Is This Trade Vetoable? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Is This Trade Vetoable?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Jack-In-A-Box » Sun May 25, 2003 2:27 am

jdh wrote: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.


In no way is Bernie for Bonds fair and shouldnt have been allowed. Bernie has hit 30HR 1 time in his career. Bonds is almost a lock for 40-50 HR.
Yeah you could say this was an ill advised trade for the other guy but because no cheating was involved you should be allowed to stack your team? I disagree
Jack-In-A-Box
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1195
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Atlanta GA

Postby jdh » Sun May 25, 2003 2:50 am

Numbers wise, Bernie for Bonds isn't that bad of a trade for either side. Bernie will have a batting average at .320 plus, which is likely to be higher than or similar to Barry's. Also, at least before he got hurt, Bernie was likely to have higher RBI totals, because Bonds is walked so often that he can't get much more than 100 RBIs (or much more than 40 homers for that matter). Plus, I also gave him DeJean as part of the deal, and he had no closers. Granted, in the two weeks since we made that deal, Bernie has gotten hurt and DeJean has blown something like 4 of his last 5 saves, but that's beyond my control.

I think that if you know someone has favorite players and will pay more than face value to get them, it's a perfectly legitimate strategy to take advantage of that. In no way would that trade be vetoable, because if you look at the raw likely numbers, Bernie and Bonds are fairly even. Bonds is far more valuable in real life than he is in a fantasy league, because the way he is pitched to cuts down on his production big time.
jdh
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2760
Joined: 5 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Halifax, NS

Postby bleach168 » Sun May 25, 2003 2:51 am

OMG Jack-In-A-Box! You're my hero!

I can't tell you how many "who found the chump first" leagues I've played in.


JDH and others who agree with him,

Please don't preach to us that the only reason to veto trades is collusion. It's your opinion. I respect your opinion so please respect mine.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5046
(Past Year: 50)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby DGroundhog » Sun May 25, 2003 2:54 am

I find nothing wrong with vetoing lopsided trades. Don't listen to people who try to tell you when to veto.

The veto is your own personal right, and you can exercise it however you wish. I'm not advocating vetoing everything, but use your judgement. Some people won't veto anything, and I think that hurts leagues more than a veto-happy league.
Image

[b][size=18]70*[/size][/b]
* Steroid induced record
DGroundhog
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1390
Joined: 3 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby jdh » Sun May 25, 2003 3:05 am

The problem with a veto-happy league is here is what will happen 90% of the time. There will be a trade that is not even that gets vetoed. Then, this royally pisses off both owners big time. So they then start vetoing everything that gets accepted. As soon as another uneven trade is vetoed between two other owners, you then have four ticked off owners ready to veto everything in sight. It eventually degenerates to the point that every trade is getting vetoed and noone can get any deals made. Not being able to fill needs or trade away excess talent in a certain category ruins a league a whole lot more than some people who accept bad trades.

That's why the best approach is just to lay off vetoes on everything other than roster dump trades. Yes, that will require owners to pay attention to league dynamics and trades that may or may not be accepted and get the best deal for your players before someone else does. Usually, people that whine about wanting to veto trades are just upset that they weren't the first one to offer a trade for the player the other owner is getting.

The other problem with vetoing is different people have different perceived values of players. If you asked 10 different people to list the top 20 starting pitchers in MLB, you'd probably get 10 very different lists. Some people value historical performance, and others believe in YTD performance. The problem is that in vetoing a trade, you are using your judgement in saying what is or isn't a good deal for the other team. What gives other owners the rights to block an owner from making a deal that they think improves their team but other owners may not agree? It's their team, it's their choice, unless you highly suspect collussion, leave it be and lay off.
jdh
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2760
Joined: 5 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Halifax, NS

Postby ramble2 » Sun May 25, 2003 3:06 am

Jack-In-A-Box wrote: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!


So if the Red Sox fan had kept his team intact then he'd have the team that would have dominated the league? So isn't it a matter of who you'd be fighting for 2nd place behind?

Yankfan, you raise an interesting point about standards for public vs. private leagues.

In public leagues where you don't know anyone, I think that vetoing a trade that is extremely lopsided can be justified by trying to maintain league integrity (or hell, just for strategic purposes!). However, if it's a private league, then you shouldn't veto unless you have grounds for thinking there is collusion, cheating or something else that threatens the integrity of the league.

Collusion or other kinds of cheating are obvious grounds for vetoing a trade. What about other trades that threaten the integrity of a league? I think that the test here is whether a manager is sincerely trying to compete. Trading Bonds for Bernie may not be a good trade, but it doesn't mean that the manager getting Bernie isn't trying to compete. (Maybe he thinks Bonds has hit the wall, and that Bernie has a few more good years left in him, I don't know.)

In a private league, the commissioner has to play an active role. Presumably they know all the members of the league well enough to know whether they are acting in a competitive manner. But you have to respect other managers autonomy as long as they are not violating the spirit of the game. Some managers enjoy having certain players on their team and are willing to pay a premium for it.

I used to be quicker to veto trades, but then many of the trades I thought should have been vetoed turned out to benefit the player I thought was getting screwed. I decided I wasn't as smart as I had thought, and am now very hesitant to veto a trade just because I think it's not fair. It has to be extremely lopsided before I think it calls for a veto.

