Quote: Originally Posted By decks on 11/18/2009

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2009 You aren't cashing in your reward points and moving on. I know it. You know it.

mike, how you expect to know anything about me from a handful of forum posts is beyond me..

Ideas come to him while he walks on water.

I find it hard to believe that the other owner did a good, detailed job trying to shop that SS, and this was the best deal he could find.

I think sometimes when you see a salary dump deal, if the owner didn't shop the player around hard enough, a lot of other owners who weren't even aware the player was available think to themselves, "I'd have given up more than that in a heartbeat" and slap the veto on.

On the other hand, if the owner did a good job of patiently shopping the guy around, making sure everyone knows he's available, it becomes easier to say to everyone else something to the effect of, "If this is such a one-sided deal, why didn't you want the player at a similar price?"

But just looking at the 2 players involved, I can't imagine he couldn't find someone who would give up considerably more for that player if he looked hard enough, and I suspect that's the underlying cause of the veto.

Vetoing a deal because you'd make a better offer is complete horseshit. Anyone who does that should be deballed.

Wow, I completely agree with MikeT.

The "problem" with that you did the work to make it happen. Then some lazy bastard says "Whoa, I could do better than that!", leads a charge to veto and then steals the deal by slightly sweetening the pot.

I really don't understand how some here view the veto system. I am just entering my 2nd season of hbd. At the start of my first season, I was taking over a 79 win team and decided to make a big trade with a vet who was immediately accused of taking advantage of a rookie. The trade was initially vetoed by those who took that stance. I stated my case on chat and convinced enough owners to reconsider and resubmitted the trade. I ended up with 91 wins and won a first round playoff series, largely due to that trade and a couple later ones. I will never veto a trade unless collusion is involved. I don't buy into the "taking advantage of a newb" argument. If I wasn't "taken advantage of" I wouldn't have made the playoffs. It's bad enough to see an encroaching nanny state in our gov't, I don't need it here too.

Admin said quite a while ago that people can veto trades for any reason they choose provided they aren't colluding. Good luck proving collusion. If a trade was vetoed, there's probably a good reason for it. It's really that simple.

If the dude you're trading with has 123 seasons of experience and it gets vetoed, there's something wrong with the the player making the "bad half" of the trade or there's something wrong with the people vetoing.

If it's a long-term owner, IMO they should be allowed to do what they like with their team unless it's an obviously bad move.

This isn't an obviously bad move. He's getting a Type A/B sandwich pick for a guy that would be Type A, but doesn't have to carry the salary 3 more seasons to get comp'd. Sure the health is an issue, but if he has 20 mill in medical, it's much less of one.

Quote: Originally Posted By spudpicker on 11/18/2009
If the dude you're trading with has 123 seasons of experience and it gets vetoed, there's something wrong with the the player making the "bad half" of the trade or there's something wrong with the people vetoing.

If it's a long-term owner, IMO they should be allowed to do what they like with their team unless it's an obviously bad move.

This isn't an obviously bad move. He's getting a Type A/B sandwich pick for a guy that would be Type A, but doesn't have to carry the salary 3 more seasons to get comp'd. Sure the health is an issue, but if he has 20 mill in medical, it's much less of one.

just because the two owners have a ton of experience doesnt mean the trade shouldnt be vetoed.

I love the "Unless there's collusion involved" stance.

Does a trade with "collusion involved" flash red? Do the participating owners say "Nothing to see here, no collusion at all"? Every trade between n00bs and vets should be examined. Every trade between 1st season owners and world established owners should be examined. And every "Why the hell would they do that?" trade should be examined.

I know this is going to surprise a few of you but people cheat. And they don't always say "Hey, I'm getting ready to cheat!"

You guys misunderstood me. First of all, I'm not saying that I would vote to veto this trade. I think we ought to let owners make salary-oriented moves with a lot of leeway. And 3-yrs at $7.5 per is a lot of money saved.

What I am saying is this: Sometimes, you want to get rid of a guy for salary reasons. You realize that you will get less than full on-field value for him, but hope to make up that value with the positive salary implications of the deal. So you go into it knowing that you're going to be making an unfair deal in terms of purly on-field abilities. And sometimes you have to take a lot less. Sometimes you have to almost give the guy away.

And when that happens, and the other owners review the trade, and see the obviously unfair on-field implications of the deal, it's important that they know that this is the price the market will bear. Because that way they know that you didn't just get lazy and stupid and accept a semi-rapey trade. And many people use the "I'd have given A LOT more than that" test (and perhaps I should have included that A LOT in my first post) as a proxy for whether you've tested the market sufficiently to justify a way-under-value (from an on-field perspective) trade. Perhaps they shouldn't use that test, but I think they do.

The value of things is always equal to what others will pay for something. The veto is about preventing trades that offer extremely unequal value to the two teams. Establishing that there was no market for the guy you're essentially giving away seems important to the question of whether the trade offers sufficient value to both sides to fall within the range of "fair", however each owner decides to define that for veto purposes.

I certainly do not condone leading the charge to veto a trade and then turning around and upping the offer 10% and stealing the guy yourself. Let me be clear about that.

Additionally, it was said on page one of this thread that the other owner hadn't gotten any offers for this guy. I'm merely suggesting he didn't look very hard, because I imagine a lot of owners (in both of my worlds at least) would have been very happy to make an offer for a SS like that, even if they didn't particularly NEED a SS.

I guess the way I feel about a league like this is that it took more than one or 2 people to veto that trade. Its one thing to have a trade vetoed by one person, but having enough vetoes to override that trade (which I personally feel is lopsided although probably not veto-worthy) is indicative of a general league-wide approach to trades. Your choices are to either go with the flow or find a new league. Depends on how attached you are to that team I guess

I don't think your response to the trade being vetoed helped your case in any way.

If the veto isn't used as a competitive tool, then couldn't WIS handle the trade veto themself, or build it into the game?

If enough people don't like the trade for any reason, then it should be vetoed. Worlds are free to set their own character. I would agree that more disclosure about the league's character would be good, but it's not anything that's set in stone. Maybe owner opinion profiles would help?

are you suggesting a likes/dislikes survey in every owner's history box???

all trades are different. i would think that there are more owners out there who do not have 'set in stone' guidelines as to what constitutes vetoworthy than people who will veto a certain type of trade 100% of the time.

if people ask for clarification of the participating owners side of the deal, either give it or don't. people will do what they are gonna do. maybe you can hold off a couple veto votes, maybe not.

i don't see wis instituting 'no veto unless this circumstance' hbd leagues any time soon

no, I'm not suggesting anything really...throwing an idea out, maybe. I'm happy with how things are. For people like decks, or newer users, maybe more disclosure would be good in finding the right league to suit them. Really though, there are a lot of ways to get a sense of a league's character apart from how they decide to veto as a group.