Return to Commissioner's Corner

theres chaos in my league

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

theres chaos in my league

Postby Lightning1919 » Wed May 30, 2007 11:19 pm

i run a 6x6 league with cg's and ob+slg

there are 2 new peope in this league, and one guy, call him john doe, is obsessive and keeps trying to trade with the 2 newbies. everyone knows each other by the way.

with 4 votes of 12 to veto, the following trades have been vetoed and only supported by john doe.

1. newbie 1 gives up mauer for durham and joe borowski
2. newbie 2 gives up pujols, m. young, santana for rollins, d. lee, pappel, and fuentes

is the league right for vetoing these trades? i think so, i just need some support. the reason is now there is uproar and ppl are vetoing everyone elses trades so no one can pass anything. just need confirmation.
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Knights » Thu May 31, 2007 12:47 am

Trade 1... enh, not a good deal

Trade 2... not a good deal, but not veto-worthy.

I'm sorry to say but you have some major issues to deal with in your league. There is definite reason to be concerned.
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

Response Team
Posts: 1023
(Past Year: 43)
Joined: 14 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby JTWood » Thu May 31, 2007 1:28 am

Golden rule of vetoing: Only veto if you suspect collusion.

Deal one is very suspicious, but you can't really tell without looking at rosters. Even then, you really need something more concrete to call out collusion. For instance, what does the team giving up Mauer get out of tanking? Is this a money or keeper league? If it's a redraft, you have to think this is just a bad deal, and you can't legislate the perception of value. If you try to do that, the whole system will fall apart (as you've witnessed).

Deal two is not even close to veto worthy.

In the end, what it often comes down to is that owners see a bad deal and blame the parties involved instead of blaming themselves for not making a competitive offer that would have swung that player their way.

Here's a suggestion: If you think these deals are really bad, require a 48-hour trade posting period. This isn't a veto period. Instead, any other team is allowed to make a counteroffer. If someone offers Pujols for Mauer and the owner still takes that crap, then you know you have collusion, and the veto is assured.

Give that a go. Let us know how it works out. Good luck! ;-D
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby shawngee03 » Thu May 31, 2007 11:10 am

i love that last idea about posting it before accepting the trade. that should bring out any collusion
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 650
Joined: 6 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Football
Location: H-Town

Postby Bloody Sox » Thu May 31, 2007 3:14 pm

Both deals look fine to me. It looks like the newbies value saves highly, which is OK especially if they are performing poorly in that category. I can also see why the first guy would not want Mauer - he's a hurt, injury prone catcher. He could have gotten more (obviously, since the rest of the league thought he got rooked), but that's where you should be encouraging them to shop around. This is a classic case where other owners are jealous they didn't make the deal first.
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 8)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests