I know this has been discussed before but I couldn't find a good thread on it. I need to settle a debate between myself and other people in my league. If a player is injured after the trade is accepted but before it is processed should the response be "That sucks but it's part of the game, still gotta pass it" or "The injury changes the whole trade and it's only fair to veto it". What do you guys think? I'm hoping for a consensus so I can resolve this issue... Thanks.
even if the injury occurs before the guy accepts it, its on them. you need to do some research before you click accept. and if the trade was already passed through and the day after the guy had him the player got hurt, you wouldnt think about vetoing it back would you?
im the commish in my baseball league and i generally allow most trades through immediately so there is no period. i also dont like letting proposed trades sit for more than a day or two because the other guy could easily just click accept if one of my players were to get hurt.
I'm in 100% agreement that evaluations should be made based on the deal at the time it was accepted. Those two owners made a decision based on info at that time - that's what matters.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Does it change anything, in your eyes, if it's a keeper league and the trade involves a stud keeper and a non-keeper-eligible player? For example, let's say the trade is Alex Rios for Jake Peavy and Peavy gets injured the day after the trade is accepted and he's out for the rest of the season. Then you would have one team getting Alex Rios for 3 years and another team SOL. Still gotta pass it?
Trojan Pony wrote:Does it change anything, in your eyes, if it's a keeper league and the trade involves a stud keeper and a non-keeper-eligible player? For example, let's say the trade is Alex Rios for Jake Peavy and Peavy gets injured the day after the trade is accepted and he's out for the rest of the season. Then you would have one team getting Alex Rios for 3 years and another team SOL. Still gotta pass it?
Yes - its all a matter of timing. When the deal is agreed upon, it is locked in. The evaluation period should not consider what happens after the deal is agreed upon - it is meant to evaluate the deal as the managers agreed upon. How is it any different than Peavy getting hurt the day after the veto period? Should you be able to retroactively veto? Of course not.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
If the other owner knows of the injury and still is fine with the deal, that's cool. Really, the only issue that I have is if someone tries to quickly trade a player that just got injured before the other owner knows about it.
Not to long ago I traded for Alfonso Soriano to make a push in my league. One hour later he came up lame trying to beat out a ground ball. I was shocked to say the least, but I never once thought about asking the league to veto the deal.
I agree, if the injury happened after the trade took place, tough luck - it has to go through.
A few weeks back I traded Ryan Dempster for Jim Thome, Thome was pulled from the game for back spasms literally 20 minutes after I clicked 'accept'. I sucked it up and didn't complain, and turns out he was okay.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Trojan Pony » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:59 pm 
