This is the first time I've ever seen something like this happen, so help me out here, it's causing quite a controversy in our league.
Two teams agreed on a trade, Team A's owner is busy a lot and doesn't have time to keep up to date on a lot of things (like player status/injuries)...the trade was:
Team A gets:
Team B gets:
I didn't post this in the trade forum, b/c I'm not asking whether or not the trade is vetoable. The trade made it through the waiting period with 3 vetos (needed 5), and was supposed to go through. Rather than the trade going through, we noticed the trade just disappeared from Yahoo's system (we later determined it was because Team A was trying to drop a player on his DL in order to avoid having too many players).
So now the trade is accepted again, but in the meantime, the relatively inactive Team A owner has posted saying he has changed his mind about the trade and would rather not do it because of Cameron and Borowski's status, and he would have posted this before it went through the first time after he found out about Cameron's injury and Borowski's suckiness but he was getting married and had no access to a computer (and this is true).
However, am I right in saying that because the trade technically made it through the waiting period without being vetoed the first time, then we shouldn't be able to vote again on it? There are a lot of owners who want it cancelled now after hearing Team A saying he doesn't want it anymore, and it's pretty obvious he's getting the short end of the deal.
If you need me to clarify something, just ask...thanks in advance.
unless i am missing something, buyer's remorse isnt a valid reason to cancel a trade. he should have checked out the player status before clicking on accept. also, the other owners shouldnt change their mind about a veto because an owner has buyer's remorse. thats just not a reasonable criteria to use when determining whether or not to veto.
[i]"Who's Karim Garcia? I have no respect for Karim Garcia. I have no respect for that guy. I don't have anything to prove to that guy. He needs to be forcing himself to come up to where I am, to my level."[/i]
slomo007 wrote:He's not really the one doing most of the whining...the rest of the league is though. Because the far better team in the standings is Team B, and he's obviously getting the better end of the trade.
I am not either owner by the way.
I dont see that trade as being unfair for either side really. Zito and Brown are two good pitchers. Borowski has saved 22 in a row so he's not that bad despite the overall numbers. Clemens is having an unbelieveable start for sure so the only way Clemens has to go is down. Prior.. can he stay healthy when he comes back? Remains to be seen. I'd think that if the trade went through the 1st time but some error was done then it woulda happened because not enough votes were there to overturn it. Correct me if I'm wrong but, wouldnt he have to accept it another time for the trade to occur again? If im correct, that means he was given another chance to reject the offer but he didnt.. he accepted it a 2nd time. Because he cant keep up with it and is having 2nd thoughts about the deal.. the owner thats getting Prior,Clemens shouldnt be penalized because of this guys negelect of the game and everyone else who allowed the deal to go through the 1st time should let it go through again. That to me would be almost like collusion from everyone else to veto because one guy says all the sudden he doesnt want to do the deal he agreed to TWICE. That would make it unfair for Team B to have everyone help Team A because Team A is not sure about the deal that the two teams had worked out. He agreed to a deal(Twice), the deal should stand if it wasnt vetoed down the 1st time.
slomo007 wrote:Well he had to accept it again because the trade should have gone through the first time, if not for the Yahoo error. Right?
But yeah I am getting the response I expected....weird how what seems like common sense to us isn't necessarily seen as the same in my league.
If he had to accept it the 2nd time because it went through the 1st time, then the question of getting it vetoed for the 2nd time through shouldnt even be a question. He made his bed.. now he has to lie in it. Sounds kinda harsh but thats what he agreed to.
I agree. He accepted the deal twice and nothing changed between the two times so he should have to go through with it. He had more than ample opportunity to check out the players before pushing the accept button the first time. No reason to cancel it the second time through.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....