Grounds for Vetoing a Trade? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Matthias » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:05 am

TheRock wrote:My question to the collusion only crowd has always been how do you prove it?

Not everyone leaves incriminating notes around the Cafe like the booradley's did, eh, Rock?

I suggested last week that the Cafe just sticky some Frequently Debated Questions so people can just refer to one ongoing debate rather than rehashing everything all over again. But they said nay.
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: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Amazinz » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:16 am

Matthias wrote:I just don't get this huge aversion to these comparisons.

The base value doesn't change. You can add all the complexities you want and that does not change. There is no huge aversion to the comparison, it just does not work.
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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Matthias » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:27 am

Amazinz wrote:
Matthias wrote:I just don't get this huge aversion to these comparisons.

The base value doesn't change. You can add all the complexities you want and that does not change. There is no huge aversion to the comparison, it just does not work.

The "base value" ... not even sure what you mean by that. You mean the rent you collect? The price you pay? The value of the property viz-a-viz others? All these things vary depending upon the situation and are determined by extrinsic factors. I imagine you mean the base value rent in which case I would say the value of a hit is fixed, you just don't know how often your players are going to be getting them.

I guess at this point the horse is dead and being beaten, but at a basic level I believe if more people started thinking of FB in terms of a game and less in terms of actual baseball some of these veto discussions would make more sense since FB does share more characteristics in common with sitting down for a board game than it does managing an MLB team.
Last edited by Matthias on Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby BigMusky » Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:30 am

I remember one year I tried to make a trade right before playoffs started in Football to get a QB with better matchups in playoffs. league vetoed trade because I was already #1 team. I would have been knocked out first round had that deal gone through, but instead won championship. I thanked the league for that title :-B
Image
BigMusky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2780
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: "Milla-walk-ay"

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby noseeum » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:59 am

TheRock wrote:This has come up MANY time before, so if anyone's truly interested, do a search and you'll find this debated several times a year.

I think in a perfect world, we would all play in leagues with people we've known a long time, whose opinions we respect, and who we trust implicitly. You could rest assured that every owner will always act in the best interest of his team, and nobody would even propose a trade that might be viewed as dishonest. Unfortunately, that's a very small percentage of leagues. Therefore there's always an element of uncertainty which we must contend with.

My question to the collusion only crowd has always been how do you prove it? If it really looks like it, everyone suspects it, but you really have no proof because we've all never really met after all, do you just let it slide? And you're assuming that the dishonest people in your league are dishonest and stupid. Seriously, if you and a friend decided to pool your teams, would you really try to do it all in one trade, studs for crap? Or would you at least make some effort to make it pass? Really lopsided, but throw in some prospects or overrated big name has-been players to make it look good? If it's lopsided enough to make people ponder collusion, it needs to be discussed. Or how about vote on it?

I like the idea of having people involved in the trade explain their reasoning.


It doesn't matter how you prove collusion. My counter argument is always a more practical one. The cost of vetoing is much greater than the cost of letting a trade through.[Again, these points are in reference to private, non anonymous leagues] If you are working under the assumption that you know all of the owners, and that all of these owners want to win, you can assume that collusion is very unlikely to happen, so what are you trying to prevent? You're trying to prevent one team from getting too much better than the others, and that' results in upset owners who feel like they were robbed of a deal they worked hard on.

If you allow trades, what's the goal of a trade? The goal is to essentially get the best possible deal you can get. So when a guy does an exceptionally good job at a trade, you're going to say, "Hey, wait. That's TOO good. You can't do that." It completely goes against the concept of fantasy baseball. The whole point is "we 10 people have differing views on who's a good baseball player and who's not. Let's see who's right." If you veto trades based on "league integrity" and "league balance", you're basically saying, "This league has assigned value ranges to each baseball player. You cannot go outside the boundaries of these ranges when evaluating players." It's just ridiculous on its face. Vetoes, when they come down, just too often seem arbitrary and unfair and result in bad blood.

In anonymous leagues, vetos are a necessary evil because there is no trust. But everyone should agree it's a necessary evil that should be removed as soon as it possibly can in leagues where people know each other. The rights of the two owners are more important than "protecting the other 8 owners from a bad trade and having to try to compete against that big bad trader who just ripped off another team."

