An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
Baseballer02 wrote:I don't remember who it was I was trading for Pierre, but it was a fair trade. It was going just fine and then some posts a message saying, "ARE YOU ALL STUPID!! HE'S ALREADY WINNING EVERY OTHER CATEGORY SO WHY ARE YOU GIVING HIM STEALS!! VETO THIS!!" Pissed me off. I had already pretty much won the league, so why couldn't I just have all the glory.
jimmycolorado wrote:If a lopsided deal comes across the table and you don't like it, tough sh*t: every team in the league had the same opportunity to "rook the rube", and someone else beat you to it.
jimmycolorado wrote:I agree with only one sentiment said so far: a trade should only be vetoed if there is collusion involved. If two teams have an agreement, regardless of how an uninvolved team sees the trade, it should go through.
The above example of Julio for Manny is a perfectly justifiable trade, and shouldn't be vetoed. It's supply and demand. You trade your strengths to defend your weaknesses. If a lopsided deal comes across the table and you don't like it, tough sh*t: every team in the league had the same opportunity to "rook the rube", and someone else beat you to it.
As for trades that "upset the competitive balance", this is harder to do than one would think. Unless the league is a 20-team, NL-only with 40-man rosters, a "lopsided" deal such as the one mentioned above simply will not affect the level of play.
If there's collusion, the deal should be stopped. Otherwise, let the teams be run as their owners see fit.
EugeneStyles wrote:I think the best way to deal with it is have 2 veto votes cause the trade to be brought in front of the commissioner for approval. Unfortunately, most of the time the commissioner plays in the league, and so in most yahoo leagues you never know if he's gonna be impartial or not.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests