to veto, or not to veto - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

to veto, or not to veto

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby Yoda » Fri May 30, 2008 8:21 pm

fbc_fan wrote:i am in no way disputing that as an owner you should be buying low and selling high. i am also not disputing that in a league with smarter owners you will not see lopsided trades. what i am questioning is how you are making the connection that because the owners in my league don't feel like selling their own players low, buying other managers players high or extremely overpaying for a player to fill their positional needs that i need to find smarter managers. that is why you are confusing me.


If you don't want stupid trades then don't play with dumb owners. Don't blame smart owners trying to buy low and sell high. This is not complicated. :-°
"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: to veto, or not to veto

Postby fbc_fan » Fri May 30, 2008 8:35 pm

Yoda wrote:
fbc_fan wrote:i am in no way disputing that as an owner you should be buying low and selling high. i am also not disputing that in a league with smarter owners you will not see lopsided trades. what i am questioning is how you are making the connection that because the owners in my league don't feel like selling their own players low, buying other managers players high or extremely overpaying for a player to fill their positional needs that i need to find smarter managers. that is why you are confusing me.


If you don't want stupid trades then don't play with dumb owners. Don't blame smart owners trying to buy low and sell high. This is not complicated. :-°


i'm not blaming a smart manager for anything. i enjoy playing in all my leagues because people don't things as blatantly stupid as the trade being discussed in this thread. this is because i am playing with people who understand the things that you and i have both attributed to smart managing. i just don't understand why i need to go find a league with smarter managers when, through your own arguments, the managers in my league are obviously exhibiting intelligent managing principles. you completely ignored this last point in your previous responses.
Image
thanks to madison/go_jays_go for the slick sig!
fbc_fan
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1412
Joined: 17 May 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby Yoda » Fri May 30, 2008 10:33 pm

Not even sure what you are arguing but this was your original post
fbc_fan wrote:i guess i need to player with dumber owners. :,-(


To which I responded
Yoda wrote:No you need to play with smarter owners so that you don't end up in this situation.


Anyway, you can interpret it however you want but my point is that you should not get angry when a smart owner sells high and buys low. If you want to avoid completely lopsided trades then play with smarter owners who don't make stupid trades. "You" as in general not you fbc_fan.
"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: to veto, or not to veto

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri May 30, 2008 11:35 pm

This one is pretty bad. A pretty convincing case could be made that it would harm the league integrity. In situations like these I like to give everybody in the league an opportunity to speak out in favor or against. If the league hates the deal, then it gets shot down. If the league doesn't mind the deal, it isn't on the commissioner to make an executive decision, unless collusion is involved (There isn't enough information available in this thread for me to determine conclusively that some sort of collusion ISN'T involved, but I digress).

In summation, if I were you I would not be extremely upset if this trade was vetoed. It is clearly heavily lopsided in your favor and the other owners have legitimate reason to suspect that the other owner is not making an honest and concerted effort to be competitive in his execution of this particular transaction, whether they are correct in this suspicion or not.

As a side note, I actually have rejected offers that were lopsided heavily in my favor in the past. I was the commissioner and it was a trade for which I would have motioned for a veto if it was pending between two other owners. I couldn't look myself in the mirror and say I did the right thing if I would have accepted it. At the end of the year I don't want anyone to put an asterisk by my fantasy trophy.

Like others have said, this guy probably isn't money league material. I don't like situations like these, so I would be against inviting him back next year.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby MasterX1918 » Sat May 31, 2008 2:01 am

you should go to jail for theft after accepting that deal.
Image
MasterX1918
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 2150
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby JasonSeahorn » Sat May 31, 2008 2:05 am

If that guy is not your friend I wouldn't invite him back to your league next year if you want it to be more competitive. There is also nothing wrong with taking people's money in fantasy sports either, so if you are happy with taking his money then go for it, free money is free money!!!

If he is your friend, and you know he isn't a smart owner, just straight up tell him it was a dumb trade and that he should try to learn more about baseball so that he doesn't make bad moves, and that by him becoming better, the league will be more fun overall.
JasonSeahorn Beginner
College Coach
College Coach


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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby noseeum » Sat May 31, 2008 2:43 am

Let the deal go through and then someone take responsibility for teaching this guy the error of his ways. He'll be a much better player for having suffered through this. someone should tell him to find a place where he can ask others for advice before he goes and does something stupid like this.

