Trade Veto opinions - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Trade Veto opinions

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Trade Veto opinions

Postby jpm372 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:31 pm

I'd like some feedback on my trade proposal that was vetoed.

I proposed:

Mike Napoli-C
Alexi Ramirez-SS


V. Martinez-C
Juan Uribe-SS

I want to upgrade my catcher position, i already have Jose Reyes as my ss so i can let Ramirez go. The team I proposed to, accepted it. He has a need at SS.

The league vetoed it. In my experience, most fantasy owners veto trades just for the sake of vetoing. There is no collusion going on. I have an extra ss that i'm willing to move. The other team needs a ss and is willing to sacrifice a little in his catcher dept.

Any objective thoughts??
T-Ball Trainer

Posts: 1
Joined: 6 Apr 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trade Veto opinions

Postby Oatsdad » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:09 am

IMO, too many players worry about "balance" in trades. Yours sounds reasonable to me: one team gets the better C and the other gets the better SS.

I wouldn't think this is a vetoable trade, but there are plenty of leagues where players think that if trades aren't 100% perfectly equal - whatever that means - then they should be vetoed. Sorry to hear you're in one of them! :-P
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

Posts: 1295
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trade Veto opinions

Postby mkultra » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:18 pm

You definitely got the better end of the deal, but definitely not vetoable.

That's how trading works. Someone winds up ahead. It's not the league's job to determine who or by how much.
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1339
(Past Year: 40)
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Trade Veto opinions

Postby lane_anasazi2 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:36 pm

Unfortunately this is the downside of having a system where veto power is left in the hands of those who have a vested interest in the outcome of the trade. That is, if they see one or even both teams getting better, it makes the chances of their team winning go down.

If your league uses the "manager vote" option, this is going to happen. You can try to lay out rules for what constitutes a valid reason for vetoing, but since it's all subjective (based on personal player analysis), managers are going to veto for whatever reason they want.
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 2152
(Past Year: 21)
Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Trade Veto opinions

Postby SAFFcommish » Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:41 am

Used manager's veto trades for half the season when creating my league 3 years ago. I didn't want to put up with the garbage vetoes that others owners would pull off because they didn't want one team to get stronger or just to veto the deal to just veto it (we call one owner in my league Joey Veto for that soul purpose).

Being commish what I did was create a checks and balances system, deals have 24 hours before they are processed. As commish I have a separation of powers (I just look for collusion) the owners have a say, and then our 3rd party is ESPN's the answer guys or any other outside the league opinion. 2 out of the 3 separation of powers need to vote yes in order to push the trade through.

When a trade goes through owners receive an e-mail (ESPN) theirs an appeal link at the bottom of it that they click in order to appeal and then need to explain why they don't like that trade. No explanation it means nothing then. So far it has worked great and not a single trade has been veto'd since. May seem much but works for my league and keeps everyone happy that its not just me making the decisions but a collective effort of separation of trade powers.
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

Posts: 33
Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Home Cafe: Baseball

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues

Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 17:17 hours
(and 27 days)

  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact