Looking for %Veto - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Looking for %Veto

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Looking for %Veto

Postby MTUCache » Wed May 23, 2007 3:44 pm

A little background:

Guy A is in a league. He's the type of guy who brings all sorts of people with him to a league... For example, if you're a couple players short before the draft, suddenly he's got his cousin, his brother, and another friend already to go on a moments notice. Just about every league (any sport) he plays in, he's got at least two or three of his close friends in it with him, even if he barely knows the commish or the rest of the league.

Guy A talks a lot of smack, in general, about everything, but especially about fantasy sports. He got smacked around good this past year in Fantasy Football, for which he took all sorts of grief, so he decided to spend the second half of the season trying to collude with the #2 guy (his cousin), making bs trades and such, to take down the #1 guy, me. (It didn't work, I still won.)

So... he's currently sitting in the #3/12 spot in our 7x7 Weekly H2H league. His brother is currently sitting #11/12.

Suddenly, this trade comes through:

Guy A gets: Johan Santana, Mark Tiexera, and Johnny Damon.
Brother gets: Felix Hernandez, Justin Morneau, and Mike Lowell.

Without any analysis on my part (believe me, I've got some thoughts)... what's your inital reaction?

Thanks,
MTU
MTUCache
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1284
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pokerplaya » Wed May 23, 2007 3:46 pm

My first thought: Why are you playing in a league with a person that you know has already tried to cheat you in the past?

Well, now that you are, I'd bet they are trying to collude, but that trade is close enough that you can't prove a thing.

Kind of just have to deal with it and move on...but learn not to play with cheaters in the future...
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 9)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby MTUCache » Wed May 23, 2007 3:51 pm

The reason I'm in the league with him?

It's the only decent league (money-wise) that I got an opportunity to play in this year, and besides being a sore loser he's actually a pretty decent guy.

As for the trade itself, I kind of agree with you. Damon and Lowell are basically non-factors, while Teixera and Morneau are about even. If the #11 guy in the league gets fed up waiting for Santana, and decides to go with the young Felix, who are we to say anything (except maybe point and laugh later)???

I suppose it's probably close enough that it should have slipped through, but in the end it was veto'd. His reputation precedes him, and any move he makes with one of his close friends is always complained about vehemently by the rest of the league.

Bottom line.... I wish people could quit being douchebags about fantasy sports. Maybe he wasn't trying to screw everybody over, but it wouldn't surprise me. Any move he makes that seems to be tilted in his favor is going to be roundly veto'd now for the rest of the season, and it's likely that there's going to be some upset people before the playoffs roll around.
MTUCache
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1284
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CBMGreatOne » Wed May 23, 2007 3:58 pm

pokerplaya wrote:My first thought: Why are you playing in a league with a person that you know has already tried to cheat you in the past?

Well, now that you are, I'd bet they are trying to collude, but that trade is close enough that you can't prove a thing.

Kind of just have to deal with it and move on...but learn not to play with cheaters in the future...


That's why "proof of collusion" is never the only reason to veto a trade. In this case, with the close connection of the two teams, for me the deciding factor would be the interest level of the brother. Has he been making moves to try to improve his standing? Has he been setting his lineups? Has he been demonstrating that he cares about the league at all?

If the answer to the above questions is no, then this deal is certainly vetoable in my mind. Can you convince the league that there is a greater than 50/50 chance that the brother made this trade purely out of apathy? If so, I think there is enough of a value difference for a veto.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby CBMGreatOne » Wed May 23, 2007 4:02 pm

MTUCache wrote:The reason I'm in the league with him?

It's the only decent league (money-wise) that I got an opportunity to play in this year, and besides being a sore loser he's actually a pretty decent guy.

As for the trade itself, I kind of agree with you. Damon and Lowell are basically non-factors, while Teixera and Morneau are about even. If the #11 guy in the league gets fed up waiting for Santana, and decides to go with the young Felix, who are we to say anything (except maybe point and laugh later)???

I suppose it's probably close enough that it should have slipped through, but in the end it was veto'd. His reputation precedes him, and any move he makes with one of his close friends is always complained about vehemently by the rest of the league.

Bottom line.... I wish people could quit being douchebags about fantasy sports. Maybe he wasn't trying to screw everybody over, but it wouldn't surprise me. Any move he makes that seems to be tilted in his favor is going to be roundly veto'd now for the rest of the season, and it's likely that there's going to be some upset people before the playoffs roll around.


Right, but is it just the people vetoing who are being idiots? or is there some blame to go around? If the brother has been trying hard to win, I wouldn't veto the trade, but I still would like to hear what's been happening as far as that's concerned.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby pokerplaya » Wed May 23, 2007 4:28 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
pokerplaya wrote:My first thought: Why are you playing in a league with a person that you know has already tried to cheat you in the past?

Well, now that you are, I'd bet they are trying to collude, but that trade is close enough that you can't prove a thing.

Kind of just have to deal with it and move on...but learn not to play with cheaters in the future...


