Trade Vetoed (twice) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Trade Vetoed (twice)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Trade Vetoed (twice)

Postby DMXdawg » Thu May 24, 2007 4:32 am

Does anyone know what the yahoo rules are for vetoing?
I'm currently in first in my money league, and other trades are going through. However, only MY trades aren't going through. What is going on? I'm currently winning by 8 points, but it's only the quarter mark of the baseball season.

This is the trade:
I get: Morneau
I give: Estrada and K-rod
He desperate needs saves and his catcher is carlos ruiz. It makes sense for both sides.

Mob rule (twice) vetoed the trade and I'm really angry. It seems like I can't trade at all! :-t
DMXdawg
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 832
Joined: 16 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Danger » Thu May 24, 2007 2:45 pm

It's 1/3 of your league. So if you're in a 12 team league, 4 votes are required to veto. I don't see why they would veto except to prevent you from stacking your team. I'm not saying you are but seeing as you're in first place I can see why they would want to prevent your team from getting any stronger. It's not really a wise use of a veto but assuming your team isn't loaded with 1st - 3rd rounders already I don't see any other reason.
Danger
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2769
Joined: 21 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: McCovey Cove, on my raft with my laptop

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu May 24, 2007 3:10 pm

Ehh, call me crazy, but I don't think it's that bad of a veto. Using Estrada as a chip to upgrade from KRod shouldn't net that much gain. It's pretty extremely lopsided. Estrada is really nothing special.

Depending on the circumstances, I might veto that one.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby jetsdec89 » Thu May 24, 2007 3:39 pm

I think this shouldnt have been vetoed. Sure Morneau is a top 1st baseman but krod is probably the top closer and estrada is def. a upgrade to ruiz. I could see why they would veto it but it shouldnt have been.
jetsdec89
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 127
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu May 24, 2007 4:09 pm

Yeah, it's debatable as to whether it's vetoable or not. The upgrade from Ruiz to Estrada (in fantasy terms) is about as valuable as a stick of juicy fruit. The upgrade from KRod to Morneau (diff positions, but strictly value) is enormous.

I think this is a typical veto. It doesn't surprise me that it got shot down twice.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby Danger » Thu May 24, 2007 4:35 pm

Value wise it's pretty big but its still an understandable trade. He's giving up a 1B (though a very expensive one) for one of the best if not THE best closers and for a team that's desperate for saves the owner of Morneau's team will improve in saves drastically whereas he may only drop in 1B slightly. Of course this is all assumptions.
Danger
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2769
Joined: 21 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: McCovey Cove, on my raft with my laptop

Postby DMXdawg » Thu May 24, 2007 5:26 pm

Let me give a little perspective. I have 92.5 points, 8.5 more than the next team.
My team:
C: Pudge
1b: Lance Berkman
2b: Lugo
SS: Rollins
3b: A-Ram
OF:C. Crawford
OF: H. Matsui
OF: Sheffield
Util: Barfield
Bench: Hermida, LaRoche

Pitching:
SP: R. Hill, Oliver Perez, R. Johnson, C. Young, T. Lincecum
RP: K-rod, B. Jenks, O. Dotel, A. Otsuka, D. Wheeler

My points (out of 12)
Runs: 11
HR:9.5
RBIs:11
Steals:9
AVG:3
Wins:10
Saves:11
Ks:11
ERA:6
WHIP:11

His team:
C: C. Ruiz
1b: J. Morneau
2b: O. Hudson
3b: E. German
SS: E. Renteria
OF: J. Cust
OF: G. Matthews, Jr.
OF: C. Granderson
Util: Dan Johnson
Bench: Kinsler, B. Bonds

SP: Santana, Snell, Sheets, Beckett, Hudson, Looper
RP: Rivera, Nathan, Wickman, Owens

His points:
Runs:12
HRs:12
RBIs:8
Steals:8
Avg:5

Wins:8.5
Saves:1
Ks:8
ERA:3
WHIP:6

It makes sense for both teams- he can really improve in saves (he's last) and improve his ERA and WHIP. He also has HRs, runs, and RBIs to give. I just cement my position near the top for the power categories.

It's not vetoable. I just hate mob rule. Makes sense for both sides.
DMXdawg
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 832
Joined: 16 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RowdyRed » Thu May 24, 2007 11:24 pm

I'm going to say that I would not have vetoed it (I have never vetoed a trade), but it certainly IS vetoable. Maybe it does help him, but who plays first for him without Morneau? The drop from Morneau to...what????....is huge....just as big as your upgrade from Barfield to Morneau. The upgrade at catcher is nothing to speak of, really. The deal really is KRod for Morneau, and Morneau's value far outweighs KRod's.

Still, like I said, I wouldn't have vetoed it. If you weren't in first, it wouldn't have been vetoed. Try it again. You never know when it will go through. Try it this weekend. The holiday may catch some people away from their computer who were vetoing before. They will not veto, the trade might go through before anyone realizes it was proposed again...
RowdyRed
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1743
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby JTWood » Fri May 25, 2007 8:24 am

Your league needs to understand that the only reason to veto should be collusion. If they think you guys are working together for some lopsided benefit to one party, then the trade should be vetoed. Otherwise, they are dictating value, and we all know that value is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri May 25, 2007 12:22 pm

JTWood wrote:Your league needs to understand that the only reason to veto should be collusion. If they think you guys are working together for some lopsided benefit to one party, then the trade should be vetoed. Otherwise, they are dictating value, and we all know that value is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.


Like it or not, the veto process empowers other owners to have some say in player value. I don't agree that collusion is the only reason to veto a trade and I don't see the point of spreading it as gospel. Yahoo leaves vetoing discretion to its managers and nowhere states that collusion should be the only reason to use it.

Or maybe it's just the definition of collusion that needs to be better understood. A player who is treating his team frivolously and accepting trades out of apathy is almost as collusive (and potentially damaging to the league) as one who is negotiating an outright firesale.

When the value difference is extreme, players reserve the right to veto deals they are uncomfortable with.

I recognize that vetoes are necessary, but only in rare cases.

I've been the commissioner of my league for 4 years, and I only had to veto one trade, in the first year of my league, and it was blatant collusion.

Neither manager was invited back and since there has never been a problem.

That said, with only the information provided, I couldn't say for sure that I would veto this one. I'd need to know a little more, perhaps most importantly, how active the manager giving up Morneau has been.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Next

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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