-
My personal opinion on vetoes is that I will use them if I don't see a defensible reason for doing the trade on one of the two sides. I can't know why the trade is being made in that case. Not going to assume it's collusive, but I can't really know either way, so if I think it's a negative value trade for the league, I'll veto. I'll certainly be wrong in some cases, but IMO the burden for a veto is too high in this league, not too low, and it has affected the competitive balance in the league.
-
The last 17 trades have a total of 24 'yes' veto votes. I'm in another ottoneu league as competitive/active as this one, the last 17 trades have 2 'yes' veto' votes (No reason behind choosing 17, I just got tired of looking past that lol).
-
That trade was overturned with 10 vetoes lol we've been reading the message boards from then. DK was very pro veto back then
-
Clarification: I see more 'yes' votes for veto here than any other league I'm in. And it's not really close.
-
I have to say I think vetoing that trade was the right move in retrospect lol
-
Okay so I looked we last had a veto as far as I can tell was in 2013 when someone traded Carl Crawford and Danny Hultzen for Carlos Gonzalez lol
-
This is about the same for me as every other league which is there are no vetoes ever
-
When was the last veto? lol I do not share this experience.
-
Just an observation: I'm in a variety of baseball, football, even basketball fantasy leagues and this is by far the most veto happy one I'm a part of.
-
DK WE GONNA HAVE A FACE TO FACE THIS WEEKEND AND IM GONNA PWN U lol
-
Why don’t y’all exchange numbers and take this to SMS?
-
Well, several things are an extension of our roles as "owner." Voting on league dues, for example, or voting on what the rules are. But if we hypothetically created parameters around the veto or outlined what veto vote should be, that wouldn't impinge your ability to build your team as you see fit. Your ability to build your team would remain unchanged.
-
Suppose I vetoed any trade that made Kenton better because I don't like Kenton. It's certainly my prerogative to do so and it's within the rules. But it's an inappropriate use of the veto. If I started doing it, you probably wouldn't care. But what if 6 people started vetoing trades because they didn't like Kenton?
They are free to do so, of course. But that'd be dumb. Vetoing a trade because you think one manager could have done a bit better isn't that dumb. But it's still dumb.
-
How is using a veto not an extension of your role as a team owner?
-
Right, I know this is an opinion. But it just seems so obviously correct to me. Vetos—like, for example, a commissioner veto in real life—aren't intended to determine whether other teams could've gotten more in their trades. They're intended to be used in only the rarest of situations, when the integrity of the league is at stake.
On one point I don't think is a matter of opinion: a veto isn't an "operation of your team."
-
What would I be colluding? What do I have to gain from gary getting (at the time) a 5.1 P/G OF? Why wouldn't I have traded him Harper instead?
On one hand, I get it: Eloy is a big name (I guess) and Diaz wasn't owned a week ago. On the other hand, I think the impulse *should* be to give the manager the benefit of the doubt and to try and interpret the move as charitably as possible.
-
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no basis for why someone cant veto a trade in the rules. Vetoes are built into the game with no justification provided for how they can be used. 7 votes being required to me is an adequate protection of any risk of over-veto. Your claim that someone shouldn't be able to veto in x conditions is to me, subjecting everyone to an opinion about how they should be able to operate their team more than it is exercising an individual veto.
-
Not saying that's what happened, since I can't ever really know that, but it was definitely my gut reaction.
Paul Dano on
September 1, 2022 4:24 PM
-
It takes less imagination to see this trade as the result of collusion than it does to see it as reasonable.
Paul Dano on
September 1, 2022 4:22 PM
-
The much easier solution would be that you don't get to decide how I manage my team and I don't get to decide how you manage yours.
-
This has never happened. And is only a valid scenario for the deadlines- I'm okay with establishing a rule for what we do if it ever happens even though it hasn't yet in 9 years.
-
Did one of the managers make the trade in bad faith? Did the trade wildly throw off the balance of the league? If the answers to both of those questions is "no," then you shouldn't veto.
-
If you had gotten vetoed at deadline, insisted that you wanted to do the trade anyway despite not being available on trade deadline, this would have presented a problem but one I think is easy enough to solve, I would have suggested we vote for whether you should be allowed to do it anyway after hearing peoples reasoning for veto. I would be personally happy to reverse it should there be no objection from you or the person involved in the trade after hearing reason for veto.
-
Second, you keep talking about value in the abstract. Maybe that's okay in the offseason, but things are different in-season. Those 7 people may think I could have gotten something better. But how do they know? Are they all going to beat that offer now? Once again, I offered Eloy in several different trades and I received exactly one offer for him — and I did not like it.
-
There's two problems with what you're saying, Drew. First, that wouldn't have happened in this case. The trade processed on deadline day and I knew I wouldn't be able to spend much time on Ottoneu on deadline day (one reason this trade happened the day before). So, if that trade gets vetoed, good chance I don't even learn about it until after the deadline.
-
And, for the record, I also consulted other, recent trades in the Ottoneu universe involving Eloy Jimenez. Almost every other version of Eloy is much cheaper and, therefore, much more keepable. Cheaper versions were moved for decent to good prospects. More expensive version returned....less.
