Cafe Challenge Controversy? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:48 am

toledomudhens wrote:this is a tough one here... but the selling point of collusion for me was mookie defending players like JACK CUST in this deal and actually comparing him to GRADY SIEZMORE.I would not let a trade like this go threw and would seroiusly consider locking the 2 teams rosters for the rest of the year and send them packing... i love the hole fantasy aspect of baseball( we get to manage a team the way we see fit and get to have fun doing it) but i can't or would not tolerate cheating in any league. "Jack cust has 14 homers" i loved this saying here this made me really laugh...VETO ALL THE WAY


I don't think Mookie would collude. I just think the last place team isn't taking the league seriously and Mookie just hoped that his rip-off of a trade would go through. Like Snakes, I've been in that situation before too, but if this were a trade that I was going to get, I honestly would want it to be vetoed. It just isn't right.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3134
(Past Year: 233)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby morphism » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:26 am

I agree with the previous poster. This is just such a bad deal for the last place team that it should be vetoed. I don't see any evidence of collusion; however, a veto is definitely appropriate.
morphism
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 94
Joined: 15 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby nyrblue2 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:45 pm

There is no way a deal should ever be vetoed just because it is lopsided, especially in a keeper league. It's not up to you to decide what another manager wants/needs on his team. If he truly believes that Cust could be the next great HR hitter, let him do it. Who can say for sure he's not right? Maybe he's worried about Hamels' getting overworked, considering he was leading the league in IP for most of the way. Who's to say Harris won't be one of the best SS in the league next year and Renteria won't retire? Making these trades is not all about "names". Why didn't people complain and veto when guys like Tim Lincecum were getting traded for legitimate veterans before he even made 1 start in the big leagues? They were allowed because of Lincecum's percieved value. In actuality, people were trading away guys like Beltran and Texiera for a pitcher who had provided ZERO wins, ZERO strikeouts and ZERO contribution to WHIP/ERA at that point. Why is that ok? It's all about people's opinions and the chances they are willing to take.

That being said, I am not opposed to vetoing trades (or taking further action such as locking rosters) when there is hard evidence of collusion or cheating. If you know a manager is not returning to the league next year, sure don't allow him to trade Alex Rodriguez for Armando Benitez. Don't let him waive Johan Santana when the guy with #1 waiver priority is 1 start and 5 K's away from taking over first place in the league with 2 days left (especially if you happen to overhear a collusive phone call between the 2 guys or something ridiculous like that).

But when a guy makes a trade in a keeper league with the intention of returning next year and competing for the title, don't be the one to decide what's best for his team. That's his job.
nyrblue2
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Lucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1510
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:46 pm

nyrblue2 wrote:There is no way a deal should ever be vetoed just because it is lopsided, especially in a keeper league. It's not up to you to decide what another manager wants/needs on his team. If he truly believes that Cust could be the next great HR hitter, let him do it. Who can say for sure he's not right? Maybe he's worried about Hamels' getting overworked, considering he was leading the league in IP for most of the way. Who's to say Harris won't be one of the best SS in the league next year and Renteria won't retire? Making these trades is not all about "names". Why didn't people complain and veto when guys like Tim Lincecum were getting traded for legitimate veterans before he even made 1 start in the big leagues? They were allowed because of Lincecum's percieved value. In actuality, people were trading away guys like Beltran and Texiera for a pitcher who had provided ZERO wins, ZERO strikeouts and ZERO contribution to WHIP/ERA at that point. Why is that ok? It's all about people's opinions and the chances they are willing to take.

That being said, I am not opposed to vetoing trades (or taking further action such as locking rosters) when there is hard evidence of collusion or cheating. If you know a manager is not returning to the league next year, sure don't allow him to trade Alex Rodriguez for Armando Benitez. Don't let him waive Johan Santana when the guy with #1 waiver priority is 1 start and 5 K's away from taking over first place in the league with 2 days left (especially if you happen to overhear a collusive phone call between the 2 guys or something ridiculous like that).

But when a guy makes a trade in a keeper league with the intention of returning next year and competing for the title, don't be the one to decide what's best for his team. That's his job.


Agree to disagree. Nowhere, on any fantasy site, in any rulebook, outlining any policy, does anyone say: "Collusion (cheating) is the only reason to veto a trade." We all have our opinions about why trades ought to be vetoed. Here I just don't see the effort from team B. Also, the league described in this trade is NOT a keeper, so check your facts. That's pretty much all I got.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3134
(Past Year: 233)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby nyrblue2 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:48 pm

You're right, I didn't read the whole thread close enough to see it wasn't keeper. I apologize for coming off so hot here, but I still maintain my opinion (even though the keeper thing doesn't apply here).

I guess in a non-keeper league it's a bit more suspicious, but I just don't see how people outside the trade can judge another teams wants/needs without proof. It's good when you are able to stop collusion by vetoing, but what if the guy really believes he is getting a decent deal? Yes, it might suck for the guy right behind the guy making the "steal of a deal", but let the guy getting ripped off learn his lesson.

To me, without proof of collusion, vetoing a trade that the sucker really wants is a lot more "unfair" than allowing a lopsided deal. I mean nobody vetoes trades in the major leagues when GMs end up looking like fools (like Texas sending away Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez).

Again, sorry for using false facts in my original argument, but it is how I view situations like this that arise in keeper leagues...
nyrblue2
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Lucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1510
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Cafe Challenge Controversy?

Postby Trojan Pony » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:15 pm

But such trades also upset the competitive balance of the league when one team benefits from the incompetence or indifference of another manager. That's why I support vetoing in cases of severe lopsidedness, even if there's no evidence of collusion. But when you have a situation where a manager with an established record of competence is on the short end of a very lopsided trade, that's a very difficult situation, and can really only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis IMO, considering all of the factors involved.
Trojan Pony
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1938
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Tri-State Area

Previous

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Apr. 17
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Atlanta at Philadelphia
(1:05 pm)
Cleveland at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Toronto at Minnesota
(1:10 pm)
Seattle at Texas
(2:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Francisco
(3:45 pm)
Colorado at San Diego
(6:40 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Boston at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Houston
(8:10 pm)

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