I just read a string about "Should I veto this trade". This brought to mind the veto debate.
Should the veto be used whenever someone wants to?
It seems some veto trades because of their jeolosy or they want the players involved and think if they stop the trade they might be able to trade for that player.
Yes they have the "Right" to veto, but is that what the veto for?
Should the veto only be used to stop collusion?
If two stupid owners want to make a stupid trade, why should it be stopped?
Earlier this year I made this trade offer:
Thome, Maddux, M.Giles
Giambi, Beltran, Abreu
This addressed needs for both owners irreguardless of what you think of the individual players. I had Sexson so was willing to deal Thome even though Giambi is an injury risk. He had Polonco at 2nd and wanted Giles. I had Soriano so I didn't need him. At the time Maddux had no team.
The trade was shot down on the owners perceptions that it was one-sided even though both of us were happy with it and it wouldn't have made either of us a powerhouse.
In retrospect I'm glad it got shot down because I still have Giles as trade bait and Maddux looks to have landed in a very favorable position. I did work a deal involving Giambi for Thome and shipped him off for Kerry Wood.
All that said: The other owners didn't know Thome would break a finger or that Maddux would sign with Chicago. Why should they have the right to knock down that trade? We both thought it would help our teams and it wasn't collusion.
One last thing is that it was in a CBS H2H points league not roto so the points involved in the swap were close.
I hate owners who veto for selfish reasons! One guy admitted to me lated that he his valuation was based on three year averages even though Giles had a breakout year last year, so he vetoed.
Another said he vetoed it because it was too quick and he didn't have an opportunity to offer a trade first!
I agree 100%. In my public league nearly all my trades are getting axed. I've just about resolved myself that I won't be able to do any trades and my only alternative is the FA market. Also, whenever ANY trades come up the rest of the year, there already is 1 veto registered - MINE!
Collusion is the only reason to veto.
I dont play with cheats or bad sports.
Play hard and play to win which means some of my trades over the years have looked 1 sided for my trade partner but I get the player I need to fill my weak positions.
I'm a big fan of the 2 (of my players) for 1 trade. They often look lopsided but I am the one who proposes the trade (usually) and my team is very competitive.
Pierzynski, Delgado, Nevin, M. Giles, Ensberg, A. Boone, Furcal, Guerrero, Anderson, Green, Podsednik.
Hudson, Wolf, Millwood, Beckett, Wood, Foulke, Hoffman, Koch, Graves, R.Wagner. 5x5 Roto. 10 team mixed keeper league.
Anyway.. cheating is the only reason to veto.
'm in an AL only and an NL only roto leagues. We have a commissioner who over sees our trades in case someone was drunk and taken advantage of. The owner themselves do not have to right to Veto any trades. I should mention that the commissioner is not an owner. It has only happened a couple of time in the 15 year leagues that a trade has been vetoed. If the commissioner is going to veto a trade he will first listen to both sides of the trade before making a decision.
I just do this stuff w/ friends and we are competitive enough that no one is going to do anything too fishy. Even though there are trades that occasionally LOOK bad, if you look closely at the teams they even out. I can imagine that the public league type of things can get ridiculous though...
I strongly suggest a "no trade voting" rule in private leagues. It's been awesome in two leagues that I take part in. The commissioner can veto trades when the trade is obviously slanted (obvious meaning beyond-reasonable-doubt and after he's spoken to both parties involved); other than that, everyone stays out of everyone else's business.
There are times when we disagree on a trade-- darn, i woulda offered more stuff-- but that comes more from jealousy than anything else, I think.
In general- it's great to just leave it to the folks who are playing... isn't that why we play?
We even had a guy last year who decided to trade his whole team, via anonymous auction, to whoever made him the best offers on a position by postition basis, i.e. you had to trade YOUR 2B for HIS 2B.
It was kind of freaky and I bitched a lot as one guy did get a bunch of guys off of him but, in the long run, neither team in the deal got much and I don't think that any of the deals really did much in terms of the overall strength of any particular team, just mixed it up a bit.
