Grounds for Vetoing a Trade? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby JasonSeahorn » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:01 pm

When do you feel a trade should be vetoed? I feel that if there is no collusion, the trade should go through. Even if it is a completely idiotic trade, the owner gaining the edge should be rewarded for being able to pull off that trade and it is on the other owners to be able to make trades of their own.

A big counter argument I always hear to this is that the "league integrity" shouldn't be affected in a trade because it would be too hard for everyone else to win. What are your thoughts about this?
JasonSeahorn Beginner
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 197
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Yoda » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:09 pm

Unless you have a non-interested 3rd party to review and veto trades, I don't think a trade should be vetoed. A lot of stupid trades happen in pubs but you can still win a league pretty easily unless someone is 100% dumping his players to another owner in which case it would be considered colluding and I would vote to veto.

League integrity argument is pretty weak since poor choices at the draft and also add/drops have just as big of an impact if not more than a stupid trade would.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby sportsaddict » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:16 pm

A trade should always be vetoed if there is "collusion." If the 10th place team tells the 1st place team he can "have" Johan Santana for Michael Cuddyer in exchange because he doesn't give a crap anymore, there are grounds for a veto. If the 10th place team tells the 1st place team to pay him 20 bucks and he'll give him Johan Santana for Brandon Webb, there are grounds for a veto.

However, if the 10th place owner legitimately thinks giving up Johan Santana for Cuddyer would help his team, and there is no evidence that he's giving up on his team, then there's no reason to veto. It might not be a smart move, but you can't veto a trade if both owners are trying to improve their teams.

Now, the popular opinion is "only veto if there's cheating." I would say in general that's a good rule to follow, but I think I may consider vetoing a trade if it's something like Albert Pujols for Miguel Olivo. That's just such an unbelievably ridiculous trade- nobody in their right mind could think that getting Olivo and giving up Pujols could help their team. In that case, even with no evidence of cheating, I might look into a veto.
"Oh, that Lankford and McGee, the trio of 'em. They're a one-man wrecking crew."

-Mike Shannon
sportsaddict
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1961
Joined: 2 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The good old Midwest

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby The Artful Dodger » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:46 pm

I'm also on the boat of those who believe a trade should only be voted if there's proof for collusion, but that's still quite hard to prove. A guy may genuinely think Michael Cuddyer is more valuable than a Johan Santana, who knows, and if the team receiving Johan is in 1st, it doesn't matter. The suspicion is there that there's collusion, but the grounds for it? Ah, that's still hard to prove, as it's still a matter of opinion than concrete proof. As Yoda pointed out, the best thing is for a 3rd party to review/veto trades, but you can have the opposite effect: reverse collusion, where the majority of the league reaches some kind of mutual agreement to down a suspect deal, especially if you take into account the circumstances of standings and what-have-you. The worst thing that can happen is having a league that's trigger happy on even a legitimate buy low/sell high deal after all.

I think there's a massive thread on the Football Cafe last year about a lopsided trade that really stretched to an engaging convo, but alas, I'm lazy to cross the divide to dig it up. :*)
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby jcook3127 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:26 pm

Why play fantasy baseball if somebody thinks giving up Johan for Cuddyer under any circumstance improves his teams chances of being successful?

There are good trades, there are bad trades....there are sly moves with people buying low and selling high...there are poor roster choices with people buying high and selling low....and 95% of the time, I don't have a problem with this..

But if I feel a trade is so ridiculous that I cannot possibly fathom what the owners are thinking, I feel this is grounds for a veto...I would never veto to protect my own self interest (for example, if I wanted to go steal the player that was going in the trade, or a grudge on another owner), but if I think it really has a good shot to ruin the competitive balance of the league, then yes I will exercise the right that my league gives me with such a system in place...

You say that poor waiver wire work and a bad draft can have the same affect if not more on ruining the competitive balance of a league...well I disagree with this statement...sure, bad teams can draft poorly but the players that they pass up are fair game to EVERY SINGLE OWNER on a war room....under a proper waiver system, every owner has an equal opportunity...or I should say FAIR opportunity to be the one to grab Adam DUnn if some idiot chose to drop him

With a trade that is so obviously one sided to the point where you wouldn't be shocked if you learned it was collusion anyway, I feel a veto is justified.
Why don't they just get a house that's already painted?
jcook3127
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2 Feb 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Yoda » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:32 pm

jcook3127 wrote:Why play fantasy baseball if somebody thinks giving up Johan for Cuddyer under any circumstance improves his teams chances of being successful?

There are good trades, there are bad trades....there are sly moves with people buying low and selling high...there are poor roster choices with people buying high and selling low....and 95% of the time, I don't have a problem with this..