-
The way I see it if 7 people in the league think I could have gotten more than what I got in a trade, that feedback suggests that in terms of trade value I should be able to get more than what I am getting in the vetoed trade. This at very least prompts the need for conversation which only helps to either explain the vetoed trade (maybe what you know that they don't) or (what they know that you dont).
-
The way I see it, the risk of vetoing trades that people perceive to adversely impact the competitive future of the league (I don't think this one has much impact on the future at all for the record) is minimal. Basically it comes down to 2 days delay- should it get vetoed and you say "I want to do it for x reasons, I don't care if anyone offers anything else, this is what I want, etc." I think most people would not veto the trade.
-
Quite obviously there isn't a standard! But there should be. Simply: you all shouldn't have a say in the trades I make in good faith. If there's obviously collusion or some sort of funny business going on, sure. But you not having the imagination—or, for that matter, the information—to see what I'm doing isn't a reason to veto.
-
We have had this conversation in the past, but we do not have a league resolution or anything. I think everyone vetoes for different reasons- some people do not veto unless it's collusion (I think Ben is in this camp) and some people veto for anything they think is unreasonably balanced. My general position is, if I think it can be seen as reasonably damaging the competitive balance of the league then I veto it. That doesn't mean that has to be your reasoning.
-
How much imagination does it require to see that trading a player I won't keep for a player I might keep is a good idea?
Again, you can talk about the value in the abstract all you want. I, too, think I should've gotten more for Eloy: which is why I offered several other trades and saw very little interest.
-
Is there some standard for veto-ability that we've agreed to as a league that I'm not aware of?
I use my veto in the case I believe a trade is unjustifiable. I don't mind unfair trades. It can be hard to nail down value especially when prospects are involved and team goals differ. However, trades like this where it takes quite a bit of imagination for me to come up with a scenario where it would be fair I think are completely veto-able.
Paul Dano on
September 1, 2022 3:29 PM
-
My point in defending this trade is only to show that, contrary to what you all seem to believe, I actually did weigh several other options with Eloy. If you would've done differently, fine. I don't really care whether you think it was "fair" in some abstract sense. But mostly what I want is everyone to understand the point of the veto. It absolutely shouldn't be to vote down trades you don't like or think unfair.
-
You mention cutting Eloy. I don't need the money. I have $10 and *several* players I could cut and get lots of money for. Cutting Eloy would've given me money I don't need to pick up players I don't want.
-
The trade getting vetoed does not indicate that someone else would've given me something for him. It just means they thought it was "unfair." Which, again, is a bad reason to veto.
-
Did you ever think that maybe I don't want 2-3 random prospects? What changed with Diaz is he got called up. I'll get to see how he hits MLB pitching for a month and, then, whether he'll factor into Houston's plans. You're right, maybe I could have nickeled and dimed and nabbed another player or two. But gary and I had discussed several different trades. There weren't many players on his team I wanted to keep.
-
I mean, yes, I'm safe now. But this trade was one away from being vetoed. So it wasn't *that* safe. I'm sure no single person is trying to stick me with Eloy "against my will," but that's almost what happened.
-
I wouldn't have kept Eloy either, so I get wanting to deal him at the deadline- makes sense!
-
If it had got vetoed and you were stuck with Eloy at the deadline, you'd have indication that somebody is willing to give you more than Yainer which were I in your shoes, I would consider to be helpful
-
I can't remember the last time a trade got vetoed. And we've seen some horrible ones. In any case, I think you're safe. I get why you feel this was extreme, it certainly didn't deserve to be vetoed more than maybe 1-2 dozen trades done in the last couple years lol
-
I think the reasoning behind the veto votes most likely are that you could have cut Eloy, spent $30 adding prospects like Yainer(who was added like 2 week ago) and came out ahead. Also you could have just asked for 1-2 more pieces from Ricky like Yainer who i suspect would have given to you for Eloy. Nobody is trying to stick you with Eloy against your will.
-
And that should be clear to all of you. The trade got 6 veto votes. If one other person had voted to veto it, I'd have been stuck with Eloy when I have no plans to keep him. Frankly, that's ridiculous.
-
That's not a good reason to veto a trade. Vetos should be reserved for trades that are clear signs of collusion or, in extremely rare cases, wildly throw off the balance of the league. You should never veto a trade because you thought someone could have done a bit better.
-
I didn't rescind it. I offered you that trade a day before the Diaz trade was accepted. So, I'm guessing you just hadn't checked your team in time.
-
I only ask, because I would have at least countered. I see Eloy as a clear keeper on my team anyway. I know he's been injured, but he's 25 and his rates are excellent. I vetoed, simply because I thought you should have gotten much more for Eloy in that deal or another one.
-
Hi DK! I see an offer for Carlos Correa in my past trades, but I never saw it show up in my trades. Did you rescind it?
-
The fact that the trade got 6 veto votes is this league at its most annoying. I shouldn't have to defend trading a player I won't keep for a player I might keep when there was no other interest for that player.
-
The Diaz trade was the, "okay, there doesn't seem to be interest here for a good keeper, so let's just get something I might keep."
-
I wouldn't keep any of those guys. And, sure, I countered for Cease, but I included several other players in the counter, too. You're also talking about offers from almost two weeks ago, when Jimenez was in the middle of a hot streak and I still had time to consider other offers.
-
i did offer montas, enmanuel valdez, and montero for him first and you countered with cease instead lol thats why i assumed lol
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages