prricci wrote: pokerplaya wrote: CBMGreatOne wrote:
JPE wrote:If I had a voting process for my team I would never be able to trade. That's is why Im the commish. I know the teams in the league will abuse thier power. I used to have a voting process for all trades and eveyone alway voted to veto no matter what. Now, both of you said that you would vote to veto but neither one of you explained why. Is it because the trade is not fair, you don't wanna play a team with Pujols and Santana, or you would want to make an offer on Pujols as soon as the trade is vetoed?
Yeah, it's because it's a horribly lopsided trade. No one in their right mind would trade Pujols straight up for Oswalt and it would ruin the league for everybody if you made the trade.
Now you would hide behind your commissioner power and say tough luck to the rest of your league?
If I was in your league and people were upset, but no one was able to talk sense into you, I would give serious thought to dropping all of my players and never playing with you again.
I know it sounds harsh, but Pujols for Oswalt should not go through in any league. If you conduct a league vote, at least you cover your butt, but you still compromise the league's legitimacy.
You say you are commish because you know people in the league would abuse their power if you let them vote?
I say if you don't let them vote you are EGREGIOUSLY abusing your own autocratic power.
No offense, but I'd have a hard time ever playing in a league with you again if you let that trade through.
I'm on the other side of the coin...I don't think I could ever play in a league with you...the way I see it, who are you to say what trades I can or cannot make?
You need to let people make their own decisions and run their team as they deem fit - if they want to trade Pujols for Oswalt then fine. There is clearly no collusion here, and it isn't even out of the realm of possibility that Oswalt may prove to be more valuable this year. He is a legit ace.
How would you feel if the team that would have acquired Oswalt would have won the league because it would have strengthened his pitching and he might have an adequate backup for Pujols...
These are adults here...who are you to say what deals they can or cannot make for their own team...
I agree with you...I am glad I am not in a league with CBM. This is a bit extreme. Although, I agree I would like to have the Pujols side of the deal, Oswalt is no slouch and if the commish is telling the truth, then it was an arms length deal with no collusion or roster dumping, so why veto it.
I do however, agree that you have to accept the trade and if other managers complain (which it sounds like they did) then you post a message to the league letting them know the facts...that this was offered to you and have the other manager backup the facts and ask for a vote. But reminding them that it is really an underhanded move to veto your trade and then offer up the likes of Halliday who I believe is on the DL...b/c that should be vetoed if they are vetoing your trade.
This is a sticky situation, to which, I am probably going to get myself into a bit as I am commish and was offered Konerko for Duncan (who I just picked up of the WW). The difference here is my league votes. In this case the person has been trying to dump konerko on me b/c he does not like him and konerko is slumping similar to your situation. I love taking advantage of rash managers who freak early in the season, but is this cheating? NO.
This is FB and the fun of building a roster is drafting, WW pickups and trading.
Drafting is a one time event, so throughout the season WW and trades are all you have. If people start to complain about trades made in good faith then it becomes boring.
Hell, if MLB was like that the Yanks and Sox might not ever get a trade passed.
Some of you are getting ridiculous. The fantasy world is no place for a corrupt commish. If my commish is making lopsided trades and then saying:
"I have control over vetoes and I am not even going to allow you to vote on this deal. The deal goes through, tough noogies."
Then there is something seriously wrong.
It has happened to me before, and it's a horrible situation. That's when I'd threaten drop my players.
If you people honestly don't think you could play in a league with me, it's because that point is somehow lost on you.
I don't understand it, but if you want to continue to subject yourself to the possibility that a commissioner could tyrannically stack his team in such a way, feel free to continue be sheep.
There's only one thing you can do to a commissioner who refuses to listen to his league's complaining and that is drop your players.
It's a last resort, but must be done in extreme cases.
Not allowing so much as a vote on this trade is an extreme case.
Oswalt for Pujols isn't the worst trade I've ever seen, but it's still bad. If it weren't the commissioner who was getting Pujols then this situation would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Once it was said and done, as long as the commissioner showed himself to be civilized and at least considered the league's opinion, I wouldn't have dropped my players, but if he did what most clowns on yahoo do it would look more like this:
"What it's totally fair? He proposed that trade to me! I'm not gonna veto it because you're jealous! The trade helps both teams! All deals are final!"
If you haven't run into such a commissioner as would say the things above, then you are luckier than I am.
Again, it would never be an issue if the commissioner didn't have sole discretion over vetoes, but in this case he does, and he's getting Pujols at a stupid discount.
So fine, don't play in a league with me, play with a jerkoff commish who doesn't listen to his league instead.
Some people around here are really dense
Edit: I'm not saying thread starter is that jerkoff commish, I was just illustrating to him that if he was considering not dealing with the league's complaints that this is what he should expect to be an appropriate response. It was all a hypothetical in the first place that was misinterpreted because of poor context.
If you look at the passage of his that I quoted in my very first response:
"If I had a voting process for my team I would never be able to trade. That's is why Im the commish. I know the teams in the league will abuse thier power. I used to have a voting process for all trades and eveyone alway voted to veto no matter what. Now, both of you said that you would vote to veto but neither one of you explained why. Is it because the trade is not fair, you don't wanna play a team with Pujols and Santana, or you would want to make an offer on Pujols as soon as the trade is vetoed?"
This looked like maybe it was going to be a precursor to him justifying not allowing the league to vote. Does it not look that way to you?
Do you think not allowing the league to vote would have been appropriate in this case? And if not, exactly how inappropriate would it have been?
You think these rogue commissioners don't exist?
Check out this thread:
Last edited by CBMGreatOne on Wed May 16, 2007 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.