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 mbuser » Mon May 15, 2006 2:38 pm

i had this type of scenario happen last season in a league that i commish (we are all friends, and always run with the veto setting as commish) and i tried to be proactive. i forget the specific players, but as soon as i found out about the injury i emailed the owner who was trading him away and asked him his thoughts. he came back and said that he could see both sides and would agree with whatever direction it went. i then asked the league to chime in -- the majority said it would be best to veto the deal so that's what we did

perhaps it was not exactly a control group as we are all friends, but that's how we did it
Image
mbuser
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 1194
(Past Year: 20)
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball

Postby Deuce » Mon May 15, 2006 3:39 pm

2 day grace period sounds like 'pending physical' to me. If a player is injured while on your roster, that should be your problem. I think the owner who is to receive the damaged goods, should have some recourse. This is not the deal he agreed to. In real life, Matsui would have to remain a Yankee.

just my .02
The glass is neither half full nor half empty... It is simply a glass
Deuce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Lucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1039
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dwellin Cellars

Postby hoya1982 » Mon May 15, 2006 4:15 pm

Deuce wrote:2 day grace period sounds like 'pending physical' to me. If a player is injured while on your roster, that should be your problem. I think the owner who is to receive the damaged goods, should have some recourse. This is not the deal he agreed to. In real life, Matsui would have to remain a Yankee.

just my .02


Are you serious? Its nothing like "pending physical," when you make a trade in fantasy baseball do you hire doctors to check out the other guy's players? If you did, then you might have a point. In real life they agree to delay the trade so that they can check out the health of the other players, if they are not healthy when they get checked out the trade is killed, how are they supposed to know if they were already injured when the trade was made (like blowing out shoulder, etc.)? Its not a 2 day "grace" period, its a 2 day period for other owners to review the trade, the sole purpose is to make sure there is no collusion and arguably no taking advantage of inexperienced/bad players. If someone made the trade in good faith before the injury occurred, then they haven't done they haven't done any of the things that the veto was designed to prevent, and thus the trade should go through. The only reason it takes two days is because it takes some people time to get to there computer. Its not a "grace" period where you can take back the trade if you feel like it.

And by the way I just realized your whole example makes no sense, players involved in trades don't even play for their old teams after they get traded.
hoya1982
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


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

Postby Deuce » Mon May 15, 2006 4:51 pm

hoya1982 wrote:
Deuce wrote:2 day grace period sounds like 'pending physical' to me. If a player is injured while on your roster, that should be your problem. I think the owner who is to receive the damaged goods, should have some recourse. This is not the deal he agreed to. In real life, Matsui would have to remain a Yankee.

just my .02




And by the way I just realized your whole example makes no sense, players involved in trades don't even play for their old teams after they get traded.


That is my point. They remain on your roster and available to you until the transaction is completed. The transaction is not complete for two days. Therefore the trade is not complete for 2 days. In my opinion, both owners should also have the right to cancel the trade as long as it has not been completed. In all fairness, other injuries may occur during the transition period, that may change both owners needs.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty... It is simply a glass
Deuce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Lucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1039
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dwellin Cellars

Postby Insanity » Mon May 15, 2006 4:51 pm

Team A and Team B agree to a trade of player X and Y for Z..

there is a two day review.. the review passes...

player Z gets injured in a car accident on the way home from the game the night before the review ends.. The review ends before anyone has a chance to react..

what happens?

I've had inicidents where I've accidently hit accept, immediately e-mail the owner and notify the league I hit the wrong button and would like to undo it. nobody's ever had a problem with that and i'm not the only owner.

I hate veto's, personally. I have made some really bad trades and the only way I learned not to do them -- take the brunt of the punishment from having them done. even if you think someone "screwed" someone else, I don't think you can veto it. (I'm not sure how that can happen yet, but hey)..

Just my worthless thoughts.
Insanity
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby hoya1982 » Mon May 15, 2006 5:09 pm

Deuce wrote:
hoya1982 wrote:
Deuce wrote:2 day grace period sounds like 'pending physical' to me. If a player is injured while on your roster, that should be your problem. I think the owner who is to receive the damaged goods, should have some recourse. This is not the deal he agreed to. In real life, Matsui would have to remain a Yankee.

just my .02




And by the way I just realized your whole example makes no sense, players involved in trades don't even play for their old teams after they get traded.


That is my point. They remain on your roster and available to you until the transaction is completed. The transaction is not complete for two days. Therefore the trade is not complete for 2 days. In my opinion, both owners should also have the right to cancel the trade as long as it has not been completed. In all fairness, other injuries may occur during the transition period, that may change both owners needs.



