MrDaveyHavoc wrote:Why should vetoes be used to legislate stupidity? Let people handle their rosters the way they want to.
Let's say you lined up a trade, Ramon Castro for Matt Wieters. What if your league vetoed it because "Castro is an established vet with playing time and Wieters has never taken an AB in the majors" so the Castro side is giving up too much? Vetoes should be used in cases of clear collusion or player dumping from last place teams who just dont care anymore.
Your philosophy works fine when you have a league full of hardcore fantasy baseball junkies, but the fact of the matter is that most leagues aren't lucky enough to be in that position. If you allow trades like this occur, what basically happens is that the more experienced and enthusiastic managers are allowed to abuse the less skilled ones.
When sheep are thrown to the wolves, what usually happens is the sheep don't want to play again a year after being abused, which means you have to find more new people to round out your league, which means you have more inexperienced people in your league, and then the cycle repeats.
If you have an experienced league, and I mean top-to-bottom, then I'd be willing to be more flexible in letting trades through, but when its a clear cut case of an experienced manager preying on the inexperienced, I simply have no patience for it. It jerks like that that ruin countless public leagues and otherwise solid friends and family leagues.