by PresHabib » Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:35 am
rmeesig
I totally understand your annoyance. I can't stand it when people aren't focusing on their teams and do deals that others cannot necessarily pull off. Inactive managers can detract fun for a lot of people.
Sidenote...inactive managers are people who don't look at their teams for a month or so, not managers who don't move their rosters. Madison you said you have gone a year without making any roster changes, but I'm willing to bet that if your first baseman that year went on the DL you would have changed that. Inactive managers, like this guy here who did not put injured players on the bench, is full blown inactive.
Ok back to my point... iif the trade is fair, the trade is fair, and that really is all that matters. What you guys have done is view something as an exception that you would not have vetoed had somebody else in the league made the same deal...thats unfair, much more unfair than the other guy trading with an inactive manager (which I would need more information about to decide if it was unfair or not). This deal has to go through, your reasons to veto should not bring you to actually veto the deal.
And in the example I gave earlier, I wound up letting the deal through for these reasons. I definitely didn't like that an inactive manager was trading with a guy just because it was his friend, but in the end the deal was fair numbers wise and I just couldn't justify vetoing it, and I don't believe that you can justify vetoing this.
Rest in peace Mitch Hedberg. I name my fantasy team "Buoyancy of Citrus", in your honor.
1968-2005