Biggio and Day for Bagwell? Is this a 'needs' trade? Biggio is a decent player to stick in at 2nd, and Day has pitched well. I certainly wouldn't do this trade, but I'm not sure that it is necessarily vetoable. It depends on each team's roster and whether you think that both teams consider this trade an improvement of their squads. Consider this: Bagwell is the 10th ranked 1B in Yahoo, Biggio is the 9th ranked 2B and Day is the 50th ranked SP. If you are stacked at first, and desperately need a 2B, then you might be forced to pay high.
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2951
(Past Year: 66)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby jdh » Sun May 25, 2003 3:13 am

In public leagues where you don't know anyone, I think that vetoing a trade that is extremely lopsided can be justified by trying to maintain league integrity (or hell, just for strategic purposes!). However, if it's a private league, then you shouldn't veto unless you have grounds for thinking there is collusion, cheating or something else that threatens the integrity of the league.


Vetoing trades for strategic reasons is always wrong. By doing that, you are abusing the veto function and blocking another owner from making a trade he thinks benefits his team because it's not in your best interests. That type of vetoing is what destroys leagues and causes more problems than anything else.[/quote]
jdh
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2760
Joined: 5 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Halifax, NS

Postby Jack-In-A-Box » Sun May 25, 2003 4:43 am

jdh wrote:
In public leagues where you don't know anyone, I think that vetoing a trade that is extremely lopsided can be justified by trying to maintain league integrity (or hell, just for strategic purposes!). However, if it's a private league, then you shouldn't veto unless you have grounds for thinking there is collusion, cheating or something else that threatens the integrity of the league.


Vetoing trades for strategic reasons is always wrong. By doing that, you are abusing the veto function and blocking another owner from making a trade he thinks benefits his team because it's not in your best interests. That type of vetoing is what destroys leagues and causes more problems than anything else.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you there jdh.. veto to block trades even tho its a fair deal is wrong. Veto because someone is getting royally ripped isnt. Bernie for Barry.. well think about it. Barry probably went 1st round in about 99% of all drafts. Bernie depending on league size probably didnt go till i'd say earliest 7th rd. Smaller leagues like 10 in our case Bernie went 9th rd. So 9th rd pick for 1st rd pick is way lopsided. Cheating or not it shoulda been vetoed(IMO) I just feel that a trades value.. everything taken into consideration like overall stats,weak positions, etc.. should be fairly close. Keeping level of competition equal throughout the league. Not having a runaway team. And im saying this from personal experience. A couple of years ago when i 1st started with a bunch of friends i knew more about baseball than they did. So i pretty much raped em of everything.. had an unbeatable team and went on to win 22wks straight and the championship. We had the "Dont veto anything rule." It was boring as hell for everyone, including myself. Winning is great.. but doing it cheaply by stacking your teams to where no one can compete is not. Thats why i feel like even if you DONT suspect collusion or anything, if a trade is unfair.. then you do you and your league a favor and object. Believe me.. winning that way is much more enjoyable.
Jack-In-A-Box
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1195
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Atlanta GA

Postby Jack-In-A-Box » Sun May 25, 2003 4:53 am

jdh wrote:Numbers wise, Bernie for Bonds isn't that bad of a trade for either side. Bernie will have a batting average at .320 plus, which is likely to be higher than or similar to Barry's. Also, at least before he got hurt, Bernie was likely to have higher RBI totals, because Bonds is walked so often that he can't get much more than 100 RBIs (or much more than 40 homers for that matter). Plus, I also gave him DeJean as part of the deal, and he had no closers. Granted, in the two weeks since we made that deal, Bernie has gotten hurt and DeJean has blown something like 4 of his last 5 saves, but that's beyond my control.

I think that if you know someone has favorite players and will pay more than face value to get them, it's a perfectly legitimate strategy to take advantage of that. In no way would that trade be vetoable, because if you look at the raw likely numbers, Bernie and Bonds are fairly even. Bonds is far more valuable in real life than he is in a fantasy league, because the way he is pitched to cuts down on his production big time.


Well ok.. this based on CBS stats.. Bonds on AVG has outscored Bernie in total fantasy pts over the past two years by over 200pts a season. Thats a lot. Even with all the pitch arounds and maybe missed RBI opps last year. He still was the best OF in total pts. Just letting you know.. raw numbers.. dont compare.
Jack-In-A-Box
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1195
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Atlanta GA

Postby ramble2 » Sun May 25, 2003 8:55 pm

jdh wrote:
In public leagues where you don't know anyone, I think that vetoing a trade that is extremely lopsided can be justified by trying to maintain league integrity (or hell, just for strategic purposes!). However, if it's a private league, then you shouldn't veto unless you have grounds for thinking there is collusion, cheating or something else that threatens the integrity of the league.


Vetoing trades for strategic reasons is always wrong. By doing that, you are abusing the veto function and blocking another owner from making a trade he thinks benefits his team because it's not in your best interests. That type of vetoing is what destroys leagues and causes more problems than anything else.
[/quote]

Fair enough, I'll back off of that point. However, it still strikes me that different standards apply in public in private leagues. You are right, though, that in both cases the goal is to maintain a competitive spirit and league integrity.
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2951
(Past Year: 66)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Apr. 19
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi Cubs at Chi Cubs
(1:05 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(1:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Cincinnati
(1:08 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(1:35 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(2:10 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(2:20 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Miami
(4:05 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at NY Mets
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(7:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(7:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at LA Dodgers
(8:05 pm)
Arizona at Arizona
(8:10 pm)
San Diego at San Diego
(8:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Francisco
(8:40 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact