Veto power debate... - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Veto power debate...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Bloody Nipples » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:11 am

Since all of you are such experts, try this on for size:

Situation #1: I was offered Tejada and Mussina for Schmidt. I live in SF, and the other guy really likes Schmidt. Of course, I accepted, but then it got vetoed, even though HE proposed it, not me.

Situation #2: I then tried to salvage the deal, offering him Schmidt, Vidro and Stewart for Mussina, Reyes, and Teixeira (I had just traded for Kaz, so I didnt need a SS anymore). Again, this got vetoed, because "I was getting screwed"

Was the league correct in either situation?

NOTE: there only need be 3 votes to veto out of 12 owners (stupid, I know)
Bloody Nipples
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 3745
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: doing my laundry...

Re: VETO

Postby wkelly91 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:29 am

vtbos wrote:WHAT IF TWO OWNERS DECIDE THEY WANT TO INTENTIONALLY MAKE STUPID TRADES TO MAKE ONE REALLY GOOD TEAM, THEN WHAT HAPPENS. THERE SHOULD BE A RULE SAYING THAT PEOPLE CAN ONLY VETO THE TRADE IF THE RATING OF THE PLAYERS BEING TRADED IS LIKE 50 DIFFERENT


This is what I consider collusion activity and it should be vetoed.

Bloddynipples: This is an example of what I've been talking about. The guy wanted Schmidt so he should have gotten him. And like my trade when we tried to even it out perceptually they still vetoed it.

Eli: You make good points about hurting a league and having someone drop out. I guess all you can hope for is that you get in leagues with knowledgible, reasonable owners.
wkelly91
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2796
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking over your shoulder as you type.

Trade made sense, should not have been vetoed

Postby The Fantasy God » Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:14 am

CBN: You need to look at the whole picture.

First of all the outfield position is the easiest to make up points in. I still have 2 other outfielder that will produce close to 600 points if they stay healthy....the same risk we all take.

Giles will produce a hundred more points than Polanco, Maddux will sure up the reliever riddled pitching staff that right now only has K. Brown and Thome will produce 50-75 more points than Giambi.

You have to give up something to get anything decent back in return. You go off calling someone an idiot without knowing the facts. What does that say about you and your knowledge?
The Fantasy God
Little League Legend
Little League Legend

User avatar

Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Atlanta

Re: Veto power debate...

Postby Zen Boy » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:32 am

wkelly91 wrote:
This addressed needs for both owners irreguardless of what you think of the individual players.


does irregardless mean something different than regardless? huh-huh

I think lopsided trades can be vetoed regardless of the owners' intentions. It might be an owners perogative to make a non-collusive bad trade, if they didn't do their homework shame on them, but I say it's the other owners' perogative to demand that fair value be exchanged for the sake of competitive credibility. It can be hard to compete with guys who basically pick up free early round draft picks by fleecing less knowledgeable managers, and the focal point of the competition shouldn't be a race to see who can screw the ignorant mangers the fastest.

A limited time frame for people to object, and a requirement that at least half the league share the objection creates a nice compromsie solution IMO.
Zen Boy
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 191
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto power debate...

Postby wkelly91 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:58 am

Zen Boy wrote:
wkelly91 wrote:

A limited time frame for people to object, and a requirement that at least half the league share the objection creates a nice compromsie solution IMO.


Good points. However in my league they are all experienced. If you have two experienced owners and you don't like the trade, would you veto it? :-?
wkelly91
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2796
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking over your shoulder as you type.

Postby Zen Boy » Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:05 am

I would probably lean towards giving them the benefit of the doubt if they were experienced and I knew that they were trying their hardest to compete.

By the way, I think that trade was lopsided under the standard CBS points system, but not grossly lopsided. I probably wouldn't have objected. In 5x5 I agree that trade would be off the charts ridiculous and I would push for a veto no matter how well I knew the managers, but that's not really saying much since it wasn't a 5x5 league.
Zen Boy
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 191
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wkelly91 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:18 am

I agree with your 5 x 5 assessment and if it were in a pay league I would understand owners being upset, but it wasn't. The group I play with are for the most part experienced. :-)
wkelly91
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2796
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking over your shoulder as you type.

