bigh0rt wrote: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.