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 Russell James » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:36 pm

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).


Exactly the reason I hate league votes. If you honestly believe that Wang and Butler for Santana is worth a veto, then I would say you are crazy. How is that even in the discussion of bad trades? When I say bad trades I am talking Guzman for Holliday or something similar. Wang is an absolute stud outside of Ks, which he has been getting more of this season, and Butler is a serviceable player. Just a classic sign of one player assigning a value to a player and vetoing because my trade doesn't reflect his value.
Russell James
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Yoda » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:59 pm

Unless it is blatant like the last place team trading Santana/Pujols to the 1st place team Cliff Lee/Quentin or something, I don't see how you can justify vetoing trades.

Everyone has different opinions about players and this also varies greatly based on experience/skill level of the league. Also everyone has different management styles. Some people like to go more with the hot hand, making lots of adds/trades to fill in their gaps while other people are more patient with their players and don't make a ton of moves.

I would not play in a league that forbids me from getting the best possible deal for my players. Trading is also a skill, knowing when and who to sell high while at the same time identifying your needs and others to find a good match. It's a huge part of the game. To have some idiots block my trades because they don't want me to form a better team is complete BS and totally unacceptable.
"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 Yoda » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm

Also wanted to add that people almost always think that I get the upper hand in a trade. I see it on the message board or email sent to me about it. The best part is that those trades that people claim are lopsided are usually offered to me. Not the other way around.
"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 Matthias » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:14 pm

Russell James wrote: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's your problem right there.

Of all the veto/no veto discussion I've ever seen (and over 3-4 years here and on the FFC I've seen a lot), this thread and one that preceded it got the closest, I think, to arriving at a real agreement on the appropriateness of vetoes instead of just degrading into internet masculinity contests. Nobody really wants to veto a trade that looks imbalanced value-wise, but has actual rationale backing it up. E.g., if someone really liked Hamilton's production in ST and did Rios for Hamilton in March it would've looked like a pretty lopsided trade but it's clear by now that Hamilton may well have the better year, and everyone has their own examples of that. And nobody supports the idea of two people scheming together to win. And then there's a middle ground where you're not sure what's going on.

Basically, I would put out again (maybe refine a little) an idea that noseeum and I agreed upon last week. And that's that one of the last places to look for the appropriateness of a veto is the players traded. The factors to consider, in order of importance, are...
1) Do you know everyone? If it's an anonymous public league, skip to the end.
2) Are these all guys who are trying? Even between friends/relatives, you can get the guy who does the league because he's asked but will give up halfway through and decide that he's going to trade away all his roster to get all players whose last name start with C or some nonsense because it amuses him.
3) Are all these guys you trust, particularly the two involved in the trade? I've seen threads of people talking about how trades were done between father/teenage son or between roommates/best friends and after the tempest in the teapot it came out that actually, yah, one of them was trying to help the other out.

If the answers to all those 3 questions are yes, then stop. The trade is fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at Longoria for Pujols in my league because all the guys are grown men and we don't have any shenanigans. It would be more embarrassing to them to be thought of as a dirty dealer than it would be to finish in the cellar. The only real close case I could think of if all 3 of those answers are yes is if you have a true newbie who really doesn't know anything and is getting ridiculously fleeced, but even then I don't think a veto is as appropriate as busting the balls of the fleecer and trying to shame him into giving the newbie a decent deal. If not, then lesson learned.

If the answer to those questions are no, then you start probing if there's something else going on. The problem with stating by fiat, "No veto except for collusion" is that you set up this essentially unprovable standard. Fantasy sports are a game that some people take seriously and some don't. There aren't millions of dollars riding on it and in many cases there isn't a single dime. So it's very possible for people (who don't fit the 3 criteria above) to be influenced by something outside of pure player values to make it worthwhile to them. And without any real power of investigation, all you have is the word of the people who you think could be cheating. All you have are the value of the players traded, placed into the context of the league scoring, setup, rosters, etc. And so then you're forced to rely upon the value of the players traded to decide if this is something legitimate or something else.

