At what point can I fairly veto trades? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

At what point can I fairly veto trades?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

At what point can I fairly veto trades?

Postby Fantasy Guru » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:53 am

First time commish, but not in the most serious of leagues. And no money involved. But I want to keep it competitive.

I wake up this morning to a pending trade of:

Team A: Francisco Liriano, Garret Atkins
Team B: David Wright

I end up vetoing it, and explaining to the guy that I want a drama free league where I don't really want to get involved in other people's trades, and even though the other guy may have accepted it, it was just... brutally uneven. To which I got as a response: "Yeah, I was hoping you wouldn't notice! :-D "

I always read these threads about if it's collusion or not, and sometimes the replies are tearing the OP a new one... but is what I did acceptable as a commish?
ImageYeah.. this "fantasy guru" thing is just a user name, folks.
Fantasy Guru
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1811
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cooperstown

Postby raygunpunx » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:56 am

I see nothing wrong with this trade
raygunpunx
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 574
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby thomasps3 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:12 am

I agree..an owner's needs is a definite consideration when vetoing a trade as commish. I am assuming the team who was obtaining Wright needed offense and had a glut of SPs. Anyhow, this trade seems perfectly fair as well. Definitely not collusion. I would've let it go...
Image
thomasps3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1672
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Giving BIG UPS to Teddy BallGame for the AWESOME SIG

Postby Art Vandelay » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:16 am

The David Wright side has a clear advantage in this deal, but it is not vetoable, in my opinion. Especially not if you do it unilaterally without even putting it to a league vote.
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Third Day » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:37 am

Depending on team needs, I could see myself doing the trade either way.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him. He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him
Third Day
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2091
(Past Year: 272)
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Spiritual World or Milwaukee (I commute)

Postby RugbyD » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:41 am

definitely not vetoable.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby mkultra » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:15 am

Not at all vetoable. You made a bad move, IMO.
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 Dan Lambskin » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:52 am

terrible veto...just terrible

i'd like to know what you thought was wrong with that?
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby BritSox » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:32 am

Art Vandelay wrote:The David Wright side has a clear advantage in this deal, but it is not vetoable, in my opinion. Especially not if you do it unilaterally without even putting it to a league vote.


thomasps3 wrote:I agree..an owner's needs is a definite consideration when vetoing a trade as commish. I am assuming the team who was obtaining Wright needed offense and had a glut of SPs. Anyhow, this trade seems perfectly fair as well. Definitely not collusion. I would've let it go...


You can always tell a deal is not vetoable, if Cafers disagree on which side of it needs justifying.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby noseeum » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:33 am

You realize Liriano is pitching as well as Johan Santana, right?

If the guy who traded Wright has another good third baseman, I don't see anything bad about this deal at all.

If he doesn't, maybe he just loves Liriano.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp and 16 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Aug. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Texas at Miami
(12:40 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Philadelphia
(1:05 pm)
Toronto at Milwaukee
(2:10 pm)
NY Mets at Oakland
(3:35 pm)
Houston at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Arizona at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Detroit at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
LA Angels at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
San Francisco at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Baltimore at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Cleveland at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Diego at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

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