BronXBombers51 wrote:Ok, here's a hypothetical for you.
Team A is heavy in steals but low in power. They agree to a trade in which they trade one of their only power threats, Miguel Cabrera for Team B's Carl Crawford.
A team trading for more steals when they severely lack in power could hardly be considered a beneficial trade. So by your logic, this is veto-worthy? Since Team A isn't benefiting from this deal, that means that it's a bad trade? BS.
The owner decides what benefits his team, not you. You decide whether you think collusion was involved, because that's the only legitimate reason to veto a trade.
I think that you would agree that Lidge for Ortiz is a little different than Crawford for Miggy.
That isn't the point. The point was, he said that he judges trades based on whether or not they benefit each team. That trade doesn't benefit Team A, so would he consider it veto-worthy?
BronXBombers51 wrote:Ok, here's a hypothetical for you.
Team A is heavy in steals but low in power. They agree to a trade in which they trade one of their only power threats, Miguel Cabrera for Team B's Carl Crawford.
A team trading for more steals when they severely lack in power could hardly be considered a beneficial trade. So by your logic, this is veto-worthy? Since Team A isn't benefiting from this deal, that means that it's a bad trade? BS.
The owner decides what benefits his team, not you. You decide whether you think collusion was involved, because that's the only legitimate reason to veto a trade.
I think that you would agree that Lidge for Ortiz is a little different than Crawford for Miggy.
That isn't the point. The point was, he said that he judges trades based on whether or not they benefit each team. That trade doesn't benefit Team A, so would he consider it veto-worthy?
No, the point is that the veto system is in place to maintain competitive balance in the league. In this case, I'm pretty sure that Crawford for Miggy wouldn't throw it off like Lidge for Ortiz would.
gfantasy wrote:I think that you would agree that Lidge for Ortiz is a little different than Crawford for Miggy.
That isn't the point. The point was, he said that he judges trades based on whether or not they benefit each team. That trade doesn't benefit Team A, so would he consider it veto-worthy?
No, the point is that the veto system is in place to maintain competitive balance in the league. In this case, I'm pretty sure that Crawford for Miggy wouldn't throw it off like Lidge for Ortiz would.
That's not what the veto system is for. The veto system is to prevent cheating and collusion in the league. If you think someone is so bad that they will ruin the balance of the league through their ineptitude, they shouldn't have been invited into the league in the first place.
BronXBombers51 wrote: That isn't the point. The point was, he said that he judges trades based on whether or not they benefit each team. That trade doesn't benefit Team A, so would he consider it veto-worthy?
No, the point is that the veto system is in place to maintain competitive balance in the league. In this case, I'm pretty sure that Crawford for Miggy wouldn't throw it off like Lidge for Ortiz would.
That's not what the veto system is for. The veto system is to prevent cheating and collusion in the league. If you think someone is so bad that they will ruin the balance of the league through their ineptitude, they shouldn't have been invited into the league in the first place.
CubsFan7724 - this thread is no longer about David Ortiz.
A Fleshner Fantasy - The veto system is for the owners. It gives them control and ownership to protect the credibility of their league among cheating and collusion.
In case of the Ortiz - Lidge trade its not about collusion. A collusion, or foul play is very obvious, and in that case the comish can take over and nullify the trade or pending trade. No veto needed by league members. But when vetos can be used against unequal trades, than everyone can have a different and equally valid opinion on trades. And if theres a veto system applied by the league, everyone has to accept the outcome.
And one last question: If I cant use my veto button, why is it there?
the awesome sig by soty
"You should be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment." - Qui-Gon Jinn (keeper league expert?)
Who really knows if Lidge for Ortiz is a bad trade....really? What happens if in a couple weeks Ortiz goes down with season ending surgery or plays through the pain and discomfort and puts up a .260 / 25 / 90 year and Lidge regains old dominance....granted I'm not saying either of these things will happen but I'm sure the guy involved believes at least a portion of this. I know if I liked and/or disliked a guy(s) that no one else really thought the same way about and rejected a trade because of it.....I would be PISSED! Let them play....Vetos are for cheating/collusion, IMHO.
jcook3127 wrote:Are we mind readers? Sure...a badly perceived trade in April could turn out solid by August...so what?
This is why you shouldn't veto trades unless there are signs of collusion. The owner obviously believes that Ortiz will not help his team while Lidge will. Who are you to decide what he does need or doesn't need?
You are not a 3rd party and also have a direct interest in the outcome of every trade.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
J35J wrote:Who really knows if Lidge for Ortiz is a bad trade....really? What happens if in a couple weeks Ortiz goes down with season ending surgery or plays through the pain and discomfort and puts up a .260 / 25 / 90 year and Lidge regains old dominance
This is always the weakest argument people use... you never know, so who can judge. Maybe some guy is like Mike Francesa and likes Brandon Inge... a lot. And maybe he really despises A-Rod. So Inge for A-Rod... who can say? Sure... let it go!!! I don't know anything! He's a big boy!!
Do you take the same attitude in any other part of your life? Your friend tells you, "So, I just spent $500 on a pizza" do you silently nod and think, "Ah. He really likes pizza. I guess I should respect his autonomy" or do you slap him around and say, "Dude, I could've gotten you any pizza in the city for thirty bucks. What are you thinking?!?!"
J35J wrote:Vetos are for cheating/collusion, IMHO.
How do you know when that is?
If people want to talk about bad trades vs. collusion, there's a thread dedicated to it so people don't get duped into reading petty squabbling when they're looking for news on Big Papi.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by BronXBombers51 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:52 pm 
