Unfairly vetoed trade?

[Ender]

But doing it like that then does leave some huge grey area.

Is a guy hurt?
How bad is he hurt?
What injury timetable means we then cancel it? Etc....
Not to mention once people make trades, they then usually make other moves (adds/drops) accordingly. You'd have to change all those back as well.

It's a slippery slope going with anything other than once a trade is accepted, that's that.

This stuff doesn't matter either way you do it. If a trade is accepted by an owner you shouldn't be making moves until the trade passes through the review process for your league. You cannot just assume the trade is going to happen because it isn't official yet.

In the league I was commish in the previous 5 years I would get a trade and there would be a mandatory 2 day review period. I would take any feedback from the other owners on the trade and after that 2 days I would sit down and decide if it was a fair deal or not. If nobody gave any feedback I'd just pass it through, if multiple people complained it would be more complicated. If one of those players got hurt during the 2 days I'd just veto it and move on, that 2 day period is part of the trade review and the players still belong to their current teams during it.

That is just how we always did it in that league.

[walkoffblast]

What is important is that you follow the rules of your league consistently. Some seem to be assuming all leagues put all non-collusive trades through which is hardly the case. Also, it is entirely a necessary slippery slope to get involved with in situations where a trade is accepted after someone is injured. Blanket statements are rarely going to be the best solution. Write out a clear procedure and stick to it.

[Maris09]

Also, it is entirely a necessary slippery slope to get involved with in situations where a trade is accepted after someone is injured. Blanket statements are rarely going to be the best solution. Write out a clear procedure and stick to it.

If you read it more clearly, that's not the situation here.
The situation is a trade was accepted, then a guy was hurt after.

As to what Ender said, I agree a 2 day waiting period is neccessary to see if there is an uprising regarding the fairness of a trade. But injuries are just part of the game. If a trade is considered "fair" at the time it is accepted, why should changes occurring the next couple of days effect it?
The point of the waiting period is to allow everyone to sound off on the fairness of the trade, (ie) collusion, or one person just being stupid. It is not there to have the trade "hang out for 2 days" to see if a guy gets hurt or not. Again, you also may run into the situation where a guy leaves a game with a tight hamstring or something, and then what? ...Who gets to decide if a tight hamstring is now enough to cancel the trade?

It's just too subjective. If the trade is fair at the moment it is accepted, and both parties want to make the trade, whatever happens over the next day or two should have no bearing on it. Again, that time period is to allow everyone to be heard. It is not meant to allow some day to day baseball activities to occur, and then change stuff based on that. No way. I've been on the bad side of that situation and I still say no way.

[ssf1234]

Wow lots of arguments here lol. We decided to fall back on democracy and decide if the trade should stand or not.

Thanks all!

[eneric]

$20 a team $280 at stake depending on how it's divied up that's still $$$ in your pocket. Even if this league was a free league I'd be pissed. When a trade is accepted, unless their is collusion it should go through no ifs ands or buts. If I were you I'd simply ask for my money back and leave the league.

[walkoffblast]

Also, it is entirely a necessary slippery slope to get involved with in situations where a trade is accepted after someone is injured. Blanket statements are rarely going to be the best solution. Write out a clear procedure and stick to it.

If you read it more clearly, that's not the situation here.
The situation is a trade was accepted, then a guy was hurt after.

I can read. I was responding to a couple of points I disagreed with throughout the thread like this

It's a slippery slope going with anything other than once a trade is accepted, that's that.

Considering you said it, and the wording I chose, I find it pretty funny you misinterpreted what I was responding to.

[lilfrier]

The only way this could have been called vetoable would have been if you weren't going to accept it until you were saw A-Ram get hurt during the game and then took the deal to intentionally stick him with a hurt player before the league could report the injury. Other than if you intentionally made it so he was given the trade before he could have known there was an injury or the extent of it, there is no case for veto.

[angels7777]

if this trade was accepted before the injury, you have to let it go trhough - I am sick of people on this board saying this "until the commish pushes it through, it is not official" BS - like one guy said, if the commish does not check for 3 days and someone gets hurt on the 3rd day, is it now vetoable? makes no sense.... if it was accepted before the injury, let it go - if it was accepted after the injury and the owner had knowledge, then I could see someone arguing that it is unethical and there could be more of an argument....

[walkoffblast]

if this trade was accepted before the injury, you have to let it go trhough - I am sick of people on this board saying this "until the commish pushes it through, it is not official" BS - like one guy said, if the commish does not check for 3 days and someone gets hurt on the 3rd day, is it now vetoable? makes no sense.... if it was accepted before the injury, let it go - if it was accepted after the injury and the owner had knowledge, then I could see someone arguing that it is unethical and there could be more of an argument....

If your commish checks every three days or longer you need a new commish. Some leagues have this thing called actual rules. I am sure it is crazy to follow them.

[angels7777]

if this trade was accepted before the injury, you have to let it go trhough - I am sick of people on this board saying this "until the commish pushes it through, it is not official" BS - like one guy said, if the commish does not check for 3 days and someone gets hurt on the 3rd day, is it now vetoable? makes no sense.... if it was accepted before the injury, let it go - if it was accepted after the injury and the owner had knowledge, then I could see someone arguing that it is unethical and there could be more of an argument....

If your commish checks every three days or longer you need a new commish. Some leagues have this thing called actual rules. I am sure it is crazy to follow them.

hey genious, there is no rule for this type of situation in his league - that is why there is a problem!!!

if the trade was made before the injury, that is called bad luck for the guy getting A-Ram!!!!

point of the matter is that a trade should not revolve around whether or not your league's commish gets stuck in traffic and does not make it home before the Cub's game!!!