!) (Teddy was and I stress "was" one of the mods of that forum). You really think you have one ounce of ground to stand on when it comes to evaluating players, looking at projections, determining right from wrong, being a stand up person, etc? Talk about your classic sucker pick on someone overachieving. Maggs at #5 overall.....*shakes head and grins*... That still makes for a good laugh.

Also, seems you haven't bothered to read what I've written. I have not defended this trade in the least, prior to this post. I've pointed out that I wouldn't do it, but it's not as crazy as some people think. That's all I've done. I did mention owners being allowed to use their own projections in this post, but prior to now I've given no defense of this trade, just shown what this trade really is, without being jaded by "name recognition", and pointed out a few things that were not obvious just by looking at the names (like Cust having regular playing time now, more power/rbi than Sizemore, Hamels most likely being limited down the stretch, etc).

And of course I took a look at this. Warpigs thought it was a big enough deal to post it publicly on both sides, it involves several solid Cafe members from both sides includng two baseball mods, and the reaction has been exactly what I expected (and I'm sure Warpigs expected this reaction as well, so I don't follow the logic really, but neither here nor there). Had people really looked at this deal without letting "name recognition" get in their way, I probably wouldn't have said a word because at that point, it's pretty obvious that the deal isn't nearly as bad as one would think at first glance. Uneven or lopsided? I wouldn't say a word. Collusion and veto? That gets my attention. Collusion moreso than veto. I wanted and had planned on staying out of it, but if no one was going to put a logical post up to base their opinion on, someone had to in this situation. If me spending some of my time on this is a source of problem for you, I honestly don't care. Since you are so big on "name recognition", with the "name recognition" you've built up, you should fully understand why I could care less if what I do bugs you.

[moonhead]

pwnt

[bigh0rt]

Maggs at #5 overall.....*shakes head and grins*... That still makes for a good laugh.

Don't forget Torii Hunter 29th Overall.

[bobbing_headz]

While I understand that name recognition should not be too heavily weighted you can't ignore it at all. With name recognition comes a track record of success. Take Sheff for example. You coulda looked at his horrible April and said one of two things: A) I'll keep him because he's Sheff and Sheff's career numbers tell me he's better than this or B) I'll unload him because his numbers are declining. I think most of you know which was the better choice.

As for the example of Andruw Jones, Sexson, etc. it's an interesting case but not completely true. Sure some owners draft these guys recognizing the name and forgetting the bad avg but these guys are drafted for a reason, because they provide 3 cat power production. When you draft them you know the avg is gonna hurt you. Maybe you took a lot of high avg, low power guys and need some extra power. Not every guy you draft is a bona fide 5 cat guy. For most players there are at least one, often times two or even three categories that are not gonna be the best. Seems silly to me. Average is just another category along with all the rest.

Of course there is that aspect of projecting what the player will do for the rest of the season, which completely ignores the numbers he's already put up (and should). Yet still, if one justifies this trade because one owner thought that Renteria, Cust and Marshall would outplay Sizemore, Hamels and Harris then the only thing we're doing is insulting the owners baseball intelligence. I see from all this arguing of course that this is one of those issues where there will never be unanimous support for either side. I could see this argument go on for ever. Really it's just one opinion vs. another. Neither is right or wrong so here's me opinion: While I truly despise saying this, trades like this should be vetoed to maintain league competitiveness.

[teddy ballgame]

Edit: It's not worth it.

Mad, you're right...I'm wrong. Maggs was a horrible pick, and I know nothing about baseball. Glad that's settled.

[A Fleshner Fantasy]

In response to Madison's most recent post a few things:

1) pwned
2) excellent post
3) pwned
4) magglio at #5 over a pitcher (johan) that is 40-4 post all star break since 2003? (not to mention many other players who would have been better picks than Maggs, I just personally would have selected Johan)
5) pwned

[SwiperNoSwiping]

I know nothing about baseball players values, but I just think Mookie would be above collusion.

I am in the league and feel that way.

[Flux]

I do want to make one thing clear here...I dont think ANYONE in the league actually said this trade should be vetoed. I personally asked for explanations on why it happened from both parties. I dont think anyone gave a very convincing explanation, but I still have never said it was vetoable.

I still hold that this trade is incredibly onesided.

I still think that this trade probably would not have happened with an FFCer. Im not claiming collusion on this, but just a "kent is more familiar with mookie, therefore talked trade with him" kind of approach.