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

[Kurtangletn]

Yes, its too bad for him. I think like somone said, if your friendly, don't because its just going to cause bad blood.

[Matthias]

Yes, its too bad for him. I think like somone said, if your friendly, don't because its just going to cause bad blood.

if there's going to be bad blood, there's going to be bad blood either way. because there's no reason that the person giving matsui should have to absorb the loss.

[noseeum]

This is why voting periods are stupid. Find a bunch of people you trust and eliminate the vote.

If something is blatant cheating, the commish can reverse. Otherwise, let them play.

Votes bring nothing but bad blood. If two owners agree on the trade without cheating, it should go through. Everyone agrees to that in principle, but all of a sudden, they forget that when an actual trade has to be decided upon.

Those suggesting a veto is right in this case, and those suggesting just forget about it for the sake of the league, aren't thinking about the guy who traded Matsui. He negotiated in good faith, and the rest of the league wants to screw him after the fact. They don't see it that way, but that's how it is.

Someone has to be stuck with Matsui. And it only makes sense that the owner who traded for him gets him. You play it any other way, and you leave the league open to arguments and anger in many future transactions.

Drop the vote. Trade goes through.

[BritSox]

dude, if it's a friendly league, take the trade back. this is just fantasy.

if it's a public league, full of people you don't personally know, push the issue, get the trade through!

If it's a friendly league, surely you don't screw your 'friend' who just traded Matsui by vetoing it unfairly in the first place? Someone has to be stuck with the injured player, 'friends' do not welch on agreements and go whining for a veto.

[Jbyrdo]

If this is a friendly league, I would assume that most players wouldn't cheat and no what they are doing. If this is the case, why is their a veto anyway? No one is going to cheat and make a completely unfair trade, and no new manager is going to make a completely awful trade that should be vetoed.

Personally I think the trade goes through.

[TheYanks04]

Yesterday afternoon I traded Hideki Matsui, Ichiro Suzuki, and John Smoltz for Pedro Martinez and Carl Crawford. At 3:00 p.m. the trade was on its 2 day pending period.

Last night Matsui broke his wrist, and now the other owner is going nuts saying he wants a veto, and so are other members in the league. Me and the commish believe once you hit accept the players traded are now on different teams and the voting process is to help stop cheating. This simply seems like bad luck for the other owner, and the trade should go through. What do you guys think?

As long as he was healthy when it got accepted, then it is fair game unless there is a gentlemen's agreement in the league to withdraw/reverse offers if players get hurt. Some leagues like the one's I run allow that as a courtesy to avoid these arguments and keep everyone happy. If you codify it in the rles or agree that if players get hurt during a review period then the offer can be withdrawn, then no one really has an argument.

[RowdyRed]

Don't know if I saw this or not in here (I stopped reading on page 3), but in professional sports, a player has to pass a physical in most cases before a trade becomes final. It does not become final at the point the general managers agree to the deal, though it does become public at that point. It becomes final when the player passes a physical. So, in this trade case, a player would be failing his physical (Matsui obviously would not be healthy enough to play and pass a physical) and therefore the trade could be rejected. That's the way real professional sports works. I don't see anything wrong with doing it here if that's what the league thinks should happen. Now, that being said, I don't know if I would veto it or not. I can see both sides on this, but I see a clear difference here from what happens when a player suddenly goes into a slump during the waiting period.

[Matthias]

Don't know if I saw this or not in here (I stopped reading on page 3), but in professional sports, a player has to pass a physical in most cases before a trade becomes final. It does not become final at the point the general managers agree to the deal, though it does become public at that point. It becomes final when the player passes a physical. So, in this trade case, a player would be failing his physical (Matsui obviously would not be healthy enough to play and pass a physical) and therefore the trade could be rejected. That's the way real professional sports works. I don't see anything wrong with doing it here if that's what the league thinks should happen. Now, that being said, I don't know if I would veto it or not. I can see both sides on this, but I see a clear difference here from what happens when a player suddenly goes into a slump during the waiting period.

Because this isn't a, "pass the physical" period. It's a, "is this trade going to screw up the league" period.

Different thing.

[jayman]

dude, if it's a friendly league, take the trade back. this is just fantasy.

if it's a public league, full of people you don't personally know, push the issue, get the trade through!

If it's a friendly league, surely you don't screw your 'friend' who just traded Matsui by vetoing it unfairly in the first place? Someone has to be stuck with the injured player, 'friends' do not welch on agreements and go whining for a veto.

Yeah, I agree. You are 100% correct.

I'm in a office league, so i guess that's a little different. If I make a trade with one of my coworkers (be it higher up on the ladder than me, lower, or on the same level), I always tell the other party - "if you have second thoughts we can back out". Too nice? You bet.

[garf112]

d. ROBERTOGATE CLAUSE: After two or more teams have agreed to a trade and veto voting has begun, none of the parties involved in the deal can rescind from the deal for any reason (including injuries).

Here's our rule. Roberto Hernandez got injured during a trade I was a part of a couple of years ago. This was what came out of it. The general consensus was that an injury should not affect a trade that had been accepted by both owners.