That's why "proof of collusion" is never the only reason to veto a trade. In this case, with the close connection of the two teams, for me the deciding factor would be the interest level of the brother. Has he been making moves to try to improve his standing? Has he been setting his lineups? Has he been demonstrating that he cares about the league at all?

If the answer to the above questions is no, then this deal is certainly vetoable in my mind. Can you convince the league that there is a greater than 50/50 chance that the brother made this trade purely out of apathy? If so, I think there is enough of a value difference for a veto.


The bottom line for me is that I only play in money leagues with guys that I play poker with weekly. We aren't going to cheat each other by colluding, as we don't cheat each other on the poker table.

When I'm in a standard league with no money changing hands, I make sure I know all the owners or at least know them through the Cafe.

In my 7 years in FBB, I've never encountered collusion. I pick my leagues and those that I play with carefully. So for me, collusion is the only reason to veto a trade - I don't buy into that competitive balance foolishness. How can you tell a fully capable adult that they are being an idiot by making a certain trade? WORSE still, what if you veto a trade to "protect" them, and then in hindsight, they would have won the trade and/or the league if you hadn't tried to "protect" them.

Story: 4 years ago or so, I was playing in my first keeper league. Pujols was entering his 2nd year I believe, and I thought highly of him so took him very early. (He was not yet a first round pick) I ended up coming to an agreement on a deal for ARod. I would get ARod/Edgardo Alfonzo and he'd get Pujols/Beckett. The league screamed bloody murder, our trade was vetoed, and I never did continue with the league. The league thought that he was getting ripped off, but as you can clearly see, he got the better end of the deal.
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 9)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CBMGreatOne » Wed May 23, 2007 5:46 pm

pokerplaya wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:
pokerplaya wrote:My first thought: Why are you playing in a league with a person that you know has already tried to cheat you in the past?

Well, now that you are, I'd bet they are trying to collude, but that trade is close enough that you can't prove a thing.

Kind of just have to deal with it and move on...but learn not to play with cheaters in the future...


That's why "proof of collusion" is never the only reason to veto a trade. In this case, with the close connection of the two teams, for me the deciding factor would be the interest level of the brother. Has he been making moves to try to improve his standing? Has he been setting his lineups? Has he been demonstrating that he cares about the league at all?

If the answer to the above questions is no, then this deal is certainly vetoable in my mind. Can you convince the league that there is a greater than 50/50 chance that the brother made this trade purely out of apathy? If so, I think there is enough of a value difference for a veto.


The bottom line for me is that I only play in money leagues with guys that I play poker with weekly. We aren't going to cheat each other by colluding, as we don't cheat each other on the poker table.

When I'm in a standard league with no money changing hands, I make sure I know all the owners or at least know them through the Cafe.

In my 7 years in FBB, I've never encountered collusion. I pick my leagues and those that I play with carefully. So for me, collusion is the only reason to veto a trade - I don't buy into that competitive balance foolishness. How can you tell a fully capable adult that they are being an idiot by making a certain trade? WORSE still, what if you veto a trade to "protect" them, and then in hindsight, they would have won the trade and/or the league if you hadn't tried to "protect" them.

Story: 4 years ago or so, I was playing in my first keeper league. Pujols was entering his 2nd year I believe, and I thought highly of him so took him very early. (He was not yet a first round pick) I ended up coming to an agreement on a deal for ARod. I would get ARod/Edgardo Alfonzo and he'd get Pujols/Beckett. The league screamed bloody murder, our trade was vetoed, and I never did continue with the league. The league thought that he was getting ripped off, but as you can clearly see, he got the better end of the deal.


Vetoes are reserved only for very bad situations. I never do tell a fully capable adult how to run their team, but sometimes I will tell an apathetic owner that their sole monthly league activity can't be to trade their first pick (for nothing special). No trades out of apathy. I don't ever have that problem in my serious leagues, but they do exist, and this might be one of them.

Strict competitive balance vetoes (based purely on player value) are only for use in extreme circumstances.

Any trade, no matter how lopsided, can end up being more beneficial to the team getting the perceived short end of the stick, but if Poker was fantasy baseball I wouldn't let a player at the table trade his JT offsuit for AA preflop even though either can win.

You have to draw the line somewhere with trades, and yes, in sophisticated leagues that probably means never having to draw the line at all, but not all of us are so fortunate to play in such leagues exclusively.

I understand the capitalist analogy that a lot of people make about trades, but the problem is that idiots do play fantasy baseball, and they have just enough bullets in the gun (top 3 picks) to ruin a league by giving those bullets to one particular team for nothing.

I have been the commissioner of a 14 team roto league for the last 4 years and we haven't had a single veto, but if a very bad (very rare) situation arose where I felt one was appropriate, I wouldn't paralyze myself with the ludicrous imposition that I had to be able to prove collusion to do so.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby Lofunzo » Wed May 30, 2007 2:10 am

pokerplaya wrote:My first thought: Why are you playing in a league with a person that you know has already tried to cheat you in the past?

Well, now that you are, I'd bet they are trying to collude, but that trade is close enough that you can't prove a thing.

Kind of just have to deal with it and move on...but learn not to play with cheaters in the future...


Image
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 10:18 hours
(and 100 days)

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