Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 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 SoxAndTheCity » Fri May 12, 2006 9:31 pm

Matthias wrote:
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.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.
SoxAndTheCity
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 118
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pangbones » Sat May 13, 2006 3:54 am

Secret Avatar wrote:So long as the deal was "accepted" by the owners involved BEFORE the injury, then the deal has to stand. The 48-hour "review period" is for anyone to object to the fairness of the original deal, not some sort of "get your money back" warranty period. One of the guys you got, say Pedro, could drop dead tomorrow or next week. Those are the risks and we all know and understand them.


I totally agree with that. You don't get a do over during the 2 day period. He wanted Matsui before the injury, it's just bad luck that it happened when it did. I think all leagues should come to a concensus on how to handle these type of "Fluke" situations, before the season begins.

edit...fixed BBCode..DHC
Last edited by pangbones on Sat May 13, 2006 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
pangbones
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 4337
Joined: 8 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Lansing, MI

Postby hoya1982 » Sat May 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Its ridiculous for this trade to be vetoed. The DEFAULT rule should be that you view the trade based on the value at the time it is made, IF your league has set up special rules (Enders) in advance that is fine, but you can't judge a trade based on what happens after the trade. If I traded a solid player for Cole Hamels on Thursday (knowing its a high risk/high reward trade), and Friday he throws a complete game no hitter with 15 Ks I would be pissed if the league vetoed that trade and I'm sure most people would be. Similarily, if he got bombed and gave up 7 runs in one inning, the other guy would rightfully be upset if the trade was vetoed. Explain to me how this situation is any different, you can't because its exactly the same, you should the trade based on the value at the time the trade is made, not based on values that change during the review period.
hoya1982
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 445
Joined: 6 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Zito is God » Sat May 13, 2006 1:27 pm

When I get in on these I just can't seem to let go, so lets start another one:

Ok, first off, if you think this trade should be vetoed I think we should make a formal pact to never be in the same leagues again. This is the absolute most ridiculous debate I have ever seen at the cafe, and on top of that, I can't believe that some of the memmbers I find knowledgeable actually are fighting for this veto.

1. You don't get a x-day warranty when you make a trade. When you hit the accept button (assuming it was not on accident), the deal is solidified as it was and not as it is 3 days later. (Example: I could trade for Sizemore and then during the 5 day reviews period he goes 0-4 everyday, I get nervous and want to back out. Nope, can't happen). Same thing here, at the time the deal was accepted Matsui was well and running, now that the trade is accepted you are responsible to follow through with what you accepted. Take some responsibility for Christ sake!

2. Be a responsible manager. Don't hit the accept button when you're not sure. When you hit the accept button you show the league you like the deal as it is. Thats it. You can't back out of that statement.

3. I don't care that Matsui got injured for the rest of the year, tough luck. You don't have the right to change your mind based on this "warranty period". leagues do not have warranties where you have a special button you can click 7 days after the deal to "return" your players for the ones you had before. Tough luck that he got hurt, you accepted the deal like it was at the time, thats it. (Example: I trade for Francouer at the start of the season right after he had an amazing rookie campaign, during the week review period he goes 0-for-28 and is sent down to the minors. Too bad, I have no case. Because when I traded for him I accepted his with the stats that he had before his slump occured.).


Advice to the poster: Set the principle here. Don't let your league get awat with this, its not fair, and its not common ethics. If they can overturn this what else can they overturn in the future? Slumping players during the trade review so the trade gets vetoed? Players sent down to the minors so the trade gets vetoed? Players going from the rotation to the bullpen so the trade gets vetoed (this one is ridiculous btw)? Don't let them do it. You'll set yourself up for harships ahead.
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby Matthias » Sat May 13, 2006 1:55 pm

SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
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.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby finalheaven » Sat May 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Zito is God wrote:When I get in on these I just can't seem to let go, so lets start another one:

Ok, first off, if you think this trade should be vetoed I think we should make a formal pact to never be in the same leagues again. This is the absolute most ridiculous debate I have ever seen at the cafe, and on top of that, I can't believe that some of the memmbers I find knowledgeable actually are fighting for this veto.

1. You don't get a x-day warranty when you make a trade. When you hit the accept button (assuming it was not on accident), the deal is solidified as it was and not as it is 3 days later. (Example: I could trade for Sizemore and then during the 5 day reviews period he goes 0-4 everyday, I get nervous and want to back out. Nope, can't happen). Same thing here, at the time the deal was accepted Matsui was well and running, now that the trade is accepted you are responsible to follow through with what you accepted. Take some responsibility for Christ sake!