Re: Veto power debate...

Postby KULCAT » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:45 pm

Zen Boy wrote:
wkelly91 wrote:
This addressed needs for both owners irreguardless of what you think of the individual players.


does irregardless mean something different than regardless? huh-huh

I think lopsided trades can be vetoed regardless of the owners' intentions. It might be an owners perogative to make a non-collusive bad trade, if they didn't do their homework shame on them, but I say it's the other owners' perogative to demand that fair value be exchanged for the sake of competitive credibility. It can be hard to compete with guys who basically pick up free early round draft picks by fleecing less knowledgeable managers, and the focal point of the competition shouldn't be a race to see who can screw the ignorant mangers the fastest.

A limited time frame for people to object, and a requirement that at least half the league share the objection creates a nice compromsie solution IMO.


if there´s no collusion there should never be any veto powers cause if the issue is experienced owners taking advantage of rookies then why did you let the rookies in the first place? And its not that one owner has the chance of making those trades and the others dont.
"Nothing is this world worth remembering was ever accomplished without Pasion"-Hegel
KULCAT
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 1814
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Panama mi bella Panama

Postby CBMGreatOne » Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

To ressurect a page three thread left for dead or not?

OK, I'll do it, mainly to apologize to Fantasy God, who I did not know was an actual Cafe Member. When I initiated my response to this discussion, I tried to make it clear that I was approaching it from a 5x5 roto standpoint, so it might not necessarily have been 100% applicable, but I was pretty sure it was going to be close.

I will say however, that it continues to be a pet peeve of mine when people trade early picks for late ones, and short of reading my novella of a response to this issue, I'd say you can look to Zen Boy's response as it says what I said, only in a much more concise manner.

I'll also throw in a hypothetical situation for you to chew on. In my fantasy football league this year one of my league's commissioner's totally fleeced a kid with two terrible trades immediately after the draft. First he gave him Kordell Stewart for Ricky Williams (#2 overall pick). Then he gave him Tim Couch for Torry Holt a 2nd round pick for undrafted player (no waivers in this league). Yeah, this is an extreme circumstance, but where do you draw the line?

The kid didn't know what he was doing and let the guy make asinine trades with him.

The commissioner mocked my complaints of the trade, refused to veto (it was commish controlled vetoing) and soon everybody in the league had dropped their teams and changed their names to profane remarks about the commish in all caps, before the season even started.

I don't know where the imaginary line is drawm, but it HAS to be drawn somewhere. That's why the democratic veto system exists, to protect the league from being RUINED. I agree that some managers veto trades for immature and selfish reasons, but not me. I veto them for exactly the reasons that are mocked by the ignorant people who claim that collusion is the ONLY reason for a veto.

Honestly, when you read about stuff like this, how often do the players in favor of occasional vetos post unintelligible remarks? It doesn't happen too frequently, most times they are well thought out opinions brought forth by managers who deserve to have a voice in what goes on in our leagues.

and Bloody Nipples, Tejada for Muss is PROBABLY a veto, but I'm not sure I would, the second trade definitely shouldn't have been vetoed.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

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

Postby wkelly91 » Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:46 pm

Well I thought this was dead !+)

Sounds like an extreme situation in the league you were in and I'd say that does suck. I guess that what all owners want is an atmosphere where they can play without great disruption to the league. I must say your scenario was much more extreme than anything that was posted in this thread. I guess I would concede that a veto in this case would be warrented. I would say that this could be corrected by having a vote that would include 3/4 of owners. In my leagues case 4 of 10 could shut down a trade which is too easily acheived. ;-D
wkelly91
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2796
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking over your shoulder as you type.

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Oct. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Kansas City
(8:07 pm)

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