But if I feel a trade is so ridiculous that I cannot possibly fathom what the owners are thinking, I feel this is grounds for a veto...I would never veto to protect my own self interest (for example, if I wanted to go steal the player that was going in the trade, or a grudge on another owner), but if I think it really has a good shot to ruin the competitive balance of the league, then yes I will exercise the right that my league gives me with such a system in place...

You say that poor waiver wire work and a bad draft can have the same affect if not more on ruining the competitive balance of a league...well I disagree with this statement...sure, bad teams can draft poorly but the players that they pass up are fair game to EVERY SINGLE OWNER on a war room....under a proper waiver system, every owner has an equal opportunity...or I should say FAIR opportunity to be the one to grab Adam DUnn if some idiot chose to drop him

With a trade that is so obviously one sided to the point where you wouldn't be shocked if you learned it was collusion anyway, I feel a veto is justified.


Benefiting from bad trades is fair game to every single owner as well. I don't see how it is any different from someone dropping a star quality player and another team getting him for some bench player.

And let's face it where do you draw the line? If you are getting Lidge for Ortiz because 1) you really needed saves and 2) you believe Ortiz will struggle all season then have someone in your league veto that trade, how would you feel? You may think it is a bad trade because you don't want the 1st place team getting Ortiz for Lidge but the guy giving up Ortiz obviously doesn't. So now you are screwing the guy with Ortiz from his point of view.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby jcook3127 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:41 pm

Yea I understand the argument Yoda...I just don't agree with it...this isn't the real world where what's done is done, in the end it is just a game that a bunch of people decide to invest their leisure in...I wouldn't sit down for a game of Monopoly if somebody was going to trade Baltic/mediterranean for the Yellows and 200 bucks...regardless of how much of a hunch that he had that the yellows will turn cold

...yea, it goes back to the notion that you should find a better league to play in...fair enough, and maybe I will...but If I'm in a league where this is happening...I feel like I'm just wasting my time..I can't explain it any more than that
Last edited by jcook3127 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why don't they just get a house that's already painted?
jcook3127
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2 Feb 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby JasonSeahorn » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:49 pm

jcook3127 wrote:Yea I understand the argument Yoda...I just don't agree with it...this isn't the real world where what's done is done, in the end it is just a game that a bunch of people decide to invest their leisure in...I wouldn't sit down for a game of Monopoly if somebody was going to trade Baltic/mediterranean for the Yellows and 200 bucks...


Actually the purples aren't that bad :-b 500 bucks buys you hotels on each, and landing on Med once or Baltic twice pays it right back.
JasonSeahorn Beginner
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 197
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby sportsaddict » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:54 pm

I forgot to tell a funny story about one of my leagues a few years ago. I was in a league with a bunch of friends, and every single owner except for one was really into it.

Unfortunately, the one owner that was only casually interested caused quite a controversy. Here's what happened: One of our league mates was a real "s@@@ disturber" if you know what I mean- made for great rivalries and he was a good player, but he was really obnoxious. He was always offering horrible, one-sided trades, trying to convince you that they were fair when he was really just ripping you off. Anyway, he had intimidated people into making trades before, so when he made a shady deal with this aforementioned "casual owner," we thought he was back at work. The trade was something ridiculous- I don't remember the players, but it was something along the lines of "elite player for random, lucky hitter on a hot streak."

Anyway, we were all kind of pissed that this jerk (we liked him in real life, but we all loved to see him lose) got a great player just by trading a crappy player riding a lucky hot streak. There was nothing we could do, until we found out that this owner had actually pulled off the trade by buying the other owner a $10 meal at a local restaurant.

So basically, the trade was "random hitter on a hot streak" and "$10 meal" for "elite player." We all thought it was so hilarious that we just had them trade back and moved on with it.
"Oh, that Lankford and McGee, the trio of 'em. They're a one-man wrecking crew."

-Mike Shannon
sportsaddict
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1961
Joined: 2 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The good old Midwest

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Amazinz » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:59 pm

jcook3127 wrote:...I wouldn't sit down for a game of Monopoly if somebody was going to trade Baltic/mediterranean for the Yellows and 200 bucks...

I don't think this example works because Monopoly properties have fixed values and even though you land on properties randomly, you can use probability to determine accurate values for each position on the board. I'm not just picking apart your example to be a turd. I think it illustrates an important point because value in fantasy baseball is far more volatile than in a game like Monopoly. When we think that we know a player's value enough to restrict another owner's ability to play the game then we are being full of ourselves and far more damaging to the league than an owner who makes a dumb move IMHO.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Next

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 11:29 hours
(and 95 days)

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