Return to Baseball Leftovers

When to Veto

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: When to Veto

Postby Gmogd » Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:36 am

wrveres wrote:I fail too see how Bernie for Berkman/Gagne/Oswalt is not . ..
"Taking Advantage of another owner."


Basically, wrveres, I'm saying that, at some point, it goes beyond someone being taken advantage of. A lot of trades you see, your thought is simply "Wow, owner B isn't very bright." I'm saying if thats the case, there's generally no cause to veto. But at some point... i can't tell you exactly where, but the aformentioned trade is certainly beyond that point... you have to realize that it isnt simply a case of someone not knowing any better, and that something isn't right. That's what vetos are for, in my opinion.
Gmogd
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Soaring like a dove. Right in front of a Randy Johnson fastball.

Postby Chiggidy Chester » Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:50 pm

But at some point... i can't tell you exactly where, but the aformentioned trade is certainly beyond that point...


Your really reaching here. Special emphasis on the "i can't tell you exactly where" part. You were asked where the line is and then you presented that you don't know that line. A trade one person finds appalling another person finds just barely off kilter. The subjective tendancy for humans to think differently is why there has to be a logical objective standard set up for all to abide by. This is why you can NOT veto any trade unfair or as you put it "behond that point" of unfairness unless it absolutely involves collusion because your definition of "behond that point" may not be the same as someone else in your league.
Chiggidy Chester
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 238
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Gmogd » Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:14 pm

I guess we'll just have to disagree, then, because I certainly wouldn't want to play by your veto standards... I feel that vetos are overused, but not nearly as much as you seem to. Where would you define "absolutely involves collusion"? Because, back to my example earlier, of Bernie Williams for Lance Berkman, Eric Gagne, and Roy Oswalt. You're given 1 day to veto it, and you're clearly not going to be doing any detective work in that amount of time that ends with a signed confession of collusion. So you would let that trade stand?
Gmogd
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Soaring like a dove. Right in front of a Randy Johnson fastball.

Postby Chiggidy Chester » Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:32 pm

You make a good point. I should retract "Absolute Collusion" and replace it with "You should be certain as a league member that when people in your league veto it is because they believe collusion is happening and not vetoing it just because they think it's unfair".

If there is a person in your league that is a baseball novice and would have more of a tendancy to involve themselves in a lopsided trade with them at the bad end of it then it is no ones business to veto that trade because that person decided to screw themselves as a result of a blatant lack of knowledge on their part.
Chiggidy Chester
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 238
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron