Return to Commissioner's Corner
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
by Lightning1919 » Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:00 pm
it was passed in my league, jw what anyones thoughts are on vetoing this
-
Lightning1919
- Softball Supervisor

- Posts: 34
- Joined: 25 Jul 2003
- Bases this season: 0
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by Oatsdad » Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:35 pm
I think the Santana side won, but I don't think it's insane...
-
Oatsdad
- Major League Manager

- Posts: 1295
- (Past Year: 1)
- Joined: 24 Dec 2006
- Bases this season: 3
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by Jimmy103 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:43 pm
That's pretty borderline...I'd lean more towards bustin out the veto.
A lil help please:
viewtopic.php?t=301706
Win 2 more and then we'll talk.
-
Jimmy103
- College Coach


- Posts: 227
- Joined: 6 Feb 2007
- Bases this season: 0
- Home Cafe: Baseball
- Location: Boston, MA
by sox 06 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:51 pm
I would have vetoed that. I own Santana and there is no way I would trade him for those two guys.
Some advice?
viewtopic.php?t=301740
-
sox 06
- General Manager




- Posts: 4424
- (Past Year: 22)
- Joined: 22 Apr 2006
- Bases this season: 12
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by sox 06 » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:20 am
Lofunzo wrote:sox 06 wrote:I would have vetoed that. I own Santana and there is no way I would trade him for those two guys.
Some advice?
viewtopic.php?t=301740
Nor would I but that shouldn't be the only reason to veto.
I just don't think Matthews/Putz is equal value to Johan, that's why I would veto it.
-
sox 06
- General Manager




- Posts: 4424
- (Past Year: 22)
- Joined: 22 Apr 2006
- Bases this season: 12
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by Oatsdad » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:59 am
sox 06 wrote:I just don't think Matthews/Putz is equal value to Johan, that's why I would veto it.
But why do trades have to be "equal" to avoid a veto? I think you - and too damned many others - misunderstand the point of the veto option. It's not to ensure perfect trade harmony - it's to make sure that some folks don't cheat. That's it - using it to veto trades just because you think they're not exactly equal is a misuse of the option...

-
Oatsdad
- Major League Manager

- Posts: 1295
- (Past Year: 1)
- Joined: 24 Dec 2006
- Bases this season: 3
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by sox 06 » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:05 pm
Oatsdad wrote:sox 06 wrote:I just don't think Matthews/Putz is equal value to Johan, that's why I would veto it.
But why do trades have to be "equal" to avoid a veto? I think you - and too damned many others - misunderstand the point of the veto option. It's not to ensure perfect trade harmony - it's to make sure that some folks don't cheat. That's it - using it to veto trades just because you think they're not exactly equal is a misuse of the option...

This is just my opinon on this trade. I have been play fantasy baseball for 4 years with multiple leagues each year and I have only vetoed
ONE trade ever so I don't misuse the option, I hardly use it.
-
sox 06
- General Manager




- Posts: 4424
- (Past Year: 22)
- Joined: 22 Apr 2006
- Bases this season: 12
- Home Cafe: Baseball
by Oatsdad » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:54 pm
sox 06 wrote:This is just my opinon on this trade. I have been play fantasy baseball for 4 years with multiple leagues each year and I have only vetoed ONE trade ever so I don't misuse the option, I hardly use it.
If you're that stingy with the veto, then I don't understand why you'd nix this trade - it's not that bad...
-
Oatsdad
- Major League Manager

- Posts: 1295
- (Past Year: 1)
- Joined: 24 Dec 2006
- Bases this season: 3
- Home Cafe: Baseball
Return to Commissioner's Corner
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest