Vetoing Trades - General Thoughts

[mak1277]

Since there are so many posts in this forum about vetoing trades, I thought it might be helpful to ask people what kind of criteria, in general, they use to disect a trade and determine whether or not it's vetoable. Maybe this thread becomes a sticky or something for people to read before posting their veto questions. Anyway, here are some general thoughts I have and use as commish.

1) Collusion questions - These are obviously the trades that everyone is worried about. Pujols for Kip Wells...that sort. It's certainly difficult to root out collusion, especially in a league where you don't know the other owners....but some things just stick out as being ridiculous.

2) Could I make the trade - One example I just read was Matt Cain for Olsen+Dempster. Now, I think most people would prefer the Cain side of this trade. But, when evaluating it, I have to ask myself if there was ever a situation where I would take the other side. Certainly, if I was completely deficient at closer I wouldn't be opposed to making a trade like this where I would give away Cain.

3) Unfair trades happen - Before you veto a trade, you have to look at the rosters of the teams trading. As with #2, if there's a team with a particular need, sometimes you just have to overpay to fill a hole. It's darn near impossible to evaluate a trade without knowing the needs of the teams involved.

What other criteria do you guys use to evaluate potential vetos? What other practical advice can you give to commissioners out there?

[mak1277]

One other important thing I forgot in the original post....don't be selfish. As the commissioner, you have to be able to take off your "team owner" hat and evaluate trades in a vacuum. Obviously, if your biggest rival makes a trade that you think is weighted in his favor, there is a tendency to slam the veto on it. To fairly evaluate a trade, you have to take your own team out of your thoughts.

[Hobbes]

I don't think that any trade should be vetoed unless there is strong evidence of collusion or the trade is ludicrously lopsided and might affect league balance. Such trades are immediately obvious to all.

But many trades are not equal, and managers should be able to make poor deals without worrying about a veto. If an owner is getting fleeced, well tough. That's the real world.

To use your Cain for Olsen and Dempster example, perhaps the Cain owner feels Dempster is due for a great season and Cain is overrated. Most would think he is wrong but it is his right to think that way and pull off a trade to address those beliefs.

[StoneColdBrown]

I agree with Hobbes: I think the only time you veto a trade as a commissioner is when you sense (depending on your league, it may be hard to have hard evidence) of collusion.

A question I'd like to propose, though; is that of when the collusion is seemingly against the commissioner's team. I agree with not being selfish, but being the commissioner can't dissuade you from doing the right thing even if it may appear that you are doing so for personal reasons. I guess the answer to this is to prevent a powerful argument supporting your case, though.