If it's something else that's going on, either collusion, bribe, helping out a relative, or someone just being cute, I'd rather protect the guys who actually are trying and care about the league than the one idiot who doesn't. It's like saying no crapping in a pool. Hey, it restricts your freedom to do your business where you want, but it means that everyone else can enjoy a swim. And that's the cost of doing anything collectively.

Of course, there's always the close calls. Yes, there's a risk that best friends might be helping each other out. But there's also the case that guys who hang out together have more time to work out deals, figure out what each other need, develop their own ideas of value that other people don't agree with, etc. Some knives cut both ways. And in those cases, err on the side of trusting people. The non-close calls where you do have some reason to think that something is going on... well, that's when you talk about it.

So I would say ask those three questions. And if you come up with a no, then start thinking about player values and I would say the less trust you have in the situation (i.e. the further up the chain you answered yes) the less benefit of the doubt you give and the more appropriate it is to put down the kobosh.

There. I think that sums up all I have to say on the subject.
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 Matthias » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:30 pm

Sorry: there is one last thing.

When random internet guy asks about a trade in his random fantasy league, I give advice based upon player values because I don't know the answer to any of those questions for his league. I give latitude for being a reasonable deal that you can see value in, but if I say veto, it's not because I play in a crappy league that has Veto Night every Sunday and every other Wednesday... it's because unless he says something about it, I know nothing about his league.
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 Russell James » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:09 pm

So I would say ask those three questions. And if you come up with a no, then start thinking about player values and I would say the less trust you have in the situation (i.e. the further up the chain you answered yes) the less benefit of the doubt you give and the more appropriate it is to put down the kobosh.


That is way too much work.

I'll just stick with the whole no trade gets vetoed unless it is collusion.
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 8:35 pm

Definitely and I think that Matthias' strategy basically boils down to: don't veto unless there's collusion. And yes I realize that the fantasy baseball community expands the definition of collusion. It's like the old cliche about pornography, when it comes to collusion I will know it when I see it. In this case, the veto acts as a band-aid and then you need to fix your league, possibly by removing the bad element.
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 CBMGreatOne » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:48 pm

Russell James wrote:
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).


Exactly the reason I hate league votes. If you honestly believe that Wang and Butler for Santana is worth a veto, then I would say you are crazy. How is that even in the discussion of bad trades? When I say bad trades I am talking Guzman for Holliday or something similar. Wang is an absolute stud outside of Ks, which he has been getting more of this season, and Butler is a serviceable player. Just a classic sign of one player assigning a value to a player and vetoing because my trade doesn't reflect his value.


Lol, that trade would absolutely not fly in ANY of my leagues. No expert would make such a trade unless there were injury concerns. I honestly believe you lack knowledge of player values.

In my league, Santana went 8th overall. Wang went 151st and Butler 212th.

I'm not saying that Wang and Butler aren't quality players, but you can't allow a trade like this to happen. I practically can't imagine a "clean" deal with this kind of player movement.

Maybe you like playing in leagues with your 11 year old cousin who will give you a trade like this, but I'd rather play with adults/people who are trying.
Last edited by CBMGreatOne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:52 pm

2) Are these all guys who are trying? Even between friends/relatives, you can get the guy who does the league because he's asked but will give up halfway through and decide that he's going to trade away all his roster to get all players whose last name start with C or some nonsense because it amuses him.


This is hitting the nail on the head. I'd say somewhere between 80% and 90% of vetoes are applied because of this caveat. Can we all agree that such a veto is appropriate?

In this example, everybody with last name beginning with C is just an example of the fleeting and whimsical decisions people will make when they don't care. Or maybe it's just a friend that really needs a helpful trade and talks his apathetic buddy into trading him something that he probably wouldn't if he was thinking about his own team and not his friend's. This kind of stuff happens ALL the time, and MOST OF THE TIME that a veto is necessary. It's not usually a cash agreement in a back alley somewhere. Most times, the manager giving away the good piece just isn't fully grasping the ethics of the situation.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: Grounds for Vetoing a Trade?

Postby Amazinz » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:04 pm

What kind of leagues do you play in that this stuff happens all the time? :-S
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

PreviousNext

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
Thursday, Sep. 18
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Texas at Oakland
(3:35 pm)
Toronto at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Cleveland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Philadelphia at San Diego
(9:10 pm)
Seattle at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)

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