Veto: Bad trades or collusion only?

[bongovt]

There seem to generally be 2 schools of thought on when trade vetos are acceptable: those who only veto in the case of obvious or provable collusion...and those who feel that unbalanced trades can mess up a league, and therefore should be veto'ed as well. Just curious and wanted to take a poll and see where the majority of our players fall...Vote and comment further if you have something interesting to say thanks!!!

[CruiseJD]

My league voted to give me sole discretion over vetoing of trades. I use a test of "substantially unbalanced". I look at as many factors as I can when reviewing trades. My presumption is that the trade is acceptable. I will only veto if there are enough factors that make it substantially unbalanced.

This of course includes an element of subjectivity, but that is unavoidable. Collusion is rarely provable by direct evidence, so that test involves subjectivity by the commissioner too.

[dragoon]

If the trade is a little unfair, so be it. Even if it is pretty bad, I let it through. If someone for instance trades Holliday for Nady and Ian Kennedy or something ridiculous, then it's a veto even if there is no collusion. I let through a Roy Halladay for Sizemore the other day even though it is lopsided.

[mktgteach]

It all depends on a team's needs and how people view a player's value. The mention of Halladay for Sizemore being lopsided is not at all IMO. It all depends on a team's needs and if you match up well. IMO, Sizemore is worth more than Halladay but teams that have SP worth more than Halladay may not need a CF as bad as the team with Halladay.

Then you have to consider the league setup. A Dynasty League/Keeper is run 100% different than a yearly league. For instance in my Dynasty League, one recent trade was Arod/Magglio for Alex Gordon/Justin Upton/Johnny Cuerto. In a yearly league, this is not a trade that makes any sense, in a Dynasty League.........it makes all the sense in the world.

So more factors that a perceived value needs to be considered. I have always believed that when you start vetoing trades, you begin ruining your league b/c then people start to veto everything and the fun factor is taken away.

[PujolsJunkie]

ARod and Maggs for Gordon, Upton and Cueto does not "make all the sense in the world." Sorry, as good as the youngsters are, A-Rod is going to remain a top 5 player for the next five years. Those guys can only hope to approach such status (though Upton's upside is that range, it will take a while and there's the inherent risk that comes with any young player).

[mak1277]

No fantasy baseball commissioner should EVER believe he is so smart that he can unilaterally veto trades because the THINKS they are not balanced. That's ridiculous.

Outside of collusion, every team owner has the right to run his team any way he wants. Who the heck are you (or I) to say he can't make a "bad" trade? I'm all for educating owners when they make a bad trade...sending a quick e-mail to let them know what they did...but I wouldn't dare tell them they can't make a trade because I think it's imbalanced.

I've seen enough "bad" trades turn out to be good trades that it's simply not worth trying to make this determination.

[tmlfan4ever]

No fantasy baseball commissioner should EVER believe he is so smart that he can unilaterally veto trades because the THINKS they are not balanced. That's ridiculous.

100% correct. People get so nuts about this stuff sometimes. The ONLY reason to veto a trade is if you believe there is a realistic danger that some kind of collusion is going on. You can't save people from themselves, that's not your job.

[ABA316]

Collusion always, sure.

Lopsided trades, in extreme cases only but yes.

[Motown Blues]

No fantasy baseball commissioner should EVER believe he is so smart that he can unilaterally veto trades because the THINKS they are not balanced. That's ridiculous.

Outside of collusion, every team owner has the right to run his team any way he wants. Who the heck are you (or I) to say he can't make a "bad" trade? I'm all for educating owners when they make a bad trade...sending a quick e-mail to let them know what they did...but I wouldn't dare tell them they can't make a trade because I think it's imbalanced.

I've seen enough "bad" trades turn out to be good trades that it's simply not worth trying to make this determination.

Completely agree, every word. Well put.

[flloyd]

Vetoes for lopsided trades make sense for leagues where the majority if not all of the owners are first year players or it is a public league where you do not personally know the players (which I highly recommend against joining). Otherwise vetoes should only be used for instances where collusion is known/suspected. I personally only play in two leagues; one where i know a bunch of the other owners personally and we put $60 per year on the line so that we all have a personal incentive to win, the other is a public league but trades are not allowed so it's a non-issue.