trading - league votes vs commish reviews

[dave_1861]

I was wondering which one some of you preferred. I ask this because i have a couple leagues i commish, one uses league votes on trades rule and the other uses commish reviews trades rule. The one that uses league vote has a 2 day waiting period while members vote and the other has no waiting period, the trade just need to be ok'ed by the commish and it goes through at least that is how i understand the commish settings on yahoo for time for members to protest trades(zero) and trades reviewed by(commish).

[kentx12]

I dont like playing in a league where league votes. There are to many people who vote against a trade just to stop people from improving. In my leagues all trades are approved no matter how bad unless there is collusion involved.

[hersch223]

I'm the commish in our league, and we do league votes. However, if enough people vote against it, it goes to a commish review, and then I get to decide. This keeps people from killing trades, so it works pretty good.

[pepperoncino]

a combination of both is the best. league votes, but commish has veto power in the rare case it's needed.

[RugbyD]

I dont like playing in a league where league votes. There are to many people who vote against a trade just to stop people from improving. In my leagues all trades are approved no matter how bad unless there is collusion involved.

this is how we do it unless someting looks really really bad, then we ask the teams to justify it. as long as something halfway reasonable is given, its good.

[TheYanks04]

I dont like playing in a league where league votes. There are to many people who vote against a trade just to stop people from improving. In my leagues all trades are approved no matter how bad unless there is collusion involved.

this is how we do it unless someting looks really really bad, then we ask the teams to justify it. as long as something halfway reasonable is given, its good.

So then why bother at all? Either you are going to review based on some sort of equity guidelines or you should just let it all go through without review. Why waste the time is an ARod for Piazza deal is allowed based on a team need for a C for instance? The league moron should nt be allowed to disrupt the balance of power like that and I do not care if team needs justify it or not.

[hardboiled]

Our league will use a league vote/ commish approves system. I think this system would work better if there was a policy according to which the commish made his decision.

My policy would be, trades will be approved absent collusion. But my league wants a stricter standard of review.

Does anyone have any ideas for a stricter trade approval policy? The idea is to remove some of the subjective element so it's not just the commish saying the trade is too lopsided.

[TheYanks04]

Our league will use a league vote/ commish approves system. I think this system would work better if there was a policy according to which the commish made his decision.

My policy would be, trades will be approved absent collusion. But my league wants a stricter standard of review.

Does anyone have any ideas for a stricter trade approval policy? The idea is to remove some of the subjective element so it's not just the commish saying the trade is too lopsided.

Unfortuanately no. Bottom line is you have to either trust in your commish to be fair or vote and let the cliches and cabals have their way. You can't make objective what is inherently subjective.


That said, you can set parameters as to where the line will be drawn.
FOr ex: In some of my money leagues, I decided this year to crack down on trades. I let it go way too far towards caveat emptor, so now I am enforcing a strict review policy whereby 2 for 1's are not allowed and only even numbers of players can be traded.

I have also enacted a rule that will evaluate all trades based on a 1 for 1 basis. Meaning if you trade 2 players on each side, the top 2 are evaluted agasinst each other and then next 2 are evaluated against one another. If either does not meet the smell test, the deal is vetoed. This stops someone from trading Pujols and Migurl Olivo for Tex and Miguel Cabrera and bypassing the intent of the rule. I have found that 2 for 1s were the bigget trouble in certain of my leagues and this wil put a stop to two medicore scrubs being dealt for a superstar.

[Seanyfever]

We just implemented a rule this year regarding veto. A player can contest a trade, but it is then put up to league vote. 70% of league must vote that it is unfair, then it goes to the commish for stamp of approval or not. Commish can even dismiss the original manager's notion that a veto shoudl be called, if he feels it is out of the question.

The 70% is a good number because not many get through. If 70% of a league thinks there is a need of a veto there usually is.

[Wyatt]

[quote="pepperoncino"]a combination of both is the best. league votes, but commish has veto power in the rare case it's needed.[/quote

This is how I set up my league 14tms 5 votes to veto unless I think it's unfair to the stability of the league.