Just because of the furor it seems to have caused, - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Just because of the furor it seems to have caused,

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Just because of the furor it seems to have caused,

Postby ABA316 » Fri May 04, 2007 11:51 am

I'll ask here.

Jermaine Dye for Dave Roberts. Both were largely bench players on their previous teams. Team getting Roberts is at/near the bottom for steals, but does have some guys who will chip in such as Jeter, Podsednik (I know he's on the DL but just sayin), Utley.

Personally I think it's a dumb move for the team getting Roberts for sure. There is not a trade veto system in this league where the owners have a say, the commish makes the call on trades. What seems to be causing the furor is that the commish is the player who received Jermaine Dye.

Standard 5-5, 5 player keeper.

Any thoughts?

I should mention that while I myself don't have any trust issues with the commish, I did let him know I thought that this system shouldn't remain in the future years b/c of leaving himself open to such implications of "he let that trade through for his team" and such.
ABA316
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 736
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby walkoffblast » Fri May 04, 2007 12:00 pm

That is one of those gray area deals. If the owner getting roberts is active and wants the deal it is hard to say it is a definite veto. Take your concerns to the message board and a good commish will at least take somethign into consideration if you are not the only one.
walkoffblast
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 518
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ABA316 » Fri May 04, 2007 12:08 pm

I don't myself have concerns, although a couple of others have voiced them. I personally only think that the trade review system should be different so as to not cause such concerns by others, nothing more.

My take is the side getting Dye makes out but that being said I'm just not a big believer in Dye either.
ABA316
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 736
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Born Slippy » Fri May 04, 2007 2:59 pm

only if there's collusion or it would damage the league somehow is always my thoughts on these things
Born Slippy Beginner
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 77
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ABA316 » Fri May 04, 2007 5:33 pm

Thanks for the insight Slippy; however, can someone OTHER than the commish of said league provide an opinion? Or at least if the commish would post under his "primary" screen name and not one only originated to hide (jabs elbow in ribs).
ABA316
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 736
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri May 04, 2007 5:45 pm

As a commish, I would be leery of allowing this trade if people are complaining. It's pretty bad, but not horrible. I would judge the trade more on the sincerity of the intent of the last place team than anything else. If the league is furious, the deal should be vetoed regardless though.

You can't be a commish next year if people think the league was tainted because of your ethics this year.

And it certainly is questionable (not necessarily horrible) ethics to allow that trade.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3149
(Past Year: 248)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Pablo975 » Fri May 04, 2007 7:40 pm

In our 5x5 12 team keeper, I'm the commish and I decide vetos. Our rule is if I am one of the teams in the trade, then the majority vote of the other 11 owners decides.

That's def a bad trade, but unless collusion is in the air, no veto.
Image

"Ya'll are brutalizing me!" - Ronwell Dobbs
Pablo975
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 969
(Past Year: 3)
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Mobile, AL

Postby Born Slippy » Sat May 05, 2007 12:00 pm

we eliminated vetoes because people complained about ganging up on trades and the veto system itself (including ABA316)

the one person who complaiend the most said later that he was not saying it was abuse of integrity or power just a lopsided trade and i made it clear I would allow same trade for any other team

only other person who complained also stated same thing, just a lopsided deal..stated that it drives them crazy i have a way to talk people into trades but there is no collusion issues

everyone else who chimed in about the trade was fine with it

I also allowed chad cordero for harang the other week not involving me ..it was lopsided to the guy getting harang for sure but so what? I dont want the other owner to get Harang so cheap but Im not going to disallow it or complain just to protect my spot

specialty categories like saves and steals sometimes require an overpay if someone wants to do it and they have the need

some people in this league complain about eveything
Born Slippy Beginner
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 77
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ABA316 » Sat May 05, 2007 12:21 pm

Let's face it, last year and year before in our league I think most if not all had issue with the system at some point for vetoes. 2 years ago was league vote just push a button, last year was Yahoo review which let some real clunkers fly.

Again, my only point is that the process itself leaves the commish open to allegations..and commish, I said this to you the day I found out that's what the system was so this is not something I just flip flopped on like others do.
ABA316
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 736
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat May 05, 2007 3:30 pm

ABA316 wrote:Let's face it, last year and year before in our league I think most if not all had issue with the system at some point for vetoes. 2 years ago was league vote just push a button, last year was Yahoo review which let some real clunkers fly.

Again, my only point is that the process itself leaves the commish open to allegations..and commish, I said this to you the day I found out that's what the system was so this is not something I just flip flopped on like others do.


You should just do league votes, and settle it like men. If you remove the league's input from the situation, you get people who are angry because they have no say whatsoever.

Again, this trade isn't an obvious veto, but I think it should still be voted on.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3149
(Past Year: 248)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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