So here is an interesting debate I recently stumbled upon.
Should very unbalanced trades always be vetoed? Or should vetoes only apply when there is proof of collusion.
Here are two sides of the argument:
First veto very unbalanced trades:
thejusman1 wrote: [Veto only collusion is] one mentality, not a universal truth. I can see it being applicable a lot more in just-for-fun or redraft leagues. In money, keeper, or dynasty leagues, I find it holds a lot less validity, especially if the owner getting shafted is relatively new to fantasy. A trade like that could change someone's team for years to come and destroy the competitive balance of the league. I wouldn't want to be in a league where someone did a bevvy of unfair trades and managed to collect an unbeatable dynasty team for years to come. Where is the fun in that!?!? If I have to compete with someone else's stacked keeper set because he fleeced new owners out of their 1st rounders, why would I continue to pay an entrance fee to join the following season? Answer: I wouldn't, and it would destroy that league, so yeah, vetoes do serve a purpose in upholding the integrity of keeper/dynasty/money leagues.
Second, veto only when there is collusion:
HldOnMgnolia wrote:So stay in your league. Keep socialism out of fantasy baseball.
Assume a private league.
What is the Cafe's thoughts?
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thats fantasy baseball, who is to say how a trade might turn out.
last year I traded my Ryan Howard for his Pablo Sandoval, Chris Carpenter, and Jason Bartlett after the draft and before the season started.
I won the league while he finished 12th
its not for the rest of the owners to babysit new teams, they learn from making bad trades, and it helps them get better, if you hold their hands forever they will never be competetive, which in the long run you are after
I veto extremely unbalanced trades because I don't like to see managers who don't care or know better taken advantage of. Last season the manager in last place said "F this" and basically auctioned off his best players which led to extremely unbalanced trades; I was having none of it.
Mar 30 12:10am Albert Pujols (StL - 1B) Álex Ríos (CWS - OF) Chris TillmanNA (Bal - SP) LaTroy Hawkins (Mil - RP) Trade (vetoed) Carlos BeltránDL (NYM - OF) Heath Bell (SD - RP) Rafael Soriano (TB - RP)
I was having this debate a few days ago in one of my private leagues that I don't really care much about (in fact, I probably shouldn't have joined, it was a Jays forum league and they needed another member). This trade was vetoed (I wasn't involved), and my argument was that vetoing should only be an option if collusion is suspected. Why is it anybody's responsibility to judge "fairness" and then tell others they can't make a trade if they want to do it? People should have the right to make their own decisions, even bad ones.
But, of course, majority rules, and the trade didn't pass. I definitely won't be in the league next year.
Or should vetoes only apply when there is proof of collusion.
It's exceedingly rare that collusion can be proved. Give me two teams within the same league and I'll be able to make somewhat justifiable trades that are imbalanced. Do this four times, I win the league.
If you're in the "only veto if collusion" category, you are essentially in the "never veto" category.
Last edited by bleach168 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere. But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear." - The Rains of Castamere
MasterX1918 wrote:I veto extremely unbalanced trades because I don't like to see managers who don't care or know better taken advantage of. Last season the manager in last place said "F this" and basically auctioned off his best players which led to extremely unbalanced trades; I was having none of it.
That's quite a bit different, and I think the commissioner in that scenario would have to consider locking the guy's team.
In my main league (with TLL, Fattykid and Art Vandelay among others), our newest member stupidly traded Jason Heyward away last week for Mat Gamel and a slight draft upgrade. As expected, the member was a Brewers fan. But it, as it should have, passed with only one veto.
if you HAVE to veto a trade due to unbalance or collusion get in a different league.
we have never had a trade overturned in 14 yrs in my main league. There have been pissing matches but each guy always was able to argue their side. Last year I traded Jimmy Rollins for Andrew Bailey and Ben Zobrist before either of them even claimed their roles, people were bitching like crazy, but it was cause of this site, that I knew Zobrist was gonna have an everyday role, and because of the closer thread that I got Bailey long before he took over.