Here's a quick bit of background:
I created a new big money keeper league this year. I was sick of being in 4-5 smaller, weak leagues so i created a league where I'd only invite proven strong GMs. In any league (but in a strong league in particular), i feel that trades should only be vetoed in cases of collusion, one GM tanking, or some sort of other egregious misconduct.
The veto rules are as follows: commish (me) has authority over vetoes, unless he is involed. if i'm involved, a preselcted panel of 3 other league members votes on the trade.
So far this season, the league has been running very smoothly. No trades have been vetoed and I've made the most trades out of anyone (by far). Everyone seems to think that i've won all my trades. My trades were:
Weeks for Snell (early in the season when snell was on fire)
Victorino for Garko/Bell (when victorino was hurt)
Ocab for Greg Smith (when ocab was hitting a buck fifty)
Billingsley for Oliver Perez and Daniel Cabrera (before ollie imploded and before bills turned it around)
Rollins/Street for Cantu/Danks/Votto/Jeter (the day rollins came off the DL)
I would be the first to admit that i've won all 5 trades. Note that these 5 trades happened with 4 different GMs (out of 10 total), so it's not as if im repeatedly taking advantage of a weak GM. Each trade was approved by the afformetioned council of 3 voters. The one trade that caused controversy was the rollins trade. a lot of people felt that i was completely ripping the guy off and a few GMs were extremely upset (it's understandable - there's a lot of money at stake and some guy appears to be stacking his team). For what it's worth - my view (and rememeber, i dont have a vote anyway) was that i was getting a great deal, but that a reasonable argument could be made for the cantu side of things and since there was obviously no collusion there should be no veto. the trade went though but a few ppl (outside the council of three) were pretty pissed.
Fast forward to this morning. I'm in 2nd place and made a trade with the 4th place team.
I gave Hart ($15) and Carlos Guillen ($11)
I got MCab ($36) and Furcal ($9)
(Note that based on our keeper rules ($5 penalty per keeper), none of the players in question is considered to be an attractive keeper candidate).
Keep in mind that both MCab and furcal were posted on the official "on the block" page about 3 weeks ago. so everyone in the league knew they were being shopped and everyone in the legaue had a fair crack at acquiring mcab and furcal. The council of three told me today that "based on your track record we cant let this trade through - bc ppl will get so mad that it will kill the league". they specifically referenced the rollins trade (which i admit was a ripoff, but not a vetoable one) as one that really pissed people off.
My response to this is that the track record of the guy doing the ripping off is irrelevant. If i was the guy who was contantly GETTING ripped off, then it would be logical to call my judgement into question and to closely monitor all my future trades. however, im the one supposedly WINNING the trades and each one is with a DIFFERENT team. so what if i keep fleecing people? im supposed to try to fleece people! there are only 10 teams in the league - is the entire league colluding to make me win? the guy who traded Mcab to me hasn't made a trade all season, so his judgement/ethics are not being called into question. the council of three told me straight out that "had anyone else made the trade, we wouldnt veto. but since you made the trade, people are gonna be so pissed off that it's gonna ruin the league". the illogic of such a statement is totally mindboggling to me. they also told me straight out that had i been the one giving up mcab, theyd have no problem with the trade. this is absolutely infuriating to me - am i crazy?
if you ask me:
1) the trade isnt lopsided at all. mcab is the biggest 1st round bust of the season thus far and furcal could EASILY be injured or innefective all season. hart is on fire and was recently put in the leadoff spot which can only increase his value
2) vetoing a trade for fear that a few irrational owners will get upset and ruin the league is ludicrous. this veto system is in place for a reason. it's in place b/c when emotions are running high (as they always do in a fantasy league), many ppl are incapable of voting rationally. if i had my way, id never want my archrival to improve his team. but im a big boy so i just suck it up and try to outsmart him the next day.
I've been arguing with these guys all day long, but they dont seem like they're gonna budge. I'm at the mercy of the experts here at the Cafe. please tell me if I'm crazy or if these guys are totally hosing me. not to sound paranoid, but they're basically conspiring to make sure i cant improve my team - insane!!
oh and btw here's a classic line from one of the 3 guys who has a vote: "its one thing if you were giving him markakis instead of hart. but hart? hart sucks!"
it's just this type of insanity that has me punching walls today. by any reasonable objective measure, corey hart and nick markakis are at least very close in value. i actually think hart is better for this season (i drafted hart for 15 and markakis for 16). i feel like im taking crazy pills.
Someone PLEASE shed some rational/logical light on this situation for me. Thanks in advance and sorry for the long rant/bitchfest.