Trade Veto Button: Necessary?

[MashinSpuds]

I know there has been discussion about it here on the board in the past, but I'm curious what people's positions are. Why should it exist? Or, on the other hand, is it irrelevant? Thanks for any insight on whatever side you're on.

[Merlin401]

I think its important. As impartial as someone might be, you simply can't have someone with a stake in a league deciding on what is fair and what is not. Everyone needs to have a voice. The only alternative is to have a neutral third party to judge trade fairness.

[converge241]

unnecessary - if there's a veto button people will use it to protect their spots as applicable

[mkultra]

It all depends on what happens when I click it.

Does the veto kick in automatically at some threshold (1/2 the league)? If so, then no, I don't think so. Leagues are not managed by committee. A well-run league shouldn't need to do anything other than trust the Commish's judgment.

THAT SAID, I do think there's a need for some kind of "I think this is a BS trade" notification for managers, especially if trades are executed automatically. Sometimes the Commish isn't paying attention. Even if the Commish disagrees with the "veto mob", a bunch of people complaining about a trade should be talked about, if only to make sure everyone is clear on the guidelines. It's no fun when people get bitter over trades and let personal grudges creep in.

[MashinSpuds]

I agree with you on the bitterness, and that is why it is still important to have the commissioner available to make the final call just in case. As long as the commissioner is trustworthy that is.

I have found that the veto button causes more of a stir than needed. The minute someone sees "Vetoes: 1" people get antsy and demand to hear either a trade defense or the outing of the vetoing manager. If there are three vetoes, emotions start rolling. I just feel that the button could cause a lot more frustration than it's worth, where ideally all managers would believe that everyone is capable of making a rational decision concerning their rosters.

[lane_anasazi2]

I have a lot of thoughts on this issue, but they can be boiled down: it's all about the managers.

A veto button will not a save a league with bad managers.

A veto button is unnecessary in a league with good managers.

[bigh0rt]

If you have a league full of intelligent, active managers who are all playing to win or to do what is best for their own team, then there exists no reason to have one. Unfortunately these seem to be a rarity.

[bigmck]

If you have a league full of intelligent, active managers who are all playing to win or to do what is best for their own team, then there exists no reason to have one. Unfortunately these seem to be a rarity.

If you have a league with the above, that is when I definately WOULD have one. A win at all costs must have a VETO. I believe in having it set to half the league with a one day time limit. This would give the chance for it to be used if needed, but the time period would be short enough so that it probably would not be used on 95% of the trades.

[mkultra]

Why a 1-day limit? That would seem to:

- Limit its effectiveness depending on how busy various people are.
- Encourage knee-jerk "when in doubt, veto" reactions rather than "let me think about/discuss it" decisions.

[lane_anasazi2]

If you have a league full of intelligent, active managers who are all playing to win or to do what is best for their own team, then there exists no reason to have one. Unfortunately these seem to be a rarity.

If you have a league with the above, that is when I definately WOULD have one. A win at all costs must have a VETO. I believe in having it set to half the league with a one day time limit. This would give the chance for it to be used if needed, but the time period would be short enough so that it probably would not be used on 95% of the trades.

I'm confused by this. "Win at all costs" = completely lopsided trade?

And why have a short time limit? That would seem to cause all kinds of problems.

I stand by my statement that a league veto is never a good thing. It creates a lot of resentment and bad feelings for nothing. It's also insulting to a manager's intelligence. If I want to trade Albert Pujols for a prospect package of Shelby Miller and Julio Tehran, who are you to tell me I'm getting ripped off and force me to not make that trade? Maybe I think Pujols is headed for a fall and Miller/Tehran are going to be the next Halladay and Verlander. Maybe that's completely wrong, but there's no way that some random group of 9-15 other managers gets to make that call for me. Especially not when they have a vested interest in not seeing other teams improve.