Guys Who Veto Trades

[bigmck]

Of the four leagues I am in, two of them have guys who seem to always be the same ones who Veto a trade. I just get the impression that some guys would Veto a trade just because they did not get the trade and don't want to see anyone else improve their team. Do any of you feel this way about leagues you are in? Thanks,

[wazzeus]

My league doesn't have vetoes, but sometimes I wish it did. There have been many cases of one buddy helping out another, with the expectation that the back-scratching will later be returned (and it always is). There also are too many instances of trades happening where better offers are either ignored or turned down out of apparent personal alliances.

Owners who don't respond to or acknowledge e-mail have no business playing. It's just common courtesy.

[jfg]

I think the general consensus I've seen around here (which I agree with) is that no trade should be vetoed unless it's obvious collusion as mentioned in the last post.

I've had leagues in the past where vetos have happened and it just comes off as trying to tell an owner how to run their team and in one case the league was completely wrong and the owner, who the league thought was getting worked over, wasn't too happy about the final results.

[converge241]

Almost every league i have ever been in that allows a standard easy anonymous veto button, I always see folks like that - a combo of:

Jealous they didnt get the player or good deal
Spot protecting

I try to avoid those types of leagues whenever possible now, either in leagues with no trades, commish review, or a structured veto system that deters most of it (and it still happens int hat one just not as widespread)

[bigmck]

I have run one league on CBS for 17 years. It is a salary keeper league. Most of the guys have been in the league at least ten years. We have no trade veto, only a salary cap. If you can make a trade and remain under the cap, it is a good trade. It is refreshing to know that when a trade is made in this league, there is no veto forthcoming. == In my other leagues on ESPN, of course they have the veto. I run two leagues and even trying to make a veto hard, trades still get overturned. I have it set for 50% of the owners in a two day review period. This year seems to be harder than most or maybe it is just my imagination. What kind of settings for the veto votes and review period do you have in your leagues that seem to work? Thanks,

[Quackman]

There are trades that need to be vetoed. Collusion or not, especially when they happen near the start of the season.

[WaCougMBS]

There are trades that need to be vetoed. Collusion or not, especially when they happen near the start of the season.

No obvious collusion, no veto is not a good rule, it should be the only rule. The start-of-the-season argument is like saying that fouls arent' fouls in the final minute of an NBA Finals game IMO

[Quackman]

There are trades that need to be vetoed. Collusion or not, especially when they happen near the start of the season.

No obvious collusion, no veto is not a good rule, it should be the only rule. The start-of-the-season argument is like saying that fouls arent' fouls in the final minute of an NBA Finals game IMO

wrong. To keep a league fair there are more situations than just collusion. Go to the trade thread,,,there is a guy that started a thread about ripping a guy off by trading willingham for braun and upton.,,,obv this would have to be vetoed even if your positive there is no collusion. Sometimes owners give up and and dont care,,,if trades are done with this mindset, its not fair to the league to allow people to get windfalls. Happens alot at the beg of the year if someone has a real bad draft or missed it.

[bigmck]

There are trades that need to be vetoed. Collusion or not, especially when they happen near the start of the season.

No obvious collusion, no veto is not a good rule, it should be the only rule. The start-of-the-season argument is like saying that fouls arent' fouls in the final minute of an NBA Finals game IMO

wrong. To keep a league fair there are more situations than just collusion. Go to the trade thread,,,there is a guy that started a thread about ripping a guy off by trading willingham for braun and upton.,,,obv this would have to be vetoed even if your positive there is no collusion. Sometimes owners give up and and dont care,,,if trades are done with this mindset, its not fair to the league to allow people to get windfalls. Happens alot at the beg of the year if someone has a real bad draft or missed it.

I don't believe a league should be the guardian of every stupid Owner. Guys who veto bad trades are only jealous they did not do it first.

[Quackman]

No obvious collusion, no veto is not a good rule, it should be the only rule. The start-of-the-season argument is like saying that fouls arent' fouls in the final minute of an NBA Finals game IMO

wrong. To keep a league fair there are more situations than just collusion. Go to the trade thread,,,there is a guy that started a thread about ripping a guy off by trading willingham for braun and upton.,,,obv this would have to be vetoed even if your positive there is no collusion. Sometimes owners give up and and dont care,,,if trades are done with this mindset, its not fair to the league to allow people to get windfalls. Happens alot at the beg of the year if someone has a real bad draft or missed it.

I don't believe a league should be the guardian of every stupid Owner. Guys who veto bad trades are only jealous they did not do it first.

So your saying the above trade shouldn't be vetoed? Willingham for Braun and j. Upton? C'mon,,of course it should. According to you though,,if there is no collusion you wouldnt veto. Your right you are kind of saving the idiot owners but I thinks it's necessary to keep the league fair.