Veto to win??

[stevelabny]

the only way trades should be vetoed are if there is good reason to suggest collusion.

such as: a team with no chance trades a good player or 1-category player to a team in contention for a worse player.

otherwise any trade is fine.
manny for julio is FINE if they guy getting julio wont change places in the standings by losing manny and has a chance to gain in saves with julio.

ive been in leagues where ive made or seen trades be accused of being unfair and work out the EXACT opposite of what these morons expected. because very few people take the full picture into account.

[mikcou]

I don't remember who it was I was trading for Pierre, but it was a fair trade. It was going just fine and then some posts a message saying, "ARE YOU ALL STUPID!! HE'S ALREADY WINNING EVERY OTHER CATEGORY SO WHY ARE YOU GIVING HIM STEALS!! VETO THIS!!" Pissed me off. I had already pretty much won the league, so why couldn't I just have all the glory.

that has happened to me in football

[Dugout]

Collusion is the only reason to veto a trade, period.

Some rookies have to learn the hard way.

Some homers have to have their local boy.

Buy low, sell high!

Shame on the owner that isn't up to date with injuries.

Stupidity shouldn't be governed or you might as well turn over that team to the league to manage.

[bleach168]

If a lopsided deal comes across the table and you don't like it, tough sh*t: every team in the league had the same opportunity to "rook the rube", and someone else beat you to it.

Some of us don't have time to send out a thousand trade offers to try to "rook the rube." Many leagues which allow rampant trading comes down to who rips off the chumps first and/or the most. The skill involved in doing that is completely different from the skills I prefer to use to win leagues.

Also, how do you compete with a shark trading with his co-workers? It isn't collusion because the chump.. I mean co-worker thinks it's a fair trade, but both you and the shark know better. There's no way you can compete with the shark in this instance unless you are liberal with the vetoes.

[CBMGreatOne]

I'm afraid I'm going to respectfully disagree that collusion is the only reason. I've been in too many leagues where the same idiot proposes the same lopsided trades and constantly tries to cheat the system. You still have to look at value. That's how it is in real life, and that's the only thing that's fair. I don't like to insult managers by making bogus offers. It makes YOU look stupid when you do, and makes intelligent managers deal with you differently.

I have better things to do than offer Brad Fullmer and Brian Jordan to five different managers for Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Todd Helton, and Carlos Beltran. These kinds of trades (or at least close to them) are proposed all the time (and are occasionally accepted), and ruin leagues' competitive balance. You shouldn't have to pay 20+ dollars or whatever it costs to do Fantasy Baseball Plus to eliminate this kind of crap.

When one of these stupid deals goes through, it's a veto, end of story. Selig would veto a trade like this. Tagliabue would veto a trade like this. Even David Stern would probably veto a trade like this, and these are guys who have more to consider production alone, they also have to think about payroll and free agent mobility.

People who offer retarded trades to every owner in hopes that one is stupid enough to bite should NOT be rewarded. The good thing is, there's enough people in each league that espouse this philosophy, and thus trades like this, correctly, never go through.

[j_d_mcnugent]

I agree with only one sentiment said so far: a trade should only be vetoed if there is collusion involved. If two teams have an agreement, regardless of how an uninvolved team sees the trade, it should go through.

The above example of Julio for Manny is a perfectly justifiable trade, and shouldn't be vetoed. It's supply and demand. You trade your strengths to defend your weaknesses. If a lopsided deal comes across the table and you don't like it, tough sh*t: every team in the league had the same opportunity to "rook the rube", and someone else beat you to it.

As for trades that "upset the competitive balance", this is harder to do than one would think. Unless the league is a 20-team, NL-only with 40-man rosters, a "lopsided" deal such as the one mentioned above simply will not affect the level of play.

If there's collusion, the deal should be stopped. Otherwise, let the teams be run as their owners see fit.

you say veto a trade if their is collusion .... so how do you determine if there is collusion? i say you determine collusion if the values of the players are remarkably different and it tips the balance of power in the league. unless you know the people personally you arent going to be able to prove collusion so i think you need to have some standard to judge a trade by.


i respectfully disagree with your statement concerning the difficulty in tipping the balance in the league. in a competitive 12-14 team league the talent can still be spread thin enough that shady deals involving only a few key players can give a huge advantage.

[ramble2]

I think the best way to deal with it is have 2 veto votes cause the trade to be brought in front of the commissioner for approval. Unfortunately, most of the time the commissioner plays in the league, and so in most yahoo leagues you never know if he's gonna be impartial or not.

For private leagues, this is the way to go. You have to have a fair and dedicated commissioner, but usually that's not a problem.

In my league, we are going to handle things in the following way.

We have a 12 team league. To determine how many votes are needed to bring the trade to the attention of the commissioner, we came up with the following. The two teams involved shouldn't factor into the voting. Neither should the commissioner, as they can review the trade by virtue of being commissioner. That leaves 9 other managers. I don't think it should take a majority to have a trade reviewed. If 1/3 of the managers are unhappy with a trade (i.e., 3), then it will be reviewed by the commissioner.

The first thing the commissioner will do is consider whether the trade is collusive. If not, then it is up to the 3 managers who voted to veto to tell the commish why they are unhappy with the trade. After considering this, the commish will ask both of the parties involved in the trade to argue in favor of the trade on the merits of the players involved and impact on the respective teams. The commish may have them address specific concerns. The commish may also make suggestions to each team in order for the trade to address valid concerns.

In the Manny for Julio scenario, whether the trade would go through or not would depend on league situations. The line dividing collusion from idiocy is often a fine one. As commissioner I might suggest that either a lesser player than Manny or a greater player that Julio be replaced to address concerns - unless the owners had good reasons otherwise.

If the commissioner is involved in a trade, then there needs to be another member of the league who can act as commish in case the trade needs to be reviewed.

This is a pretty rough description. You get the idea.