My hair's turnin' white, my neck's always been red, my collar's still blue
We've always been here tryin' to sing the truth to you
Guess you could say we've always been red white and blue
"Red White and Blue," Lynyrd Skynyrd
You simply cannot veto a trade unless there is some sort of cheating involved. As long as both teams can reason why they want to make the deal, it has to stand. You are not the judge of how they want to run their own team. They are. If you have heard however that something shifty is going on, then you have to decide on that basis.
What I did was ask for other league members to comment on it. That way, if it does end up vetoed, it was because of others. I mean, if that's good enough for the public leagues, voting to veto trades, might as well be good enough for private. Personally, I don't see collusion, but that deal is just too bad. There is the chance of collusion
My hair's turnin' white, my neck's always been red, my collar's still blue
We've always been here tryin' to sing the truth to you
Guess you could say we've always been red white and blue
"Red White and Blue," Lynyrd Skynyrd
Captain Crash wrote:You simply cannot veto a trade unless there is some sort of cheating involved. As long as both teams can reason why they want to make the deal, it has to stand. You are not the judge of how they want to run their own team. They are. If you have heard however that something shifty is going on, then you have to decide on that basis.
Im so sick of reading this crap on why the only reason a veto should happen. NOBODY IS GOING TO ADMIT TO CHEATING! EVER. You cant prove someone is cheating unless they come out with it can you? And they arent going to are they? NO and NO. The reason people are given the option to veto is to keep the integrity of the league by keeping teams in competition. So that means if a trade of Arod for Vizquel if both teams agree to it, its ok? Maybe the owner of Arod loves the Indians and doesnt care about what Arod can do because he wants to have his favorite players for his fantasy team. That trade should be allowed then? Its not cheating because one team wants something the other has and will do it no matter what. You cant veto it then with that stupid reasoning of - no cheating, no veto. So then you let one team just have the number player at every position because, if he's not cheating, no matter what the trades are, it should go through and everyone else is left battling a team that cant be beat? What fun is that? I say if someone feels a trade is grossly unfair it should be vetoed. Sure, some trades are gonna be a little lopsided to one team more than another. But when you have WAY out there trades.. like i saw a post yesterday Millwood/Prior for Mantei,Trachsel,K.Wells and tons of people said its not a vetoable trade. It is too.
You have to keep teams fair otherwise what fun is it battling for second place because someone got Arod for Vizquel??
We have a team in my league that did that. He loves Boston. So he gave away everything he had to get almost every Redsox player he could. He did most of his trading with one team in our 10 team league.(He happen to have a lot of Redsox players) The team he traded with to get his Redsox players wont be beat this season for the title. Listen to the lineup he got because another team decided he didnt care about the trades as long as he got his Redsox players.
Remind you.. 10team H2H Points based scoring.
C- Posada
1B-Thome
2B-Kent
3B-Pujols
SS-Tejada
OF-Sheff
OF-Green
OF-Ichiro
U-Chipper
The only players on this guys team from Draft day are Schmidt,Mantei. Everyone else he got from basically the guy who loves Redsox players. No cheating involved.. he just happend to have a lot of Redsox players and so to trading they went. Now this is the lineup he has in a 10 team league. What fun is fighting for 2nd place? Those of you out there that think 2nd place is fun, then you let your league allow way lopsided trades to go through.. AS LONG AS YOU MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CHEATING THO!
No, it's not vetoable unless something is collusionary. Biggio is off to a hot start, and Day is playing way over his head, and Bagwell is struggling. If the owner getting Day and Biggio needs a 2B and a starting pitcher, there's nothing wrong with it. The owner with Biggio and Day is just using the classic sell high strategy, and that is good fantasy strategy, not cheating.
Just because a trade is something that you wouldn't accept or that is a ill advised move by an owner does not make the trade vetoable. In fact, if in a league you can verify that each team is controlled by seperate people, you probably should just let all trades go through unless they are blatant roster dumps.
About the Red Sox fan trading for all Red Sox players, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The guy that had Red Sox players knew that the other owner loved the Red Sox and knew that he could get a premium for that guy's favorite players, so he did so. That is perfectly legitimate and a smart strategy.
There is a huge Yankees fan in my league, so I was able to trade him Petitte for Kerry Wood and Bernie Williams for Bonds. Another guy traded him Matsui for Shawn Green. I see nothing wrong with that, it's just knowing the dynamics of your league, and manipulating them to your advantage.
You sit there and say that because you were the one doing the massive raping of another. Bernie for Bonds. Pettitte for Wood. Why does that make that fair? Yeah he may like those players but why ruin your league by allowing or making such insanely lopsided trades? You stack one team.. in this case yours which is why you see no problem with it.. and then no one can beat you and you say this is a smart way to play? Wrong.. its a cheap way and an easy way to win. What risk are you taking by getting rid of an aging and a hurt Bernie for what some say is the best baseball player of all time? None. Its a cheap way to win and allowing others to stack their teams is not fun.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by YankFan51 » Sun May 25, 2003 12:36 am 
