View Full Version : Vetoed Trade for Schilling in Field Competitive Team League

03-23-2003, 12:57 AM
Can someone please explain to me why it was vetoed this time, and who did it? It's getting kinda ridiculous!

03-23-2003, 01:01 AM
its a conspiracy...you can't ditch your extra closer and extra hitting for an awesome starter...or so that's the logic i'm seeing...

Larkin Fan
03-23-2003, 02:19 PM
The commish has the power to veto any trade, but I'm failing to see the logic behind this one as well...

03-23-2003, 03:06 PM
What was the deal?

03-23-2003, 03:10 PM
Are you talking about our league on yahoo?

03-23-2003, 03:32 PM
I think the league is called "Field Competitive Team", I don't know if it's a Yahoo league.

03-23-2003, 04:20 PM
It's ours, and the trade is Smoltz and Thome for Schilling. Getting a lot of people in a tizzy for whatever reason.

03-23-2003, 04:50 PM
Smoltz/Thome for Schilling- I guess it would depend on the categories selected and strengths and weaknesses of each team.

03-23-2003, 05:45 PM
I understand looking at team's strengths and weaknesses in trade talks, to an extent. But we're talking about giving up arguably the best closer and either second or third best 1B, for likely the 3rd best pitcher. It just doesn't add up at all, much less considering Schilling was awful suspect in the second half last year. We've hammered this on our league board, but trading 2 all stars for one is just plain rigged.

03-23-2003, 06:36 PM
I was attempting to be diplomatic (apparently without success). I would agree that at first (and probably) last glance it looks one-sided. But I do not now the league settings. If it is a points league, and a win is worth twice as much as a save, and strikeouts by a pitcher are worth more than they count against a batter.................. Well, you probably get my point. If, however, it is H2H or rotisserre, and the categories are what most league are using, it is very one-sided and should not be allowed.

03-23-2003, 07:03 PM
Sorry if my response was ill-toned, none was meant . And yes, it is a H2H league with fairly similar settings as the other leagues here. I do appreciated the feedback, many in the league are getting upset at the owners fighting this and it is getting kind of old going against a trade that is blatanly inbalanced.

03-23-2003, 07:48 PM
I am a commish for a league and you have me wondering what I have gotten myself into. However, the first (and pretty much only) rule the league agreed on was that if 5 of the 12 non-participants in a trade objected to it, it would be denied. We modeled that on the Yahoo public league rules (4 of 10). The only problem that I can forsee with doing it that way is if a few members become inactive later (which I don't expect) 5 may be to high a threshold, at which point we will have to adjust. Good luck working through the problem.

03-23-2003, 08:33 PM
the thing is Betty Crocker Boys have no real use for Smoltz, they have Gagne. They have a powerful offense. They have decent pitching. Hotlanta has a weak offense, and a relatively strong starting staff, with no real closer. The deal makes sense to me...but the only logic i keep hearing from everyone else is that it's 2 all-stars for 1 all-star.

make my brain stop hurting!!!:confused:

03-23-2003, 09:05 PM
Why couldn't a medium level position player be added to make it appear fairer? The team trading Schilling will have to waive somebody anyways.

03-23-2003, 09:19 PM
You keep hearing that logic because that logic is exactly what the friggin problem is. I understand the desire to trade from areas of strength, but, for the umteenth time, in doing so, the trade has got to be fair. Now, as has been stated numerous times here and on our site, adding a player to even the trade is the only way this will work. There are at least 5 owners who have expressed dismay with this trade, it's not just one guy being a jerk or the commish being heavy-handed. It's an unfair trade for the reason stated above, and sorry if it causes you headaches, but what other argument would you expect than the utterly obvious?

03-23-2003, 10:48 PM
um...Juan Gonzalez, and by all accounts, a healthy Juan Gonzalez, was added to the trade from the Schilling side, but the deal was still vetoed......?????

03-23-2003, 11:43 PM
Huh?:eek: :eek: :eek:

03-23-2003, 11:59 PM
I have only seen one or two managers on the league message board speak out against the deal, and no where has anyone shown that they are getting angry at the managers involved. Can you please show me some evidence to back up what you're saying KYRedsFan?

03-24-2003, 12:01 AM
i forgot about JuanGon, otherwise he would have been in my argument.

03-24-2003, 12:07 AM
Can you provide the number of, and names of the teams that voted to veto the deal?

03-24-2003, 06:57 AM
Contact the commish. This issue has been settled in our league. I'm done dealing with it on this forum.

03-24-2003, 12:28 PM
Juan Gone and Schilling for Thome and Smoltz? What's wrong with that? Wow...:eek:

03-24-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by SC Reds Fans
Juan Gone and Schilling for Thome and Smoltz? What's wrong with that? Wow...:eek:

That's what I'd like to know...

Johnny Footstool
03-24-2003, 04:49 PM
That is a fair deal. It seems like an abuse of power to veto that trade.

03-25-2003, 10:54 PM
I agree Johnny, and since I'm the Betty Crocker Boys, the team that everyone seems to think is getting hosed, I don't understand how it could be seen as not being fair.

03-27-2003, 03:52 AM
as i said before...it's a conspiracy...and it probably stretches back to the remnants of the Soviet hardliners who are attemting to thwart capatilism in little ways...or maybe i need to sleep...

03-31-2003, 04:39 PM
Now apparently Curt Schilling and Ellis Burks for John Smoltz and Jim Thome is an unfair trade.

I f$%^ing give up...

04-02-2003, 10:10 AM
I'm glad I'm not in this league.

the only time a commissioner should ever veto a trade is if it's obvious conspiracy. If there is no payout for winning, then a trade should never be vetoed unless it's on the line of Juan Castro for A-Rod.

This is a clear abuse of power.