league veto power is terrible!!! - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

league veto power is terrible!!!

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

league veto power is terrible!!!

Postby Bloody Nipples » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:06 am

just look what my league just vetoed:

I would have gotten Wood/Baldelli/Kolb

He would have gotten Garland/Benitez/Kaz

That is a very fair trade IMO ( :-) )
Bloody Nipples
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby patterson4president » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:14 am

i'd rather have the wood side b/cuz of wood alone (but baldelli is a major bust). However that trade should never be vetoed....vetoes should only be used if there is evidence of collusion b/cuz peoples opinions vary and you need to respect that.
"it smells like updog in here"
patterson4president
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 148
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NJ

Postby Bloody Nipples » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:35 am

Well, I just pulled the same trade again, except with Cintron instead of Baldelli. Lets hope my league wisens up.
Bloody Nipples
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Kelly Gruber » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:43 am

It sucks sometimes. Some guys veto for stupid reasons; they want to trade for the same player you're trading for, and shit like that. What should be done is return to the old system; people veto by posting messages and the commish presses the veto button. That way veto-ers do not stay anonymous and have to explain themselves to the disgruntled owner(s) and that might deter them in the future from vetoing so hastily. What I do now is talk it over with the most respected guy in the pool and when I propose the trade he posts a message saying that it is fair and then people do not veto it. The unfortunate thing is that this gives him a lot of power...I'll still win anyways... }:-)
An unanswered question is better than an unquestioned answer
Kelly Gruber
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 357
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Danimal » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 am

Little early to say Baldelli is a bust. I thought the team getting Wood was getting a pretty good deal.
Danimal
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 935
Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby agchris02 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:57 am

the team getting wood is ROBBING the other team, that is EXACTLY why vetoes exist -- two fold reason
1) protect against collusion
2) protect against outright idiots, which is the same result as colluding (as in this case)

I know i would have clicked veto without thinking twice
Jackalope
agchris02
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1562
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dallas Tx

Postby fishingmn » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:06 am

I'd have been tempted to veto it as well.

Obviously you are getting the better end of the deal.

The problem with one sided deals is that they throw off the competitive balance in a league which makes it less fun for all involved. My answer for those leagues that allow 1 or 2 teams to load up on talent at the expense of others is to quit which just makes the league that much more crappy.
fishingmn
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 326
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby WharfRat » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:13 am

That's definitely a veto-able trade, wood/Garland and Baldelli/Kaz are both in your favor. But I see what you're saying, I've had perfectly fair trades vetoed, it's frustrating. The tyranny of democracy.
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby Transmogrifier » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:13 am

Vetos should only be done for one reason: Collusion.

If both owners believe it helps their teams, then you let it go. The commissioner didn't step in and tell the Red Sox that they couldn't trade Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, did he? Stupid owners, overreacting owners, and poor player decisions are part of fantasy.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Pogotheostrich » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:29 am

Vetoing a trade for any other reason than collusion seems to me to be the act of a bitter owner. No one is forcing anyone to make trades. Just because the trade favors one owner does not mean that it should be vetoed.
Image
Pogotheostrich
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21512
(Past Year: 453)
Joined: 9 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Louis

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ensanimal, NZ Eff, Skin Blues and 16 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Apr. 17
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Atlanta at Philadelphia
(1:05 pm)
Cleveland at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Toronto at Minnesota
(1:10 pm)
Seattle at Texas
(2:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Francisco
(3:45 pm)
Colorado at San Diego
(6:40 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Boston at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Houston
(8:10 pm)

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