Maybe I misunderstood your point (not even sure what your point is now), but you saying that either player has the right to cancel the trade during the two days shows that you have no idea what the VETO period is for. It is for other players to review the trade so they can eliminate any cheating, it is not a warranty period where you have the right to "return" your players if you don't like them. Under your logic, you could cancel a trade because the guy you traded hit 4 HRs the day after you accepted the trade. Pretty much everyone, except for maybe you, agrees that is not a reason to veto a trade (and also no one would even agree to your innocuous example, if your needs change make another the trade, the other guy also has needs, and he already made the trade to address them). If what you said was true, both players would have a cancel button during the review period which obviously doesn't exist.

You make it sound as if the fact that they are "on your roster" makes it your fault that they got injured, or in some strange way is the deciding factor. You can't just leave your roster empty during the two days, and allowing you to use the other guys players during the two day period would make for some strange consequences/loopholes (i.e. I trade you Pujols for scrub everyday, league keeps vetoing it, but no problem his stats count for me everyday). The fact that practicalities make it so that they remain on your roster is irrelevant to the discussion, and occurs exactly because he can't get hurt "playing" for you.
hoya1982
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


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

Postby OhMrScottyTrav06 » Mon May 15, 2006 5:42 pm

This sure sounds like a debate of "When does life actually begin?"

Everyone has their own beliefs and you aren't going to persuade them very easily.

That being said, I believe that the trade was accepted before Matsui got hurt and the two-day waiting period is not a warranty period to take back the trade. Vetoing is for ridiculously one-sided and collusion cases, not injuries and it's two days because it adheres to everyone's ability to reach a computer.

Now if you have a league setup like Ender's, then it's a whole different ballgame now isn't it?
Image
OhMrScottyTrav06
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Musketeer
Posts: 2264
Joined: 6 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Orange County, CA

Postby Deuce » Mon May 15, 2006 8:31 pm

hoya1982 wrote:
Deuce wrote:
hoya1982 wrote:
Deuce wrote:2 day grace period sounds like 'pending physical' to me. If a player is injured while on your roster, that should be your problem. I think the owner who is to receive the damaged goods, should have some recourse. This is not the deal he agreed to. In real life, Matsui would have to remain a Yankee.

just my .02




And by the way I just realized your whole example makes no sense, players involved in trades don't even play for their old teams after they get traded.


That is my point. They remain on your roster and available to you until the transaction is completed. The transaction is not complete for two days. Therefore the trade is not complete for 2 days. In my opinion, both owners should also have the right to cancel the trade as long as it has not been completed. In all fairness, other injuries may occur during the transition period, that may change both owners needs.



Maybe I misunderstood your point (not even sure what your point is now), but you saying that either player has the right to cancel the trade during the two days shows that you have no idea what the VETO period is for. It is for other players to review the trade so they can eliminate any cheating, it is not a warranty period where you have the right to "return" your players if you don't like them. Under your logic, you could cancel a trade because the guy you traded hit 4 HRs the day after you accepted the trade. Pretty much everyone, except for maybe you, agrees that is not a reason to veto a trade (and also no one would even agree to your innocuous example, if your needs change make another the trade, the other guy also has needs, and he already made the trade to address them). If what you said was true, both players would have a cancel button during the review period which obviously doesn't exist.

You make it sound as if the fact that they are "on your roster" makes it your fault that they got injured, or in some strange way is the deciding factor. You can't just leave your roster empty during the two days, and allowing you to use the other guys players during the two day period would make for some strange consequences/loopholes (i.e. I trade you Pujols for scrub everyday, league keeps vetoing it, but no problem his stats count for me everyday). The fact that practicalities make it so that they remain on your roster is irrelevant to the discussion, and occurs exactly because he can't get hurt "playing" for you.


Well said, I now agree.
A veto is not in order. I'll remember this lesson and use my final two days wisely. UNCLE
The glass is neither half full nor half empty... It is simply a glass
Deuce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Lucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1039
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dwellin Cellars

Postby noseeum » Tue May 16, 2006 3:15 am

RowdyRed wrote: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.


It's for this reason that in professional sports, as soon as a trade is decided, the players involved sit their butts on the bench until they get to the other team. Owners don't sign a deal then let the guy play for the other team for two more days.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GiantsFan14, Ray Zorback and 10 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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

Kansas City at Cleveland
(12:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(12:35 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Minnesota at Tampa Bay
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Arizona at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
San Diego at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Oakland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

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