Would You Veto This? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Would You Veto This?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby MaudDib » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:28 pm

WaCougMBS wrote:
Element wrote:It's pretty bad, but I've seen a lot worse. This is not vetoable unless collusion is suspected.


x2

;-D Not even close to vetoable.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."- Douglas Adams

Image
MaudDib
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 8016
(Past Year: 369)
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby RocketsDWM » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:20 pm

It would depend on roster makeup too. Perhaps the owner trading Reyes has a steady SS in the wings ready to take over.

It is a tough sell for the owner trading Reyes as Reddick probably hit his ceiling last year and Sale has some injury concern. But Taveras and Miller are unknown commodities while Reddick and Sale have at least produced at the major league level. Also hard to equate the value of the 2nd rounder.

In sum, I don't see a veto as necessary. Unless you suspect collusion.
Image
RocketsDWM
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 5243
(Past Year: 55)
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby ensanimal » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:46 pm

No veto for me based on the trade alone.

The whole question about a mulligan for the new guy/drunk guy is something your league needs to really discuss. It could set a dangerous precedent though for the future. There was an old cafe league that had something like this happen and I was on the receiving side of the steal. When I opened it up for discussion the resounding result was that it should stand. No excuses for bad trades.
ensanimal
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10622
(Past Year: 108)
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Tim Horton's

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby thedude » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:57 pm

The issue of whether the proposing owner should get a mulligan is a question for the league as a whole, and should have little to do with the relative values of the players.
"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.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby thedude » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:57 pm

The issue of whether the proposing owner should get a mulligan is a question for the league as a whole, and should have little to do with the relative values of the players.
"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.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby RedHopeful » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:09 pm

ensanimal wrote:No veto for me based on the trade alone.

The whole question about a mulligan for the new guy/drunk guy is something your league needs to really discuss. It could set a dangerous precedent though for the future. There was an old cafe league that had something like this happen and I was on the receiving side of the steal. When I opened it up for discussion the resounding result was that it should stand. No excuses for bad trades.

Yep, this has been brought up and I agree. It's a very competitive league (it used to have a draft page here where guys like powerM and Aussiedodger were participants) where most of the managers are on the ball. Problem with this deal is that the guy who proposed the deal is a new guy and he's trying to partially use the novice excuse. IMO, either the trade stands, or if it's rescinded, the manager should be replaced. Like many cafe regulars who love a competitive league, it's important to keep the integrity of it intact.
RedHopeful
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicBasketball ModPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3275
(Past Year: 84)
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Hank Aaron's backyard

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby Grounded Polo » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:24 pm

kab21 wrote:
Grounded Polo wrote:I'd veto because how much worth is there in a 2nd round pick in this league? Looks like a top 25 player and 2 top 5 prospects for a pick w/ minimal value, a top 20ish starter, and a outfielder getting drafted in the 150s. The Sale side clearly loses in both today and tomorrow aspects.


I'm not sure I like your league where trades just get vetoed. Veto power should be for trades that can really damage a league or there is obvious collusion.

What if the Reyes owner wants to dump because he thinks Reyes is going to fall apart in the next year or two. He ended up with 24 yr old near ace and a solid 27 yr old OF'er. The prospects could make this deal look terrible (or great) in a couple of years.

As a comparison everyone thought I lost a big trade that involved can't miss prospects several years ago (probably after '09). I got Votto (before breakout) and DHolland for Billingsley (when he was good), JMontero and Drabek. This was a fairer deal but everyone obsessed about how great Montero was going to be while Votto was only going to be very good. They also thought I downgraded significantly at pitcher but I had wanted to pawn Billingsley off for some time. It's possible that this owner wants to do the same with Reyes. It's likely that this owner could have done better especially since he tossed 2 stud prospects into the deal but Sale is a young stud pitcher and those are really hard to find in deeper dynasties. Reddick obviously won't repeat last year but he's a pretty solid hitter imo and fairly young.


I haven't actually voted to veto a trade since like 2005. A basketball cafe league is having a heated discussion about doing just that right now and I'm intentionally staying out of it. Your trade is pretty fair if it's 2008 - Billingsley was 24 and racking up 200 k's per year. Votto wasn't a top 25 guy like Reyes yet, the prospects probably wash out at that point. Do you think it would really take two top 5 prospects with Reyes to unload him for Chris Sale? I don't see the argument from a guy trying to unload Reyes to get younger then trades away two of the very best prospects in the game along with him to do it.
Grounded Polo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6584
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 11 Aug 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby kab21 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:45 pm

Grounded Polo wrote:
I haven't actually voted to veto a trade since like 2005. A basketball cafe league is having a heated discussion about doing just that right now and I'm intentionally staying out of it. Your trade is pretty fair if it's 2008 - Billingsley was 24 and racking up 200 k's per year. Votto wasn't a top 25 guy like Reyes yet, the prospects probably wash out at that point. Do you think it would really take two top 5 prospects with Reyes to unload him for Chris Sale? I don't see the argument from a guy trying to unload Reyes to get younger then trades away two of the very best prospects in the game along with him to do it.


You have made no case regarding veto'ing this trade. it's not a great trade but different owners value players differently. Some will ding a guy like Reyes for being old while at the same time ding prospects for being unproven. In this case he got a 24 yr old near ace and solid 27 yr old OF'er. I wouldn't have made the trade but it's not vetoable.

FWIW - most of the criticism of my trade was that I had given up a future Miguel Cabrera. Holland vs Montero/Drabek was definitely not a wash. Holland and Drabek were closer to a wash but I really liked Holland :~( and wanted to part with Bills :-° and Drabek :-° . Different owners and different valuations.
kab21
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 5340
(Past Year: 162)
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby AussieDodger » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:54 pm

Would You Veto This?


No, never.
Basically nothing is veto-able in my book.

Call me crazy, but I don't mind the Reddick/Sale side. They've "done it" and the prospects haven't. Also, S.Miller seems to be a fastball-only pitcher right now, and that never ends well.
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: Would You Veto This?

Postby dmendro » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:54 am

;-D ;-D
jfg wrote:I don't think it's veto worthy. Like others said, vetos should only be used when it's obvious the owners are colluding.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Black 'N Blue Podcast
RSS Feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/BlacknBlue
Beating each other up one sport at a time.
dmendro
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 796
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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