2. Be a responsible manager. Don't hit the accept button when you're not sure. When you hit the accept button you show the league you like the deal as it is. Thats it. You can't back out of that statement.

3. I don't care that Matsui got injured for the rest of the year, tough luck. You don't have the right to change your mind based on this "warranty period". leagues do not have warranties where you have a special button you can click 7 days after the deal to "return" your players for the ones you had before. Tough luck that he got hurt, you accepted the deal like it was at the time, thats it. (Example: I trade for Francouer at the start of the season right after he had an amazing rookie campaign, during the week review period he goes 0-for-28 and is sent down to the minors. Too bad, I have no case. Because when I traded for him I accepted his with the stats that he had before his slump occured.).


Advice to the poster: Set the principle here. Don't let your league get awat with this, its not fair, and its not common ethics. If they can overturn this what else can they overturn in the future? Slumping players during the trade review so the trade gets vetoed? Players sent down to the minors so the trade gets vetoed? Players going from the rotation to the bullpen so the trade gets vetoed (this one is ridiculous btw)? Don't let them do it. You'll set yourself up for harships ahead.


Couldn't have said it better myself ;-D
finalheaven
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 170
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Mansfield, Ohio

Postby Zito is God » Sat May 13, 2006 6:25 pm

Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
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.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."


The fact that Matthias and I agree should alone show how ridiculous the people backing the veto are acting. :-)
Image

Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby TheOmen » Sat May 13, 2006 7:26 pm

No veto. If Matsui broke his wrist the first day he was on the owners roster, would he still complain? No, of course not. It's the same thing to me. The trade was accepted already. It's a done deal.
TheOmen
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 519
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Censored

Postby SoxAndTheCity » Sat May 13, 2006 8:00 pm

Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
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.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."


You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.

EDIT:

To ZIG. You are building a strawman to knock down. This isn't a warranty period or a button to take things back after buyer's remorse. This is a built in review period for the trade and unfortunately things change during that time and you cannot eliminate that. If you don't want to be able to have things change between the time the managers agree and the time the trade is processed then don't have a review period, have trades go through immediately or set up something other than league vote. Otherwise people are free to vote as they wish, not as ZIG commands.
SoxAndTheCity
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 118
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pangbones » Sat May 13, 2006 8:14 pm

SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
SoxAndTheCity wrote:
Matthias wrote:
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.


Interesting that you think your opinion should automatically be some sort of default. Thankfully, your opinion only matters for your vote, same as mine.


Well, it's not my opinion so much as it how things work in the rest of life. The player receiving Matsui has received the risk of loss by agreeing to the trade.

And if someone vetoes it, that's their right. But it isn't right to do so. They should only be evaluating the trade as it existed at the moment it was made. That's how the real world and the real law works.

Not just my, "opinion."


You are comparing real life with Fantasy baseball? Interesting. :-?

Fantasy baseball is in stark contrast to real baseball/life at least as often as it mirrors it. In fact in real life I think that you'd pretty much see the opposite trend, however, in friendly exchanges like those in FB.

You and I agree over the phone to trade my Xbox for your PS2 (for sake of example) and consider it a done deal minus the physical exchange - we just have to meet somewhere to do it. Before we do the actual exchange, a pipe in my house bursts and floods the place, destroying the Xbox. Are you still going to give me your PS2, lamenting that the deal was already agreed to before the catastrophe but still sticking to the bargain?

Obviously there are a thousand different scenario's one could dream up, but a lot of you make it sound black and white and it just isn't.

EDIT:

To ZIG. You are building a strawman to knock down. This isn't a warranty period or a button to take things back after buyer's remorse. This is a built in review period for the trade and unfortunately things change during that time and you cannot eliminate that. If you don't want to be able to have things change between the time the managers agree and the time the trade is processed then don't have a review period, have trades go through immediately or set up something other than league vote. Otherwise people are free to vote as they wish, not as ZIG commands.


I think you're reaching a bit with that example. Hitting the accept button is in fact the "exchange" taking place. Most leagues have a veto system to ensure the league keeps its integrity. I wouldn't let that fly in any of my leagues.
Image
pangbones
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 4337
Joined: 8 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Lansing, MI

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 0:09 hours
(and 91 days)

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