Trading Injured Players A Tricky Situation

Here's an interesting story from this season.

On a Thursday, I emailed another owner to offer him John Smoltz in exchange for Adam Dunn. He said he'd ponder it.

On Sunday morning, he sent me the offer: Smoltz for Dunn. I wanted to accept, but I hesitated, because Smoltz was starting that day. Why? Not sure -- maybe I just wanted to make sure Smoltz didn't throw a no-hitter or something. (It's stupid to make a trade or not based on day, but whatever.)

So I left the trade unanswered. When I got home that night, I noticed that Smoltz had been removed from the game with a stiff shoulder. Not a big deal, I thought, since he'd had a bum shoulder since spring training and been lights out for a month. The trade was still on the table, so I took it. However, I told the other owner that if something catastrophic happened to Smoltz, I'd undo the trade.

Of course, something catastrophic did happen and we reswapped the players a few days later.

I'm perfectly happy with how it was handled all around -- I don't regret accepting the trade, or offering to rescind it. I do, however, wonder what would have happened if I'd accepted it that morning, before Smoltz's start. In a sense, I'm glad I didn't, because there would have been no logic to rescinding the trade in that case.

All of which is to say, most of these issues come down to goodwill among owners. I play in a league with friends and, while wildly competitive, no one wants to win by fleecing someone else. And I would never, ever play in a league with vetoes. I've heard too many horror stories: it's a ridiculous system. If you don't have a commissioner you trust to oversee these things, you should find another league.

I do often think how the year would be different if I'd had Dunn's 25 or so homers since that trade was rescinded, instead of Smoltz getting shot behind the barn.

I feel your pain on the injury thing: This year I lost Smoltz, Furcal, and Gallardo. The only big one I side-stepped was Ortiz.

If someone makes you an offer for a healthy player, and the offer sits there, and then your player gets injured and you run to accept it, this is the act of a child. People who would do this are a$$holes, and should be promptly booted from the league.
These are situations that should be vetoed. Now, if a player gets injured during the trade review process, this is a totally different story.

Lastly, I am very happy with the Furcal-Cliff Lee trade.

Ok - I'm one of the owners who vetoed the Maine for Hanrahan trade. And I feel compelled to explain myself.

First, I'm all for owners making bad trades. That's part of the game.

Personally, I think trading Hanrahan for Maine is a total steal - but if everyone was healthy, I'd say congrats to the team who got Maine.

But it's important to note in this case that the trade was only accepted after Maine went on the DL.

In real life - which is generally what we're trying to replicate here - if a player shows up to his new team and doesn't pass the physical, the league vetoes the trade.

Period. End of story.

That's exactly what happened in this case.

You can't compare this to the Gallardo or Furcal situations earlier this year. They aren't the same.

Oh, I'm loving trades involving injuries this week in my keeper league. Turned Justin Duscherer into a Billy Wagner rental last Tuesday. Ooops.

But then, I just traded a low-salary Andy Sonnanstine for a high-salary, currently DLed Chipper Jones yesterday. No outcry yet, though we do have a very rarely employed trade veto policy in this league.