What your opinion on the veto? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

What your opinion on the veto?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby TheYanks04 » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:19 pm

Dawgpound 1613 wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.

I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.


Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:

So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).

Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.

You would still veto the trade?


You are telling me that the best the Pujols owner can get is Crisp and Baez? Come on. Even in a ten team league I am sure you would find 6 other owners willing to pay more than that for the #1-3 rated player in MLB. Stupidity to that extent is simply ridiculous and just because some moron comes along willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from a passer by does not mean it has to be allowed. Get something resembling fair value. It does not have to be equal, but something that lopsided gets the ax, I do not care what BS is spun.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby 9er Fan » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:34 pm

Personally, I think the veto should only be used when collusion is suspected. If a league has too many dumb trades, either be the one to take advantage of the dummies, or try to join a league with more educated players. I wouldn't want to be in a league (for instance) where something like Jason Schmidt for Derrek Lee would be vetoed (either prior to the season, or right now).
9er Fan
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 261
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bleach168 » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:47 pm

a league has too many dumb trades, either be the one to take advantage of the dummies, or try to join a league with more educated players.


Agreed, but how do you join a league with educated players? I've tried them all, public, winners, cafe leagues, money leagues, there's ALWAYS one idiot who screws things up. And all it takes is one idiot to ruin a league.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5058
(Past Year: 16)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby TheYanks04 » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:56 pm

You get in a league with Commish approval and a commish that will put a stop to any nonsense. The line can become grey, but some things are so clearly ridiculous as to be pretty easy to strike down. And frankly, once a league is set up to stop nonsense, owners usually do not even try something so ridiculous. That sort of nonsense runs rampant in leagues that allow it to. To each his own. If you like anything goes trading, then by all means...just will not be doing it in the leagues I run.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bobby » Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:19 pm

There has only been one trade vetoed in my league. A guy who thought he has no chance winning so he wanted to trade his top 4 players for players of his favorite team. It was an EXTREMELY one-sided trade. Trades like that should be vetoed.



Edit: I just checked and there have actually been 3 trades vetoed. The one I just talked about and two which were accidentally accepted and both owners asked us to veto it.
bobby
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 588
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby toofunnyy » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:37 pm

Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:

So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).

Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.

You would still veto the trade?


As someone clearly pointed out, you could get FARRR better players for Pujols. You let people make bad trades, but you don't let someone throw away Pujols for nothing. So yes, trading the best player in the league for 2 WW guys should be veto'ed.

People have a knee jerk reation to vetos. Most people equate them with kicking their dog. But there should be some kind of balance to the league, and trades. When a trade is so out of wack, it's in the best interest of the league to nuke it.
toofunnyy Beginner
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 324
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:53 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:
Dawgpound 1613 wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:Depends on your league rules. Some use a caveat emptor approach which lets anything go as long as collusion is not involved. Others use a more "Generally equitable" approach...and others use a vote methodology among owners, which means you could get anything to completely trade hostile.

I personally enforce a "Generally equitable" rule in the leagues I Commish. I am not going to allow a Baez and Coco Crisp for Pujols deal no matter what BS justification the parties involved give me. A little common sense needs to be applied like anywhere else.


Just curious - and let's presume Crisp is healthy:

So, Team A is in 2nd, 3 points behind the leader. Needs saves and SB and would gain AT LEAST 6 points (due to bunching in those categories) with Baez and Crisp, and has such a huge lead in HR and RBI that he could remove Pujols' stats and still be leading (as he has C. Lee, D. Lee and A. Jones, among others).

Team B is in 10th and, with Pujols, has a chance to catch the 1st place team in HR.

You would still veto the trade?


You are telling me that the best the Pujols owner can get is Crisp and Baez? Come on. Even in a ten team league I am sure you would find 6 other owners willing to pay more than that for the #1-3 rated player in MLB. Stupidity to that extent is simply ridiculous and just because some moron comes along willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from a passer by does not mean it has to be allowed. Get something resembling fair value. It does not have to be equal, but something that lopsided gets the ax, I do not care what BS is spun.


Well, I'm glad I'll never be in a league where you're commish.

Yes, I am sure the Pujols owner could get better players, but if this was the best saves guy and SB guy the 10th place team had, they still satisfy what the Pujols owner needs. And, Team A gets the help without hurting his team and without helping one of his main competitors.

Just because you feel a team could get more - what's the point of not letting an owner do what he feels is the best way for him to win. It isn't your team.

And I base my example on a trade I made in a ten team NL only league last year - Pujols for Pods. I was tied for 1st and had a comfy lead in HR and RBI. I was in 8th, but within easy striking distance of 3rd in steals. I gained 6 points from the trade, lost nothing in HR and RBI and walked away with the championship. Funny thing is, the trade was initially vetoed - but the complaints posted in the board were that the 10th place team had given me the title, not that I couldn't have gotten more for Pujols. Thankfully Sportsline let the trade through. And yes, the 10th place team passed 3 teams, including the guy I was tied for 1st, in both HR and RBI - which helped me even more.

So, from what I read, you would have vetoed the deal (heck, I didn't even get a closer), yet you might have cost me the title had you done so.

So, IMHO, unless there is collusion, let a trade go through as every team has the right to run their team the way they want - not the way you want them to run it.
Dawgpound 1613
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2095
Joined: 7 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: \Lo*ca"tion\, n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. Situation; place; locality.

Postby TheYanks04 » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:17 pm

Whatever. Just because you wanted to trade with a 10th place team instead of a 6th (or whatever team was near the bottom of the saves category) and grossly overpay does not mean I have to let you do it in a league where "Generally Equitable" is in play.

It is not the job of the commish to allow people to play by their rules....they play by the league rules which are defined before the season starts as "generally equitable" in this case. As they say, you do not like the rules, you can take your money elsewhere.

You have a very hard sell to argue that you could not get a better dealt from one of the other non-contenders. That is simply lazy and while you may like to screw yourself over in this situation, the commish has to maintain some standard of reason or we are back to caveat emptor. And it is pretty obvious that I do not nor will not play for money where some idiot can cost me money because he feels he has a right to trade Pujols for a bag of rocks to a contender. And you can;t make excpeptions forpeople just because the advantahe is going the other way. Fair is fair independent of where people are in the standings.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9531
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 18:30 hours
(and 91 days)

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