Veto: Bad trades or collusion only? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Trade Veto: Only Collusion or unbalanced trades too?

-Veto should be used only for obvious/provable instances of collusion...pay your nickel and take your lumps!!!
29
71%
-Veto should be used to stop unbalanced trades...it's the commish's job to help keep the teams balanced!!!
12
29%
 
Total votes : 41

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:21 pm

noseeum wrote:Q: Should there be such a thing as a consideration of, "competitive balance" in fantasy leagues?
A: No. So long as you come up with some criteria for question 1, then no. "Competitive balance" is a myth, created by people to justify preventing other owners from improving their teams. It sounds like a just cause in theory, but in practice, it is ALWAYS ABUSED. Any league I've ever been in that has allowed trades to be blocked for "competitive balance" reasons, has been eventually reduced to nothing. People develop grudges, blocking each other's trades because of past offenses. If you're in a public league, you have to accept these annoying restrictions because you can't trust anyone. If you're in a private league, and you're still worrying about "competitive balance" than I don't understand why you can't trust your fellow owners to always be trying to make their teams better.

Funny. I was just thinking of this exact point yesterday.

In the real baseball discussion above, I talk about how real baseball GMs won't do really stupid trades because they'll lose their great job and also, something I didn't mention, is that they're normally decently vetted. They don't pick a guy off of the street and put him in as GM (although Mets fans bitter about Kazmir might disagree). And when you have a private league with people you know and people who know the game you can be very, very, very hands off. I've never even seen a vetoed trade, much less done one, in any of the leagues I do with friends of mine. The two leagues I've done in the last few years where I didn't really know anybody there were vetoes because in one we found out one guy actually was running two of the teams (this was a league advertised through the Cafe but I didn't know the guy) and in the other one of the guys was just bitter about other stuff so was flipping the bird to his friends that he didn't like (I only knew one of the guys from grad school; it was all his high school friends).

And I think people over project this stuff when giving veto/no veto advice to other people. Really, the first question in a veto discussion shouldn't be, "What's the players" but, "How well do you know these people?" If one guy in my league said, "I'm a Votto believer" and it's a keeper league and he does Votto for Manny, I'd say fine. Because those are guys I trust and they know what they're doing. But when people ask for advice on the boards, I don't know who they're playing with and nobody else does, either. So you give advice based off of that.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby noseeum » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:42 pm

Matthias wrote:
noseeum wrote:Q: Should there be such a thing as a consideration of, "competitive balance" in fantasy leagues?
A: No. So long as you come up with some criteria for question 1, then no. "Competitive balance" is a myth, created by people to justify preventing other owners from improving their teams. It sounds like a just cause in theory, but in practice, it is ALWAYS ABUSED. Any league I've ever been in that has allowed trades to be blocked for "competitive balance" reasons, has been eventually reduced to nothing. People develop grudges, blocking each other's trades because of past offenses. If you're in a public league, you have to accept these annoying restrictions because you can't trust anyone. If you're in a private league, and you're still worrying about "competitive balance" than I don't understand why you can't trust your fellow owners to always be trying to make their teams better.

Funny. I was just thinking of this exact point yesterday.

In the real baseball discussion above, I talk about how real baseball GMs won't do really stupid trades because they'll lose their great job and also, something I didn't mention, is that they're normally decently vetted. They don't pick a guy off of the street and put him in as GM (although Mets fans bitter about Kazmir might disagree). And when you have a private league with people you know and people who know the game you can be very, very, very hands off. I've never even seen a vetoed trade, much less done one, in any of the leagues I do with friends of mine. The two leagues I've done in the last few years where I didn't really know anybody there were vetoes because in one we found out one guy actually was running two of the teams (this was a league advertised through the Cafe but I didn't know the guy) and in the other one of the guys was just bitter about other stuff so was flipping the bird to his friends that he didn't like (I only knew one of the guys from grad school; it was all his high school friends).

And I think people over project this stuff when giving veto/no veto advice to other people. Really, the first question in a veto discussion shouldn't be, "What's the players" but, "How well do you know these people?" If one guy in my league said, "I'm a Votto believer" and it's a keeper league and he does Votto for Manny, I'd say fine. Because those are guys I trust and they know what they're doing. But when people ask for advice on the boards, I don't know who they're playing with and nobody else does, either. So you give advice based off of that.


Good point. I always assume it's a private league because I assume it's the commissioner who's asking. But maybe that's not right. In the trade forum, it's always asked that you tell everyone your league settings so it's easier to judge player values.

It would make a lot of sense to tell everyone whether it's an anonymous league when you post a veto question and to tell everyone how well you know them. Shoot, Matthias. I think that's like six in a week.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:01 pm

Oatsdad wrote:Man, you really need to loosen up. X-I

You go ahead and veto to your heart's content. Me, I'll just be happy I'm not in any leagues with you - I can't imagine anyone has any fun in them... :-P


Uh oh, I went and got myself sucked into another one of THESE threads.

Oatsdad, this is a ridiculous, arbitrary, and out of context comment that has no business in this thread. I pretty much agree 100% with everything Matthias has said here.

The problem is that some people in fantasy leagues just aren't serious about winning. Casual collusion is all too common with these kinds of managers and it's virtually never proven.

