Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **soccerballer002** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Well I had a trade vetoed that I was pretty angry about and I thought instead of channeling that anger at my league-mates I would do something constructive and post here. I gave up Zimmerman and got Pence, the guy was trying to clear a roster spot for a returning Pena and is weak at 3b anyway. But my marvelous league-mates thought this was obviously unfair and vetoed twice. Now, I suppose there is not much I can do other than maybe post my position and reasons for the trade, but I think it would be to no avail. Just was interested to hear what the cafe has done or would do in a similar situation.

by **MaudDib** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:41 pm

Thats frustrating. I can't see that trade even close to being vetoeable. I probably would make a post asking reasons for why it was vetoed. Depending on how long you have been with that group of guys should tell you how blunt you can be. I have been in one league for around 8 years and I would probably be more blunt than in with owners I have never played with before. But finding out what the problem is could help you get around it. I am betting there are some who think Zimmerman is way better than Pence and others who think Pence is way better than Zimmerman which could lead to the deal being oked.

by **WyldStallyn** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:49 pm

i hate the veto. really hate it. i would ask your leaguemates why they felt the need to veto and tell them the veto is only meant to stop collusion.

by **bigh0rt** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:56 pm

WyldStallyn wrote:i hate the veto. really hate it. i would ask your leaguemates why they felt the need to veto and tell them the veto is only meant to stop collusion.

that's your (and my) opinion, but you can't exactly tell somebody something that is nothing more than an opinion as fact.

JasonSeahorn · by **JasonSeahorn** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:19 am

bigh0rt wrote:that's your (and my) opinion, but you can't exactly tell somebody something that is nothing more than an opinion as fact.

Matthias and noseeum would disagree :-D

by **AllDay** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:16 pm

soccerballer002 wrote:Well I had a trade vetoed that I was pretty angry about and I thought instead of channeling that anger at my league-mates I would do something constructive and post here. I gave up Zimmerman and got Pence, the guy was trying to clear a roster spot for a returning Pena and is weak at 3b anyway. But my marvelous league-mates thought this was obviously unfair and vetoed twice. Now, I suppose there is not much I can do other than maybe post my position and reasons for the trade, but I think it would be to no avail. Just was interested to hear what the cafe has done or would do in a similar situation.

You have answered your own question. I find owners are much more willing to allow a trade if both parties can explain their reasons for completing the trade.

I haven't heard anything on Zim in a while but the last I read was if he didn't see improvement in the shoulder by the ASB then he would need season ending surgery. That isn't going to help anybody. I can see the argument that you are getting a serviceable player for possibly nothing - and that would be enoughto justify a veto IMO.

I'll go off topic here abit - last year I voted to veto a Brady for Bulger/Vinitieri trade (before the season started). That trade is pretty fair IMO - but the guy who drafted Bulger took him with like the 7th pick (when Brady was still on the board). Then he drafted Vinitieri early as well. All I wanted to hear was his justification for picking Bulger over Brady in the first place - and what had changed so dramatically in a week that he was now willing to throw in the K that he reached for about 5 rounds too early.

Of course, he never replied.

Sometimes all people want is an explanation and they will change their vote.

by **Polar Bear** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:30 pm

Dude isn't Zim hurt right now? He was batting a mean .250 the last time I checked.

If you don't like league vote leagues then don't play in them. That's what I do.

I believe that all trades should be allowed except those that are collusive. Now I say that, but I play in a league full of vets and guys who know what to do. If I was in a league with many beginners I may take a different approach.

by **ROC AllStars** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:38 pm

bigh0rt wrote:
WyldStallyn wrote:i hate the veto. really hate it. i would ask your leaguemates why they felt the need to veto and tell them the veto is only meant to stop collusion.

that's your (and my) opinion, but you can't exactly tell somebody something that is nothing more than an opinion as fact.

I agree, and I'm a big proponent of the "veto only in clear cases of collusion" camp. But I've been wondering about something lately: how can we ever prove collusion? Its very frustrating when trades that didn't result from collusion get vetoed, but if there is no way to detect collusion decisively then the veto becomes meaningless. Short of doing some sort of investigation (like the players union is doing for Bonds right now...), I'm not sure we can really prove it, even in a league of friends. Just a thought.