jbird669 wrote:fair enough, great gretzky, but what about the situation above that I described? I've seen that vetoed in leagues and it is upsetting.
No, I totally agree with you in a situation like that for sure. I don't like to veto trades.
There was actually a situation in my Football league this year that helped change the rules as a commish only veto process.
Team A was not going to make the playoffs. Team B was going to make the playoffs but definately needed a QB for his team to compete within them. We have a 4 man rookie roster in our league and 3 players are kept from year to year outside of this rookie roster. Team A wanted to trade Bulger (a guy he couldn't keep unless at the expense of Vick and he's enamored with Vick) and in return he wanted Manning (Eli that is
). In my mind that is the perfect trade, helps both teams with what they want to do.
The trade got the 4 votes needed and it cause some people to be a little upset. Basically the playoff teams didn't want him to get a QB without hurting his team at all for this year. I think thats BS. And thats one of the reasons the veto process has now been changed. The league is only 2 years old and played with a bunch of friends so we are trying to work out all the kinks and get the league up to a very high level. And the owners are definately there but the way some think it hurts the league.
But, if the trade was something like Bulger for Jeff Smoker then I would say the trade would have to be vetoed. Cause Team B really would have been giving up nothing for Bulger.
Barry Bonds for US president.