Vetoable Trades?? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Vetoable Trades??

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Vetoable Trades??

Postby Giants415 » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:25 pm

Trade 1: P.Fielder and A.Rios for Hafner

Trade 2: M.Holliday and R.Baldelli for J.Santana and N. Markakis

Are any of these vetoable?? And which one seems more fair?
Giants415 Beginner
Little League Legend
Little League Legend


Posts: 18
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: San Francisco

Postby Jakra » Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:39 pm

I don't think either are vetoable. There could be legitimate reasons for both, although I don't agree with them. For #1, Hafner doesn't have 1B -eligibility, and might need a first baseman. Hafner for Fielder straight up I could justify a veto for, but Rios has a shot at 25/25 or 30/30. I'd rather have the Hafner side, but I think it isn't vetoable.

For #2, the owner who has Santana may have too much pitching on his team. It isn't as if Holliday and Baldelli are scrubs. Again, definitely want the one side(Santana), but its not rising to the level of vetoable.
Jakra
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 580
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby trevizzle » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:54 am

neither is touchable
tdizzle

Image
trevizzle
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9 Feb 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: behind home plate at Yankee Stadium

Postby A Fleshner Fantasy » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:03 am

Neither is more vetoable, 2nd is more fair though.
Image

2011 Live Free or DyNasty Champ
A Fleshner Fantasy
Wicked Wikitect
Wicked Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3541
(Past Year: 32)
Joined: 11 May 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:52 pm

If I believed that both teams involved were honestly trying to improve themselves, I wouldn't veto either deal.

I might consider a veto vote if there was some other reason to suspect collusion, but these trades are close enough that they shouldn't be vetoed purely based on player value.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby converge241 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:46 pm

both fine
"I'm the man with the ball. I'm the man who can throw it faster than F***. So that's why I'm better than anyone in the world." - Kenny Powers
converge241
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3191
(Past Year: 99)
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Massachusetts

Postby prricci » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:17 pm

why would this be close? Only veto collusion and obvious managers that have given up.

I do not participate in leagues where there is vetoing of legimate arms length deals.

now if pujols was traded for lugo for example, then this would be obvious enough to be considered collusion, but those two trades are not close to being suspicious.
prricci
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 398
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Sep. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

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

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