Trade Veto Button: Necessary?

[bigmck]

My reasoning on the "One Day Limit" is to have a way to veto trades if needed, but make it hard enough that every trade will not be vetoed as in some leagues.

[23]

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.

Agree. If trades cause friction that often to the point where you need vetoes then you have a greater problem.

[mkultra]

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.

Agree. If trades cause friction that often to the point where you need vetoes then you have a greater problem.

I agree as well, and I think the problem in those kind of leagues is (usually) the commish, not the managers.

[23]

We've had a league for about five years now (with a trusted group of guys) and our trade policy is very simple...Commissioner is the only one who can veto trades, and the only time he'd step in is if the trade is absurdly unbalanced or there is something shady going on. Meaning, 99.9 percent of trades go through as long as they're agreed upon by the teams involved. In the history of our league, we've only had one trade that caused friction, and that was a big, blockbuster type deal involving something like 10 players and multiple all-stars.

You open up a can of worms if you allow individual teams to rule on trades. Too much bias/politics. You have to trust your managers and the managers have to understand/uphold the integrity of the league, otherwise you'll go round and round with nonsense like trade vetoes.

And another thing...more times than not, if a third party has a gripe about a trade, his anger is usually rooted in the fact he missed out on the chance to be the one involved in the trade (i.e. jealousy or another team threatening his team's chances).

[markgrebowsky]

Our league started out with a veto button but I was forced to make an executive decision to do away with it after 5 trades (all that were made) were vetoed in the first week and a half.

We went to a 3 member trade committee that has vetoed 1 trade in the following 9+ seasons.

[JonC0226]

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.

I have to agree here.

It prevents collusion. Also, I have brought in managers who have never played fantasy baseball before and they are prime targets to get "trade raped." I think a majority plus one of those not involved is a good rule, 24 hour wait.

If a manager is too busy to vote, then they shouldn't be playing. Most leagues I have been in send an email to all managers notifying them that a trade has been accepted. All it takes is five minutes to go online and vote on it.

It is also interesting to see the different opinions on each trade. Generally, I have found that no one vetos unless it really is a bad trade, and certainly never seen a reasonable trade get vetoed out of spite.