Veto Advice

[MrSnider]

Our league does a veto vote by the owners -- not a commish veto. At any rate, the involved owners are really pissed that this trade was vetoed by a few of the other owners and asking me to intervene. I need advice on whether you believe it was legitimate for the other owners to veto this trade:

Greg Maddux & Jeff Kent for Johan Santana

The owner getting Maddux says he is just going to crapshoot pitching categories but wants to juice up his lineup. His 2B is Uggla and he alternates Conor Jackson and Mark Reynolds at the DH slot.

The owners that vetoed (several are indifferent) argue that Kent is not an upgrade at any position and that the other owner is not getting sufficient value.

[noseeum]

That's the rules. If you put something to a vote, the vote wins.

Tell the two of them to try convince the other guys it should go through. If they do, then they can resubmit. You can't, as commish, override a veto if the rules say trades are vetoed by vote.

And now these two owners are going to be pissed, and if the guys who voted it down put in a trade they'll veto theirs. This is why trade votes suck. If anything, it should be commish decides after hearing from people who want it vetoed and hearing from the traders. If you read my other posts, I'm against any trade blocking structure. A commish can alway overturn a trade if there's cheating.

Now, all that said, this trade is a complete ripoff. The dude trading Santana has Uggla and he trades Santana to get Kent? And his response is he's punting pitching completely and wants to upgrade his offense? How about a top second baseman then and not Kent? That just doesn't even make any sense at all. You can't win if you punt pitching. So he's essentially admitting he's giving up the season and dumping Santana.

I never veto anything, but if I got a response like that, I would say "call this collusion or not, but I'm calling it vetoed."

[Matthias]

In a rare event, I agree with 100% of what noseeum just said.

[still-hate-francisco-cabrera]

Every time I'm in a league where the league gets to vote against trades, somebody gets a trade rejected and complains. I even play in a league where the managers are mostly the same year after year, yet each season we go through the same routine at least once. It already happened this season.

And for the record, my position is that I don't veto any trade unless I think one of the owners is tanking or not really trying to improve his team. In this case, I'd veto the trade you listed. There really isn't a valid way to justify that trade.

[Whisp]

big fat V

[noseeum]

In a rare event, I agree with 100% of what noseeum just said.

LOL. World's collide. Film at 11.

[CruiseJD]

If your league rule is owner voting and you intervene, expect your league morale to quickly go downhill . . .

[Trojan Pony]

That's the rules. If you put something to a vote, the vote wins.

[BTOWNHESS]

If you put it up to a league vote, this is what happens. And I'd veto it too if Johan is going to a good managers team. Johan is a consensus 1st rounder, top 10 fantasy overall. And with Maddux, he probably will be dropped by all leagues to the WW once he has a few bad starts (which he will) and that makes the trade really Kent for Johan, which is ridiculous. All you have to do is post a message in your league that Johan is on the block and you will get much better offers than this one.


But to answer your question, no you cant step in, and yes the trade should be vetoed anyways.

[CBMGreatOne]

Tell the guy who thought he was getting Johan to stop crying. This trade was pure street trash and didn't deserve to see the light of day.