trading - league votes vs commish reviews

[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.

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.

i don't believe in protecting idiots from themselves. I also don't believe in playing with GMs who will trade Arod for Piazza. Just b/c i don;t agree with the difference on opinion that generated a trade doesn't mean its no good. If teams justify an eyebrow-raiser trade with gibberish, then its enough reason to think something else may be going on.

[dmbjeff]

I have 2 other commishes in the league besides myself. If the trade is a fair trade it gets approved immediately by anyone of us. But if it's questionable at all we(commishes) each vote to see where we stand. It works out well.

[teddy ballgame]

I'm the commish in my league and I have it set for Commish review. We do this because I alwasy check it at least twice a day and this way the trades go through for the following day. With league votes you have to wait two days for the trade to go through and there's some people in our league who don't like each other and just veto any trade that person is involved in. If someone has a reasonable protest they can post it and give an explanation as to why it shouldn't be allowed. There was only one time where I suspected someone of cheating where one guy who wasn't doing well practically another team all his good players for free, but we took care of that.

[Matthias]

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. /quote]

I agree. A combination of league/commish stuff sounds nice, but at the end of the day, something's gotta give and you may as well be clear upfront where the real say is. My tendency is to make it reside within the commissioner because: (a) there's a strong likelihood that people will veto trades they just don't want to see, regardless of their fairness; and (b) the league is already trusting the commish and giving him discretion in a wide number of other areas so if they're not going to be scrupulous, you'll have problems, anyways.

[Nerfherders]

In the league I commish we use a combination of league vote and commish override. The 10-team league needs 5 votes nay to dump a trade, and I have authority to veto a trade outright if I think it's way too lopsided. I try very hard not to do that - in fact i think in the history of the league only one trade has been commish vetoed.