In my competitive leagues where I commission, there simply aren't ever any vetoes. This is in spite of the fact that people on this forum generally consider my trade approval criteria as being much stricter than most.

You veto bad trades to protect the other managers in the league from cheaters/bad or apathetic managers, who ruin the league by giving away extremely valuable commodities for nothing/cash/recreational pharmaceuticals/whatever.

I'm not vetoing anything that's close, but a lot of the trades referenced in this thread are not close.

A hard line "No vetoes except in cases of proven collusion" stance just doesn't work. There HAS to be subjectivity. That's all there is to it.

And yes, I involve myself in threads like these and I get nonsense commentary like what is quoted above, and I respond absolutely the same way. I'd gladly play in a league with Matthias and I'm sure that every trade that I propose or accept would be approved in due time. Sure I'm forfeiting the opportunity to trade Nick Swisher to the noob manager for Ryan Howard, but I'd rather not play in such a childish league.

This is always a difficult topic and some people would rather leave their heads buried in their rear ends than to give it "serious" thought. :-t
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby noseeum » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:06 pm

Listen to the April 24th ESPN Fantasy Focus podcast. TMR goes on a rant about trades and vetos using an example from the Man's League. Complete ripoff trade in most people's eyes, and TMR says it exactly like it is.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:40 pm

noseeum wrote:Listen to the April 24th ESPN Fantasy Focus podcast. TMR goes on a rant about trades and vetos using an example from the Man's League. Complete ripoff trade in most people's eyes, and TMR says it exactly like it is.


Sure, but you can't use such a platform to categorically remove any and all veto power from commish/managers. Sometimes trades get made that are bad. It's only about 3% of the time, but it does happen. No matter what the guy on the podcast says, not every trade should be approved, and like has been pointed out many times, how do you prove collusion? especially collusion born of sheer apathy?

Maine + Reynolds for ARod demands a veto, even if it can be rationalized by a careless manager who isn't really trying.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby noseeum » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:37 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
noseeum wrote:Listen to the April 24th ESPN Fantasy Focus podcast. TMR goes on a rant about trades and vetos using an example from the Man's League. Complete ripoff trade in most people's eyes, and TMR says it exactly like it is.


Sure, but you can't use such a platform to categorically remove any and all veto power from commish/managers. Sometimes trades get made that are bad. It's only about 3% of the time, but it does happen. No matter what the guy on the podcast says, not every trade should be approved, and like has been pointed out many times, how do you prove collusion? especially collusion born of sheer apathy?

Maine + Reynolds for ARod demands a veto, even if it can be rationalized by a careless manager who isn't really trying.


How about you go listen to it before you put down what he says? It starts at 19:30.

If you are in a league where you know all of the owners, and you know everyone's paid up and they're all active, there is pretty much zero grounds for a veto. As I've said, public anonymous leagues are different. He's talking about two deals in the man's league, a league of very active fantasy players and ESPN employees. 20 team MLB. Here are the two deals:
1. Sexson, Kent, Rowand for Morneau, Abreu, Ramon Santiago
2. Cole Hamels for Eric Aybar

The second was done by the PRODUCER OF ESPN'S FANTASY BASEBALL PODCAST!
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:43 pm

noseeum wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:
noseeum wrote:Listen to the April 24th ESPN Fantasy Focus podcast. TMR goes on a rant about trades and vetos using an example from the Man's League. Complete ripoff trade in most people's eyes, and TMR says it exactly like it is.


Sure, but you can't use such a platform to categorically remove any and all veto power from commish/managers. Sometimes trades get made that are bad. It's only about 3% of the time, but it does happen. No matter what the guy on the podcast says, not every trade should be approved, and like has been pointed out many times, how do you prove collusion? especially collusion born of sheer apathy?

Maine + Reynolds for ARod demands a veto, even if it can be rationalized by a careless manager who isn't really trying.


How about you go listen to it before you put down what he says? It starts at 19:30.

If you are in a league where you know all of the owners, and you know everyone's paid up and they're all active, there is pretty much zero grounds for a veto. As I've said, public anonymous leagues are different. He's talking about two deals in the man's league, a league of very active fantasy players and ESPN employees. 20 team MLB. Here are the two deals:
1. Sexson, Kent, Rowand for Morneau, Abreu, Ramon Santiago
2. Cole Hamels for Eric Aybar

The second was done by the PRODUCER OF ESPN'S FANTASY BASEBALL PODCAST!


I really think we probably see mostly eye to eye on this issue. I do two private leagues each year and it has been 4 years since my last veto, and that was a case of obvious collusion. I completely agree that in private leagues, vetoes are almost never necessary. In public leagues though, or leagues where you don't know everybody, there is a time and a place for them. All this being said, I think if you played in a league that I commissioned, if it came to be that I vetoed a trade (I can't anyway since I only play league votes) that it would have been a trade that deserved to be shot down. I might check out the podcast, but with all the baseball going on today, not to mention the NFL draft, I might not get around to it. I appreciate the link though. Cheers.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Previous

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Aug. 27
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

St. Louis at Pittsburgh
(12:35 pm)
Texas at Seattle
(3:40 pm)
Tampa Bay at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
NY Yankees at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
Atlanta at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Chi Cubs at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Cleveland at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Oakland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at San Diego
(9:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Miami at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Colorado at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

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