Out of my 8 years of playing in Yahoo public leagues, this is the first time I've ever run into the dreaded veto.
(And yes, I know that some of you will say "This is what you get for playing in public leagues." I know...but I have at least 1 PL team per year because of tradition.)
I'm a big believer in watching all of the other owners in the league and seeing who makes the most moves in the first week. It tells me that owner isn't happy with their team. Then I swoop in and see if there is anyone they have that I can buy low on.
I find one such owner and see that his starting pitching isn't anything great (Peavy and Schmidt, but then Olsen, Maddux, and Hudson). Meanwhile, I have a TON of SP (Halladay, Felix, Sheets, Harden). I'm looking for a bat and maybe some steals. I'm also looking to clear out a few guys from my bench so I can pick up a few players from the WW. I offer:
I GET: Lance Berkman, Willy Taveras (Willy is on his bench because he has Pierre)
HE GETS: Roy Halladay, Nick Markakis, JD Drew (He drops Craig Biggio)
Obviously, even with Berkman's struggles, the deal gives us both what we need. Seeing how he needed pitching and I needed hitting, is it that lopsided of a deal that it should be vetoed? I posted a message on the front page of the league asking the other members what made them veto. Currently, I'm in 3rd and the other guy is in 5th, so it's not like he's having a fire sale or anything.
I guess my question is this: Is there something I'm missing? Is my judgment off that much that I can't see that this deal is extremely lopsided? Or is this a case of other owners vetoing a deal just to spite us?
No one has responded yet. The other owner involved in the deal also made a post that said the following:
"It's not an unfair trade. Look at my hitting compared to my pitching. I can make a move like that and its not like I was getting scrubs in return. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.
How often do you see trades in fantasy sports where you go wow thats fair straight down the board. Especially when it's pitching for hitting. If that's how were going to do things in this league then nobody offer me a trade and you can count on me rejecting all of your trades with eachother."
So he wants to get it done and so do I. I re-offered him the trade hoping that if we both accept again, it'll show everyone that we know what we're doing.
BTW, another trade got vetoed this morning. It was a swap of A-Rod for David Wright. Again, maybe a little unbalanced, but nothing I would consider vetoable.
Public leagues are the one thing that lend credibility to the people who say that vetoing is done out of jealousy. In public leagues you just never can count on the league to shoot a trade down just because they are intimidated. I have done many public leagues and in some of them, for one reason or another, it's just like pulling teeth to get any reasonable trades to go through.
In the above example, the trade is certainly balanced. Giving up Halladay is a significant sacrifice for you and you are even throwing in two high upside OFs (Drew and Markakis) for an early second rounder (Berkman), no veto in my mind.
Oh please, I honestly veto like one in ten trades that I see, but on the controversial ones (ie the ones people post on the cafe and say, "should this one have been vetoed?"), I'm usually conservative. So sue me. This trade looks good.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by rich101682 » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:19 am 
