1) In my 13 years, I have only vetoed 3 trades, all were collusion of bad teams dumping players to good teams.
2) My league is ultra competitive, no one would make this trade.
3) Why isn't the commissioner vetoing trades? He should be the only one vetoing anything unless his team is involved.
This is a clear cut case, TheRawDAWG, but, I've seen leagues veto trades of major leaguers having a career year (let's use Bret Boone in 2001) for an up and coming prospect (let's use Justin Morneau from last year). If a losing team has Boone and trades him for Morneau, that isn't a bad trade in a keeper league, yet I've seen it vetoed for what some owners think is "killing the integrity of the league." That is NOT BS. Those vetoing it aren't baseball savvy enough to compete, and astute owners making the deal have to suffer as a result. That is a big reason I hate Yahoo! and similar leagues, along with no salary caps.
Baseball is a game where a curve is an optical illusion, a screwball can be a pitch or a person, stealing is legal and you can spit anywhere you like except in the umpire's eye or on the ball. ~Jim Murray
arod for lowe is collusion, even if the arod player thinks it is helping.
This almost coins a new term "collusion by means of ignorance"
If the arod owner is that dumb, and I mean DUMB then the practical effect is such that any owner can treat his roster as if it was the waiver wire. Offer your crappy player --> get player you want.
I HATE vetoes and think to some degree "anything goes"
I'd veto that. It is indefensible any way you slice it. You may THINK lowe will be a stud, but the FACTS show otherwise.
fair enough, great gretzky, but what about the situation above that I described? I've seen that vetoed in leagues and it is upsetting.
Baseball is a game where a curve is an optical illusion, a screwball can be a pitch or a person, stealing is legal and you can spit anywhere you like except in the umpire's eye or on the ball. ~Jim Murray
jbird669 wrote:fair enough, great gretzky, but what about the situation above that I described? I've seen that vetoed in leagues and it is upsetting.
No, I totally agree with you in a situation like that for sure. I don't like to veto trades.
There was actually a situation in my Football league this year that helped change the rules as a commish only veto process.
Team A was not going to make the playoffs. Team B was going to make the playoffs but definately needed a QB for his team to compete within them. We have a 4 man rookie roster in our league and 3 players are kept from year to year outside of this rookie roster. Team A wanted to trade Bulger (a guy he couldn't keep unless at the expense of Vick and he's enamored with Vick) and in return he wanted Manning (Eli that is ). In my mind that is the perfect trade, helps both teams with what they want to do.
The trade got the 4 votes needed and it cause some people to be a little upset. Basically the playoff teams didn't want him to get a QB without hurting his team at all for this year. I think thats BS. And thats one of the reasons the veto process has now been changed. The league is only 2 years old and played with a bunch of friends so we are trying to work out all the kinks and get the league up to a very high level. And the owners are definately there but the way some think it hurts the league.
But, if the trade was something like Bulger for Jeff Smoker then I would say the trade would have to be vetoed. Cause Team B really would have been giving up nothing for Bulger.
I wouldn't veto this deal because I don't think it's all that bad. Sure, I'd rather have Furcal, but Patterson could very well be a solid pitcher this year. I don't see anything here to veto and it's not anywhere close to the worst straight up trade I've ever seen.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
ocmusicjunkie wrote:So I open my team page this morning, only to find a Furcal for John Patterson trade pending.
I'm totally baffled.
Why do teams trade fifth round picks for guys who were on the WW two weeks ago? I mean, Patterson might workout to be a B- pitcher this year... but by trading him for a fifth rounder, you're basically saying he's as good as a Peavy/Isringhausen/Mulder type.
Trade is lopsided, but not the worst one ever.
On a side note, try not to compare Jake Peavy and Mark Mulder. They aren't even close fantasy wise.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jbird669 » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:56 pm 
). In my mind that is the perfect trade, helps both teams with what they want to do.