Congrats to you for the fleece job. You may feel a little dirty, but take some of your winnings and go to the spa. :-D

I think it took four pages for the phrase "league integrity" to show up. Congrats, cafe. I think that's a record.

This just in, the Giants are now the favorites in the NL West. Bud Selig has ordered the Twins to send back Liriano, Nathan, and Bonser in order to protect the integrity of MLB.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat May 31, 2008 2:56 am

noseeum wrote:This just in, the Giants are now the favorites in the NL West. Bud Selig has ordered the Twins to send back Liriano, Nathan, and Bonser in order to protect the integrity of MLB.


Right, and the league didn't approve ARod to Boston in 2004.

League integrity is obviously unimportant. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and I guess a pending trade constitutes possession. ;-7

Besides, "league integrity" appeared as early as page 1 in this thread. Actually, it was part of what was practically the thesis statement (though a question) of the original post.

I don't think trades like this necessarily deserve to be "laughed off" the way some here do. I don't like to veto, but in extraordinary circumstances I might cast a veto vote.

:ARod did not go to Boston in 2004. :-°

Some of you guys would defend Scott Shields for Johan Santana with logic like:
The guy really needed holds, what can I say? You're not supposed to veto except for collusion. It's a perfectly fair trade. :-B

The problem is, with big multiplayer deals, it's easy to disguise a trade that is even worse than the above as something that only appears moderately objectionable.

What this guy is doing is arguably a bigger blow to his team than a straight up trade
of Scott S for Santana, and a bigger heist by the beneficiary.

When people are trying hard to win, you don't usually see trades like this one. That's why I automatically suspect collusion when I see a trade this lopsided. That's reason enough for me to use words like "league integrity," even if I have to endure surreptitious pot shots while doing so. !+)


Edit: On another note, how does the team receiving the 5 player end of this trade actually have 2 players on his roster worse than Mike Jacobs? The answer to this question could go a long way to determining whether this is collusion, player dumping, or just irresponsibly awful fantasy decision making.

If he's dropping quality players to do the deal(or players who very obviously aren't his worst players), that's definitely a red flag. :-?
Last edited by CBMGreatOne on Sat May 31, 2008 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby noseeum » Sat May 31, 2008 3:14 am

CBMGreatOne wrote:
noseeum wrote:This just in, the Giants are now the favorites in the NL West. Bud Selig has ordered the Twins to send back Liriano, Nathan, and Bonser in order to protect the integrity of MLB.


Right, and the league didn't approve ARod to Boston in 2004.

League integrity is obviously unimportant. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and I guess a pending trade constitutes possession.

Besides, "league integrity" appeared as early as page 2 in this thread.

I don't think trades like this necessarily deserve to be "laughed off" the way some here do. I don't like to veto, but in extraordinary circumstances I might cast a veto vote.

:ARod did not go to Boston in 2004.

Some of you guys would defend Scott Shields for Johan Santana with logic like:
The guy really needed holds, what can I say? You're not supposed to veto except for collusion. It's a perfectly fair trade.

The problem is, with big multiplayer deals, it's easy to disguise a trade that is even worse than the above as something that only appears moderately objectionable.

What this guy is doing is arguably a bigger blow to his team than a straight up trade
of Scott S for Santana, and a bigger heist by the beneficiary.

When people are trying hard to win, you don't usually see trades like this one. That's why I automatically suspect collusion when I see a trade this lopsided. That's reason enough for me to use words like "league integrity," even if I have to endure surreptitious pot shots while doing so.


Not me. I would defend it with "The guy's an idiot. Congrats to the first guy to recognize a desperate idiot and take advantage of it."

BTW, Arod's deal with the Sox went down in flames for two reasons:
1. the union quashed it because they viewed it as decreasing the value of the contract
2. Arod agreed to abide by the union's decision
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat May 31, 2008 3:16 am

I just want to know the "idiot owner"'s roster and who he dropped to make room for the trade.

That would be pertinent information.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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