Looking for an article on when vetos are apprpirate

[kaiser]

I'm sure there has been some debate on these boards about the purpose of "veto power," and when it should or shouldnt' be used by league members.

Some of the guys in my league are in an argument over this topic, and I'd like to share some of the expert comments from Cafe with them, but I can't find the article.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[abrunn11]

It is really simple. If two teams are blatantly cheating by trading players between each other, than it is vetoable. Everything else is not.

[StlSluggers]

If it's obviously collusion, then veto the trade. Otherwise, let it slide.

After all, value is a relative term, and attempting to standardize it is an exercise in futility.

[bigh0rt]

1
2
3
and to the 4

Head to Search, Forum: Leftovers, keyword: veto, display as topics, and just click through and you can find ones that date back a lot further than those 4 -- but those should definitely send you well on your way. Link 3 even had to be locked.

[hot4tx]

Also here's a good argument for it being ok to veto trades that are extremely lopsided even if you don't think there's collusion involved...

http://fantasyhurler.blogspot.com/2008/05/about-lopsided-trades-and-vetoing-of.html

[Broncmet724]

The problem with vetos is that different people value different players differently.

[StlSluggers]

Also here's a good argument for it being ok to veto trades that are extremely lopsided even if you don't think there's collusion involved...

http://fantasyhurler.blogspot.com/2008/05/about-lopsided-trades-and-vetoing-of.html

No. If you are in a league where an imbalanced trade could be so valuable to someone, there are better, objective systems you can install. My personal fav is the public counteroffer rule. That rule says that any trade must be publicly posted for some amount of time, and during that time, anyone may publicly post a counter offer. If no better deal shows up, then those owners are getting max value as determined by their market, so it's not lopsided. On the other hand, if a deal is truly lopsided, then a better offer will show up. At that point, they either break the deal off or insist on taking the original deal, which makes collusion obvious.

[hot4tx]

The problem with vetos is that different people value different players differently.

Correct. However, in my opinion that doesn't mean that you should let a Pujols or ARod for Cliff Lee trade in a keeper league go through without at least voting for a veto. It gets to be a touchy subject and I recently had a trade questioned by one manager in my main league which myself and everyone else I've talked to thinks was out of bounds to question that trade. I extremely rarely even think about or discuss a veto even when I think one team is getting a steal, but that still doesn't rule out any possibility that there may be a situation where veto is called for where there is no collusion.

[StlSluggers]

I extremely rarely even think about or discuss a veto even when I think one team is getting a steal, but that still doesn't rule out any possibility that there may be a situation where veto is called for where there is no collusion.

That doesn't justify a veto. That justifies a rules upgrade.

[Yoda]

There are some good arguments for and against vetoes over at the commissioner's forum.

I personally believe that no trades should ever be vetoed since no one in my leagues would collude but it really depends on the type of league that you are in.