I don't intend to disallow any trades as the commissioner of our league this year, unless there's something particularly shady. If one team hurts itself badly, I might try to start a dialogue w/ the owner as there's a couple of guys who might not be as 'on top' of things as some of us but I don't see it being that much of a problem.
OK, I hate to stick my nose in this debate, because I've already been a very active voice in a very similar one on my league page, but I have to throw in my 2 cents.
The reality of the matter is that there are other reasons to veto beyond collusion. Just looking at the offer you made earlier this year of Thome, Maddux, Giles for Giambi, Beltran, Abreu, I can't say for certain I would veto it in a points league, as I don't know the settings, but in a standard 5x5 Roto League, I would probably veto this every time, regardless of how good the intentions were of the owner handing you Giambi, Beltran, and Abreu.
It just happens too often that trades like this are allowed to slide and owners who toss out bad trade offers at every opportunity run into that 12 year old fantasy first timer and take advantage of him. This trade is so lopsided that every player on the side you received is an upgrade over the guys you gave.
Beltran>Thome, Giambi>Giles, Abreu>Maddux. Although the difference between Beltran>Thome is not that great, Giambi is MUCH better than Giles, Abreu is MUCH better than Maddux.
How can I say this? Look at your draft history, if either player I mentioned wasn't drafted at least 2 rounds higher than the other, I would be SHOCKED.
People aren't vetoing this trade JUST out of jealousy. They are vetoing it because you have taken advantage of the other owner and given yoursef a huge (unfair) advantage. This disrupts the competitive balance of the whole league.
Let me just assign what I believe to be fitting rounds to draft these players and toss around another idea. Beltran is a mid to late first rounder (1), Giambi is 3rd or 4th rounder, but probably a 3rd (3). Abreu is probably a 5th rounder (5). Now let's look at the other side of the deal. Thome is a 2nd rounder (2). Giles is, at best, a 5th rounder and at worst a 9th rounder, let's give him some benefit of the doubt and say he's a 6th (6). Maddux should be about an 8th rounder, if not later. I wouldn't take him this high, but someone might so we'll say 8th (8).
So what you've done is traded a 2nd rounder, a 6th rounder, and an 8th rounder for a 1st rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a 5th rounder.
If your league allowed you to trade draft picks, and you had made this swap before the draft, it would have been so lopsided that a veto would have been ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS!!! Now just because one manager doesn't understand how stupid, and poor a reflection this is on him as a manager, you are allowed to take advantage of him?
There hasn't even been any games played yet to rationalize this deal by the numbers produced by the players involved, so draft stock is the most reliable measuring stick for their value at this point.
He is trading the core of a great team for a great player and two decent/good players. It's a hugely lopsided deal, and should be vetoed every time, not because the other managers are jealous, but because it hurts the league.
That you could attribute this solely to jealousy of your "fair trade" is shortsighted on your part. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that. I would veto that trade, and it wouldn't be because I was jealous, but because manager B is an idiot and a liability to the competitive legitimacy of the league. I understand that if it's a points league, the scoring might be weird, and it might have been more fair than it appears, but speaking from a roto standpoint, that trade is insane. VETO!!!!!!!
Still, I hate vetoes for non-collusive deals. I guess it's an easy out to say it's OK to veto a deal if the person making the seemingly stupid deal is a novice who is being taken advantage of. But would your reaction be the same if the owners involved were experienced and in a longstanding league?
Isn't one of the aspects of fantasy baseball that makes it fun the ability to go against the grain if you want to? If you are wrong, you'll suffer the consequences of a bad team/year. If every deal must meet some objective standard of "fairness" (where there is neither collusion nor someone who simply is so inexperienced that he lacks the understanding of what he is doing), I think your standard for vetoes unnecessarily handcuffs the ability to make a trade. I have been playing for a long time and would be really ticked off to have a trade vetoed for being too unfavorable to me. I am supposed to know what I am doing or else I will lose.
If you are unhappy that I traded too cheaply, you should have been more active and tried to make a similar deal with me. Thankfully, I don't play in leagues where this type of veto power is used.