I'm commish of our primary league this year. Last year we used league votes for vetos, and NOTHING got through. This year I set it so the commish decides. I laid out the rules the first week of the season that I wouldn't veto any trade unless there is collusion, or a first-rounder is getting handed away for free
I've been getting some friction about passing "lopsided" trades, but nothing too bad... Then this comes across my desk yesterday and after much displeasure, I had to pass it.
G Anderson, Loretta, Mora = Kolb, Wakefield, Lowell, Ward
Now the entire league is arguing that we need a new system for vetoing trades, that I should have still vetoed it despite my clearly discussed guidelines, ect. One person even stated on the board that they no longer have any interest in the league because of this trade.
Now there is also a Beckett, Hampton = Soriano trade up for approval. I'm worried this is going to be the straw that breaks the horse's back. I have noo clue what to do at this point.
I am all for the way you have it setup since the beginning of the season. The commish should not be a judge on every trade. Evaluating players is a subjective process based on the opinions and needs of each owner.
Myself, I would have no interest in the league if you DID veto it. I would walk away unless there is big $$ involved. There should only be two owners involved in each trade, not 12.
If your owners don't want these trades to happen, tell them to STOP OFFERING AND ACCEPTING THEM. I agree with your rules 110% - it's not your fault if people are stupid.
Stand your ground and if people want to bail on the league, then you can find a better league and forget about it. Your job is to monitor cheating and keep things running smoothly - not be in charge of transactions for every team.
The problem is their opinion on the use of vetos differs from yours. This happens all the time. Since you outlined your rules for vetoing trades, it's their duty to conform to your thinking. They knew the type of players they were playing against. They should have seen this coming.
I wouldn't expect them to return next year however.
Am I the only one out there that believes that a trade should only be vetoed if you think there is cheating going on.
It amazes me that people will veto or vote to veto a trade simply because they would not do it. Personally, if you veto a trade that I am involved in, you are calling me a cheater. The veto is put into place to stop collusion, not to stop a trade that you don't like.
You are doing the right thing. If you notified everyone and it's part of the league settings from the start of the season they have no gripe. Tell them to shut it. Their arguement is not with you but the teams making lopsided trades. Point them in the right direction