The Big Bad Veto - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

The Big Bad Veto

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby pokerplaya » Wed May 19, 2004 5:12 pm

First of all, thank you Bleach for stating your controversial claims in such a forthright manner. You've stated that you look for leagues with like minded individuals, and that is great as it probably avoids most conflicts.

Personally, I believe if you suspect collusion, it probably isn't collusion. In my best league, a keeper league, I've made 4 deals this year with 1 team. Some of them were controversial, and their was a large league discussion regarding the matter of vetoing (which is what prompted this post). However, while some people felt I got the better end of the deal on a few of them, we were not cheating and simply had a difference of opinion on players.

Unless it is clear cut, A-Rod for W. Delgado (to keep with our A-Rod Delgado theme) it probably isn't collusion, and if it is and you have to think about it the deal it isn't that bad in the first place.
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 9)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rolenfan » Wed May 19, 2004 5:17 pm

matmat wrote:I also have a problem with the term "veto" when more than one vote is concerned... the whole point of a veto is that ONE person gets to veto something and their single vote stops things. The method yahoo uses is more along the lines of league agreement and as such at least half the votes should be needed to stop a trade.

Yeah, you're right. But "veto" is so much easier to type than "vote to reject". I also think a majority of votes (maybe even 60% or 75%), not 1/3, should be required to deny a trade (see, I didn't use the "V" word).
"You can observe a lot by watching" Yogi
rolenfan
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 315
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Louis

Postby great gretzky » Wed May 19, 2004 5:22 pm

I also think it should NOT be anonymous.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby rolenfan » Wed May 19, 2004 5:30 pm

pokerplaya wrote:In my best league, a keeper league, I've made 4 deals this year with 1 team. Some of them were controversial, and their was a large league discussion regarding the matter of vetoing (which is what prompted this post). However, while some people felt I got the better end of the deal on a few of them, we were not cheating and simply had a difference of opinion on players.

Sounds like most of my trades, I would be the one that they didn't pan out for :,-(
But, I was honestly making an effort to improve my team. I just s**k at it sometimes.
"You can observe a lot by watching" Yogi
rolenfan
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 315
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Louis

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Wed May 19, 2004 5:40 pm

No one even wants to try and touch my situation, huh?

Help me out here fellas - I really would like some advice - especially from those of you who believe that vetoing should only be an option when collusion is apparant.

The trade will go through after tommorow unless I veto it.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby pokerplaya » Wed May 19, 2004 5:54 pm

Your situation is an interesting one, since you all know each other vey well. I honestly think that should dictate your actions here more than anything else. That being said, that trade is one of those deals where I look at it and I am shocked but I still won't veto it.

Although the deal looks bad from my mind, and obviously yours as well, it didn't to the team that was giving up Manny and Dotel. As far as I'm concerned, that is the ultimate factor - we are all rational adults capable of making our own decisions.

If you think these two are cheating, obviously that changes the situation and that IS collusion. Since you know these two, you are in a better position than the commish who is a league with all strangers. Bottom line - if you think he is cheating, confront him and get to the bottom of it. If you think it was simply a difference in opinion and good salesmanship, this trade goes through.
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 9)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby rolenfan » Wed May 19, 2004 5:59 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Well, what if collusion is not so obvious?

We have a situation right now where one owner has a history of finding the weakest owners and trying to rob them blind - its his style. He makes up for a lack of baseball knowledge with a profound understanding of salesmanship and his competitors. He plays with a win-at-all-cost mentality. Typical of many fantasy players, but not conusive to friend leagues. It wouldnt suprise anyone if we found out he slipped a close friend a 10 spot to make sure a trade goes through - however, thats not the sort of thing that becomes news when both parties remain closed lipped. There is no proof of collusion. What we decide to do in the fututre - whether we decide to include him or not in future leagues isnt the point. Thats another can of worms.

Here is the trade:

Manny and Dotel for Dye and Looper.

The one owner said he proposed a trade and it was accepted. The other owner has made no post about why he is giving up his first rd pick for a waiver wire pickup.

For those of you like Trans, who agree that vetoing should be done when there is obvious collusion, what would you do?

Sorry Cornbraed, wasn't trying to ignore you, but somehow I missed the last couple of posts on this page.

This certainly is a tougher situation than the Delgado/A-Rod example. It is pretty one-sided. However, it is not unethical at face value. It does warrant some wuestions and thought, though.

With only tonight to decide or the trade is completed, it woudl be tough to get responses from everyone, but here is what I would suggest:

Don't wait for someone to post why they made the trade on your message board. Go ahead and ask them. After all, if a guy thinks it is a legitimate, fair trade, why would he think to post his reasoning.

Depending on the answers you get, or a lack of response for that matter, poll your other managers. Explain to them what your thoughts are and why and ask them what the league as a whole should do, if anything.

Don't try to sell them on a position one way or the other, just be honest.

As for the guy who trys to "rob them blind", educate the other managers to beware. Salesmen hate the "buyer beware" warning.
"You can observe a lot by watching" Yogi
rolenfan
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 315
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Louis

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed May 19, 2004 6:02 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:No one even wants to try and touch my situation, huh?

Help me out here fellas - I really would like some advice - especially from those of you who believe that vetoing should only be an option when collusion is apparant.

The trade will go through after tommorow unless I veto it.


Cornbread.... tough one. I'd let it go through in my leagues, because I know the owners and I know that they wouldn't take money. If you really do suspect collusion, I'd call the players out and put it on the message board. Hear an explanation.

That's the only way.

Last year, Delgado for Encarnacion went through in my league. One guy really needed steals, it was when he was tearing it up, everyone though he was a lock for 20-20, perhaps 25-25, and Delgado was sitting a bit.

There were a lot of protest, but people explained why the were doing it, and while most disagreed, it went through.
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 GucciBaseballs » Wed May 19, 2004 6:35 pm

I can't say i would want to play with people who think like me, as bleach said he does. In the cafe challenge, Erboes made some picks that most people would gag at (RJ in the second, Jeter in the 3rd, Crawford in the 4th). I for one thought his team was garbage, but currently he sits atop the league. And this league has some of the most recognizable names on the cafe.

I wouldn't play in a league with you as commish bleach, because like Erboes, if I went out and really did my homework and it went against conventional knowledge, I would be shunned before the season started and not allowed to trade, because according to your rankings I am getting ripped.

Cornbread I would really check for collusion in that trade, but if the guy provides a reason for giving up Manny and Dotel (whether you agree or not, most likely not i assume) let the trade through.
"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
- Sir Winston Churchill
GucciBaseballs
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 390
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Monument Park

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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