Practically speaking, every league I've been in that has removed vetoes has been much happier for it. You always leave the caveat that a trade can be reversed and owners punished even retroactively if some funny business is discovered. There's a fear that a league will just breakdown into chaos or something when you remove vetoes, but it just doesn't happen.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Russell James » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:40 pm

Great Points nosseum.

League Votes are pretty much a waste, in my opinion. I did end up playing in a league vote league this year and already trades have begun to drop like flies. There was an inactive in the league who began to shed his team. He traded two solid pitchers for guys who were on waivers 3 days before. The trade was knocked down quickly and then once the trade was knocked down one of the players that vetoed the trade lowballed the same player for the same pitchers. That trade was quickly vetoed.

I did not veto the trade and if that trade went through I was ready to fire Koboyashi at the inactive for Holliday. However, that did not happen. There have been so many trades vetoed in that particular league. Just a frustrating league to be a part of. It feels as though I need to give a deductive argument for every trade I make.

There are weak points in each veto system. Allowing all trades but collusion may allow the occasional bad trade and vetoing trades can make it very hard to get a trade through. I personally would rather deal with a bad trade. It doesn't happen as much and can be overcome.
Russell James
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Amazinz » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:52 pm

Russell James wrote:There are weak points in each veto system. Allowing all trades but collusion may allow the occasional bad trade and vetoing trades can make it very hard to get a trade through. I personally would rather deal with a bad trade. It doesn't happen as much and can be overcome.

My feelings as well. You're probably not going to come up with a perfect system.

Also, when you're in a league with some history and/or with a group of guys where you know everyone is trying to win, bad trades add a lot of flavor to the league. :-D
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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby noseeum » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:13 pm

Amazinz wrote:
Russell James wrote:There are weak points in each veto system. Allowing all trades but collusion may allow the occasional bad trade and vetoing trades can make it very hard to get a trade through. I personally would rather deal with a bad trade. It doesn't happen as much and can be overcome.

My feelings as well. You're probably not going to come up with a perfect system.

Also, when you're in a league with some history and/or with a group of guys where you know everyone is trying to win, bad trades add a lot of flavor to the league. :-D


That sums it up pretty well. There are drawbacks to letting bad trades through, and there are drawbacks to preventing them. In my experience, the drawbacks to letting trades through are inconsequential while the drawbacks to vetoes can ruin a league.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby BigMusky » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:25 pm

Practically speaking, every league I've been in that has removed vetoes has been much happier for it. You always leave the caveat that a trade can be reversed and owners punished even retroactively if some funny business is discovered. There's a fear that a league will just breakdown into chaos or something when you remove vetoes, but it just doesn't happen.


I have never publicly stated there would be no vetos, but that is what I practice as commish
Image
BigMusky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2780
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: "Milla-walk-ay"

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:44 pm

This is always a touchy subject. You have to be playing in a very mature league with knowledgeable and trustworthy managers to suppose that you can permanently put down vetoes. The problem is, sometimes you think you're playing with such people, but then you encounter a trade that suggests that that may not be the case. Like I said, I play in leagues where everyone is trying hard to win and the natural result is that you don't even end up dealing with veto discussions at all because there simply aren't any objectionable trades.

As an example: Obviously none of the Yahoo Friends and Family League trades are being vetoed. They all know and trust each other, the competition is fierce, and there's just too much honor on the line to cheat. They're just never in a position to have the veto conversation. Unfortunately, most leagues are filled with people who don't know what they're doing and don't care. You only get one chance per season to pick in the first round. You're not supposed to have two, but too often a bad fantasy trade basically gives one team an extra first round pick and that's not fair to the rest of the people in the league who are trying hard to win. Again, this isn't happening in the best of leagues (where you just don't see the bad trades in the first place), but we don't all have the luxury to play in these best of leagues every time.

In summation, eliminating the veto process altogether is a luxury only the best leagues (which already don't have to worry about them) can afford. The "only for collusion" crowd is always talking about how the consequences of vetoing trades (bad blood) is worse than the consequences of letting them go through, but in truth, the bad blood created by vetoing trades is often because the guy who just traded Chien Ming Wang and Billy Butler for Johan Santana from an owner who just doesn't care is angry that he doesn't get to improve his team (as I see it unfairly).
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Sep. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at NY Yankees
(1:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at Atlanta
(1:35 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(1:35 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Cleveland at Minnesota
(2:10 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Seattle at Houston
(2:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(3:35 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(8:05 pm)

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