Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **unclepaulie** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:56 am

A trade is going down in my league that has everybody going nuts. I don't have any problems with the deal but a few of the managers who finish next to last every year are up in arms. The deal is Swisher/Gallardo for Tex/Chris Ray. Is this something that is so far to the right that it should get nixed? what do you think?

by **dclark0699** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:58 am

wrong forum...but I wouldn't veto it

by **DevilDriver** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:54 am

Not vetoable in a keeper league.

by **unclepaulie** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:43 am

anyone else wanna chime in?

by **CBMGreatOne** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:13 pm

I agree, if it's a keeper, no veto, but if it's a redraft, yeah, I can see why they're upset. It's a little bit lopsided. I might vote to veto, but I'm not sure.

by **jswede** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:23 pm

Vetoing is lame, stupid, and has no place in fantasy baseball - it's no one's business but the owners involved - UNLESS there is collusion. In case of collusion, both managers are kicked out of the league permanently. That simple rule has kept my league clean for years - we've never had a veto or a problem.

by **CBMGreatOne** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:26 pm

jswede wrote:Vetoing is lame, stupid, and has no place in fantasy baseball - it's no one's business but the owners involved - UNLESS there is collusion. In case of collusion, both managers are kicked out of the league permanently. That simple rule has kept my league clean for years - we've never had a veto or a problem.

Respectfully, no sir, you're wrong. Or my disagreement with you is purely semantics, not sure which.

Check out this thread:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=302447

and this one:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=301740

And tell me if you think those are vetoable. And if so, tell me if you think they are outright collusion.

by **Oatsdad** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:43 pm

jswede wrote:Vetoing is lame, stupid, and has no place in fantasy baseball - it's no one's business but the owners involved - UNLESS there is collusion.

Completely agreed. I don't see this as a badly lop-sided trade anyway...

by **Lofunzo** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:42 am

CBMGreatOne wrote:
jswede wrote:Vetoing is lame, stupid, and has no place in fantasy baseball - it's no one's business but the owners involved - UNLESS there is collusion. In case of collusion, both managers are kicked out of the league permanently. That simple rule has kept my league clean for years - we've never had a veto or a problem.

Respectfully, no sir, you're wrong. Or my disagreement with you is purely semantics, not sure which.

Check out this thread:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=302447

and this one:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=301740

And tell me if you think those are vetoable. And if so, tell me if you think they are outright collusion.

Those deals don't help your argument here because they are much more lopsided than the trade in question in this thread. You seem to like to push the veto button quite regularly and that's fine for you. I have always used the rule of thumb that I only veto if there is collusion or if the trade is so lopsided that it would really mess up the league. I don't see how this deal does either. Maybe I am just being naive, though. I only play in leagues with people that I either know personally, know from online, or both.

by **CBMGreatOne** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:53 am

I wasn't using those as an example why this trade was vetoable. I said I'm not sure I would vote to veto this one myself. I was just using it to illustrate that the outright condemnation of vetoes is somewhat shortsighted, because there are instances where they are truly necessary, IMHO. I don't like them anymore than anyone else.