Will Milk Veto your trade

[MilkSpiller22]

We are going to play a game... from now on whenever someone makes a trade that they want to share, they should post it on this thread and I will decide whether I would veto it or not...

Despite never vetoing a trade before in my fantasy career, I never understood the logic of only Vetoing a trade if "collusion" is in the works... How do you smell collusion other than just a terrible trade?? and why does their have to be multiple terrible trades before you act?? debating about WHAT is collusion is not what this thread is about... this thread is only about whether Milk would veto your trade, and if I do, you can try to convince me why I am wrong...

Here is my vetoing checklist...

1. Is there a clear winner??
2. does the timing of the trade validly affect any players value??
3. Who proposed the trade??
4. does traded players make both teams better??
5. is either team OUT of the playoffs or out of any money spots in the standings(only in redraft leagues that don't penalize bad teams)
6. for keeper/dynasty leagues- is team selling before June??
7. for keeper/dynasty leagues- is the lower place team getting the better keeper??
8. for keeper/dynaty leagues- is rebuilding team giving too much for too much for that ONE player??


It is possible for a trade to satisfy some of the checklist and not be a vetoable trade... The checklist is just a helper guide on whether a trade should be vetoed...

 

[Chef99]

That is a well thought out checklist.

 

[tlance]

The real irony here is that Milk always says to veto, yet he never has. I always say don't veto, yet I have vetoed trades before, and as recently as last season.

Here was the deal I shot down:

2nd place team gets:
Dee Gordon, Kenley Jansen and Cody Allen

8th place team gets:
David Ortiz, Austin Jackson and some terrible placeholder closer who had the job for a week.

The two owners were friends and the 8th place team appeared to be out of contention. He had steals to trade and the timing occurred when Jansen and Gordon were both slumping, but still.

Collusion can't be proven, but sometimes in a deal like this you have to veto anyway. Ironically, the 8th place team got pissed, the 2nd place owner never said a word publicaly because he knew how bad the deal was. After getting the deal vetoed, the 8th place owner made a late season run and finished 2 points out of 3rd, narrowly missing the $

The thing with vetoes is that they take away an owner's freedom to manage his own roster. Nothing is worse than making a well intentioned trade and getting it shot down because somebody else thinks they know better than you do.

I have made deals that appeared lopsided on the other team's side in the past because I had information that others did not. Don't ever assume that you know best unless the deal is absolutely ridiculous, like the one listed above.

 

[TKOSpikes]

I remember early April, 2014, in my money league. We had an older guy who made bad trades before. Definitely no collusion, just w reckless deals once every couple years. Anyway, he had Verlander, who started out a little rough. He traded him for Alex Cobb, who had excelled early and Lucas Duda, who had yet to break out.

Everyone flipped. "I would have given you more!" -- "Why wouldn't you put him on the block?" , etc.

Well, Cobb was better (finished with 20 points less than JV with 40 less innings and five less wins), and Duda went 30-90.

Vetoing is just flat out wrong unless there is obvious, blatant collusion.

 

[Chef99]

I remember early April, 2014, in my money league. We had an older guy who made bad trades before. Definitely no collusion, just w reckless deals once every couple years. Anyway, he had Verlander, who started out a little rough. He traded him for Alex Cobb, who had excelled early and Lucas Duda, who had yet to break out.

Everyone flipped. "I would have given you more!" -- "Why wouldn't you put him on the block?" , etc.

Well, Cobb was better (finished with 20 points less than JV with 40 less innings and five less wins), and Duda went 30-90.

Vetoing is just flat out wrong unless there is obvious, blatant collusion.

Thing is, it has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, imo. Almost impossible to do. There are some in one or two of my leagues that have done some pretty shady looking things...not much to do about it, tho.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I remember early April, 2014, in my money league. We had an older guy who made bad trades before. Definitely no collusion, just w reckless deals once every couple years. Anyway, he had Verlander, who started out a little rough. He traded him for Alex Cobb, who had excelled early and Lucas Duda, who had yet to break out.

Everyone flipped. "I would have given you more!" -- "Why wouldn't you put him on the block?" , etc.

Well, Cobb was better (finished with 20 points less than JV with 40 less innings and five less wins), and Duda went 30-90.

Vetoing is just flat out wrong unless there is obvious, blatant collusion.

That's why I like playing in leagues with no veto system... But once you do play with a system, don't you have to follow the rules?? If collusion cant be proved, then the only way to protect the league is to prevent ANY HORENDOUS trade, JMO...

And there is a misconception, trades can not be proven right or wrong by end of year stats, a bad trade is a bad trade because of a players current value... You can make a great trade and have it backfire, you can also make a horrible trade and have it save your season, but a trade is only with the players at the time of the trade...

 

[TKOSpikes]

That's why I like playing in leagues with no veto system... But once you do play with a system, don't you have to follow the rules?? If collusion cant be proved, then the only way to protect the league is to prevent ANY HORENDOUS trade, JMO...

And there is a misconception, trades can not be proven right or wrong by end of year stats, a bad trade is a bad trade because of a players current value... You can make a great trade and have it backfire, you can also make a horrible trade and have it save your season, but a trade is only with the players at the time of the trade...

I suppose it was set up for leagues of which nobody knows anyone. Even then, you just can't convince me of vetoing because of MY perception. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, imo.

If a Greinke owner wants to trade him for Stroman, who am I to stop him? All I can do is to suggest asking for more, but the decision is their's.

The only time it should even be allowed is the week of the trade deadline, or if no deadline, a point near the end of season between a contender and a non-contender, where it just doesn't make any sense other than to help the owner with the better chance... and even then, it would have to be lopsided or obvious. (this is where tlance's example holds water)

 

[tlance]

I suppose it was set up for leagues of which nobody knows anyone. Even then, you just can't convince me of vetoing because of MY perception. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, imo.

If a Greinke owner wants to trade him for Stroman, who am I to stop him? All I can do is to suggest asking for more, but the decision is their's.

The only time it should even be allowed is the week of the trade deadline, or if no deadline, a point near the end of season between a contender and a non-contender, where it just doesn't make any sense other than to help the owner with the better chance... and even then, it would have to be lopsided or obvious. (this is where tlance's example holds water)

And that is the key for me. It would be really tough to make any 1 for 1 trade bad enough to be vetoable. Even in the extreme case where 1 team is getting the two best players in the deal, you must consider the circumstance and the individuals.

If TKO decided to trade Kershaw for Tyson Ross, I would wonder what the hell he was thinking, but I would never consider vetoing because I know he would have a legit reason for every deal he makes, even if it is evident to an outsider.