An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
matmat wrote:I also have a problem with the term "veto" when more than one vote is concerned... the whole point of a veto is that ONE person gets to veto something and their single vote stops things. The method yahoo uses is more along the lines of league agreement and as such at least half the votes should be needed to stop a trade.
pokerplaya wrote:In my best league, a keeper league, I've made 4 deals this year with 1 team. Some of them were controversial, and their was a large league discussion regarding the matter of vetoing (which is what prompted this post). However, while some people felt I got the better end of the deal on a few of them, we were not cheating and simply had a difference of opinion on players.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Well, what if collusion is not so obvious?
We have a situation right now where one owner has a history of finding the weakest owners and trying to rob them blind - its his style. He makes up for a lack of baseball knowledge with a profound understanding of salesmanship and his competitors. He plays with a win-at-all-cost mentality. Typical of many fantasy players, but not conusive to friend leagues. It wouldnt suprise anyone if we found out he slipped a close friend a 10 spot to make sure a trade goes through - however, thats not the sort of thing that becomes news when both parties remain closed lipped. There is no proof of collusion. What we decide to do in the fututre - whether we decide to include him or not in future leagues isnt the point. Thats another can of worms.
Here is the trade:
Manny and Dotel for Dye and Looper.
The one owner said he proposed a trade and it was accepted. The other owner has made no post about why he is giving up his first rd pick for a waiver wire pickup.
For those of you like Trans, who agree that vetoing should be done when there is obvious collusion, what would you do?
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:No one even wants to try and touch my situation, huh?
Help me out here fellas - I really would like some advice - especially from those of you who believe that vetoing should only be an option when collusion is apparant.
The trade will go through after tommorow unless I veto it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests