Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Bloody Sox » Fri May 12, 2006 6:01 pm

I've never been in a league that didn't frown upon a veteran player screwing over a newbie


Right - I included that in my list of things that would/could/should be considered in a veto scenario.

and every league I've been in that lasted more than 1 year specifically set up rules to avoid that type of thing. In a first year league where this hasn't been discussed the only RIGHT answer is to have the league decide what to do.


Which type of thing... a veteran screwing a newbie, or a legitimate trade being vetoed because a guy got hurt during the period of time when people are trying to make sure no funny business is going on?

I've never been in a league where rules were set up that said "if a guy gets hurt during the two day vote period, the trade should be vetoed"

I guess you can say its my opinion, but its based on the definition of the purpose of the voting period, which is only there to make sure the trade agreed to AT THAT POINT IN TIME is legit. The only reason the voting period of time is two days is because 10-16 people aren't paying attention 24x7. If they were, that vote period would be no more than a few minutes. It can't be a moving target.[/quote]
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Postby Ender » Fri May 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Again thats a fine opinion, but if you put it to a vote in your league and 10 of 12 owners disagree with you, I think you have to go with the leagues vote. I just asked my league mates in IRC what they would do with a trade and 3 of 4 people that were around said they'd want the trade vetoed. There is no clear cut 100% correct answer to this. Not everyone views the veto period the same.

For the original poster, I would suggest your league vote on what should be done. Whenever there is a dispute thats the best way to resolve it in my opinion.
Ender
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 7733
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby The Jury » Fri May 12, 2006 6:08 pm

Ender wrote:Again thats a fine opinion, but if you put it to a vote in your league and 10 of 12 owners disagree with you, I think you have to go with the leagues vote. I just asked my league mates in IRC what they would do with a trade and 3 of 4 people that were around said they'd want the trade vetoed. There is no clear cut 100% correct answer to this. Not everyone views the veto period the same.

For the original poster, I would suggest your league vote on what should be done. Whenever there is a dispute thats the best way to resolve it in my opinion.


I like to see all angles on situations, but I think there is only one angle in this case. The voting period is for people to vote on the trade that was made at the time. If the voting period is 7 days, the trade to be judged is the trade made at the start of the voting period, not the trade as it stands 7 days after it was made.
[quote:4fef447375="Geek"]The odds of the AL MVP coming from the American League are looking pretty good.[/quote]
The Jury
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3328
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Fri May 12, 2006 6:10 pm

Why shouldn't it be vetoed? Would you accept a deal of Smoltz and Ichiro for Pedro and Crawford? If not, it is too one-sided a deal for me not to veto.

Regardless of when the trade is accepted (and, BTW, until a trade goes through, it is not "official" IMO), if I am to cast a veto vote, I'm going to look at the trade as of the date I cast my vote. If I'm in that league, that time is after the injury. In that case, I would see the deal as Pedro/Crawford for Ichiro/Smoltz. I think that is too one-sided a deal.

Ethics aside, people casting vetos have the right to take into account the injury when deciding whether a trade is fair.
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 rentz » Fri May 12, 2006 6:18 pm

as others have said...if the deal was accepted before the injury, and its a fair deal, and i see no signs of cheating here....theres no reason to veto it
this is just the other owner seeing he's screwed and wants out.
infact i find it cheating to solicit the people in the league to veto it because the owner wants out
rentz
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4810
Joined: 3 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby yossarian » Fri May 12, 2006 6:31 pm

My 2 cents is that no way should this trade be vetoed. It's really bad luck for the guy getting Matsui, but that's just the way it is. If it is a friendly league between friends, why does the guy trading away Matsui have to bite the bullet? If this had happened in my league, which is RL friends, one of the owners would have made a stink about it and complained about his luck, but I can't imagine there would have been bad blood.
yossarian
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 2117
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Ender » Fri May 12, 2006 6:49 pm

Well obviously the problem comes down to when people think a trade is 'official'.

Some think its when the two player click accept and all veto's should be based on that moment of time. Some think that its when the trade is allowed by the commissioner and trades should be veto'd based on the latest news. Thats why there is no right answer unless your league has clear cut rules about the situation.
Ender
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 7733
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Dawgpound 1613 » Fri May 12, 2006 6:57 pm

Ender wrote:Well obviously the problem comes down to when people think a trade is 'official'.

Some think its when the two player click accept and all veto's should be based on that moment of time. Some think that its when the trade is allowed by the commissioner and trades should be veto'd based on the latest news. Thats why there is no right answer unless your league has clear cut rules about the situation.


Agree. If you want trades to be "official" at the time the two teams hit "accept", then eliminate the veto. But if a trade doesn't go through until after the veto period has ended, I just don't see how it can be considered anything but "tentative". If I trade Ichiro for Pujols, and the other guy hits "accept", is it "official"? If not then, I can't see how this trade is now.

If you don't want teams to consider current state of affairs when deciding on their vote, pass a rule that requires that a trade must consider the trade at the time it was made.

But, until then, if there is no rule preventing it, then people voting have the "right" to vote with a consideration to what has happened, which is what the original question asked. If you don't like them having that "right", then pass a rule.
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 mkultra » Fri May 12, 2006 7:08 pm

The trade stands. If you think the trade should be vetoed, PM Ender and see if there's a spot in his league.
mkultra
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1339
(Past Year: 41)
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Matthias » Fri May 12, 2006 7:30 pm

Ender wrote:Well obviously the problem comes down to when people think a trade is 'official'.

Some think its when the two player click accept and all veto's should be based on that moment of time. Some think that its when the trade is allowed by the commissioner and trades should be veto'd based on the latest news. Thats why there is no right answer unless your league has clear cut rules about the situation.


True. But I would say the default position if you don't have any clear-cut rules on it would be that a trade is completed once both parties agree to it.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Oct. 24
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at San Francisco
(8:07 pm)

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