MLB Fantasy Baseball: Is Winning a Trade the Most Important Part?

Most every question received here involving trades seems to have the same point behind it: Who wins?

The Table has had some solid debate on this issue in every trade that gets made, but a larger point remains. No owner should be out to deliberately screw over another owner. Trade offers need to be made under the guise that it's a fair deal, that's why teams go back and forth.

As an owner, your concern shouldn't be if you "lose" a trade. First, that's nearly impossible to determine because there is no crystal ball to magically predict the future. We only have our guts and past performance. Every economist will tell you, the past is not necessarily the best predictor of the future.

Second, your single goal should be to better your own team. Obviously, no offer should be sent out asking for Chase Utley in return for Julio Lugo. But, when you look at an offer or go to make an offer, you should know what you are after that will make you better.

Most importantly, a truly lopsided deal isn't going to be approved anyway. If it looks to good for one team or another, most leagues have a mechanism that allows either other members to veto a trade or for the commissioner to do so. E

ven if both teams agree to it, if it looks like one team is stealing, then that is the when this should be used.

Let's take an example. Team A has three top closers in Papelbon, Nathan, and Sherrill. The team is weak at third and in the outfield, relying on Vernon Wells and Melky Cabrera as third and fourth outfielders and stuck with Adrian Beltre as their regular third basemen.

Team B isn't doing poorly in saves, but only really has Francisco Cordero as a main closer. They rely on Matt Capps as a second closer and lost Isringhausen earlier this year. They have Chipper Jones and Miguel Cabrera at third and Kosuke Fukudome is their fourth outfielder.

So Team A has a couple options. They could target Jones, but would likely have to give more than Papelbon at this point. Now, the easy trade in this scenario is Sherrill for Fukudome. But let's assume Team A wants Cabrera. So they propose Sherrill for Miguel Cabrera.

On the surface, this looks lopsided. Why would a guy give up Miguel Cabrera for Sherrill? Well, he doesn't want to punt on saves yet and feels Sherrill will help (he has 26 already).

Cabrera is helping him offensively, but he feels that he can make up the stats using another player as a utility and Jones is going to remain the starting third basemen.

So, both teams win. Is it likely this would be an accepted trade? No, but it will very likely be proposed and settled on Nathan for Cabrera or Sherrill for Fukudome. And that's fine too. But neither went in looking to win the deal. They went in looking for one that would help their teams.

The fact is, both teams should feel like winners coming out of a deal and the only major concern should be if the offer gives fair value in return.

That's how we try to phrase our responses, in terms of value for the player and the position and not in terms of winning and losing deals.

No notes today, but the Roundtable will be back tomorrow with the Top Five's of June.