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 daniel80111 » Sat May 31, 2008 3:22 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. ;-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. :-?


I don't understand your use of ARod to Boston...that was under completely different circumstances and you obviously didnt know why that trade didn't go through.
daniel80111
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 210
Joined: 7 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby CBMGreatOne » Sat May 31, 2008 3:27 am

daniel80111 wrote:
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. ;-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. :-?


I don't understand your use of ARod to Boston...that was under completely different circumstances and you obviously didnt know why that trade didn't go through.


It was a deal that was not approved by the league at large. My use of that situation shows that trades can be voided for certain circumstances. I obviously didn't know that you were going to post something so inane. :-t

At any rate, I don't think there's any point in continuing this without the drops, so I'll wait for that info before responding again.
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 3:41 am

CBMGreatOne wrote:
daniel80111 wrote:
I don't understand your use of ARod to Boston...that was under completely different circumstances and you obviously didnt know why that trade didn't go through.


It was a deal that was not approved by the league at large. My use of that situation shows that trades can be voided for certain circumstances. I obviously didn't know that you were going to post something so inane. :-t

At any rate, I don't think there's any point in continuing this without the drops, so I'll wait for that info before responding again.


I think the comparison was a stretch, CMB, but civility is always best regardless. That's why I pointed out that Arod agreed in advance to defer to the union's choice. I guess you can argue that this owner agreed in advance to defer to a veto vote. So if it's vetoed, c'est la vie. I'd actually agree with that too. Hence, I don't play in leagues that allow vetoes. I don't play in anonymous leagues either, as you can't have an anonymous league without vetoes.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


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

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby fierro33 » Sat May 31, 2008 5:33 am

Ursa wrote:In defense of the OP who is receiving the assorted riches from Coach Idiot, it was open to the other 10 managers to float outrageous deals to Coach Idiot at any time. The fact that they didn't is their problem, not his.



this is my favorite quote from this thread
fierro33
General Manager
General Manager

Response Team
Posts: 3843
(Past Year: 210)
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: to veto, or not to veto

Postby AllDay » Sat May 31, 2008 12:25 pm

dweenmachine wrote:yeah, i agree with the other posts... you shouldn't veto stupidity (but wouldn't life be better if you could?)


uh...you can.

I'd be making life a whole lot better in this case. That's a BS trade.
30
AllDay
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 287
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Sep. 23
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
NY Mets at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
Philadelphia at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Milwaukee at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Tampa Bay at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
St. Louis at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Houston at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Arizona at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
LA Angels at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
San Francisco at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Colorado at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

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