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.