MakeItVibrate wrote:I personally feel that its not a democracy when it comes to FBB. If two teams make a good trade to improve both of their teams, you have 10 or 12 other teams who dont want them to improve(it is a competition). So they all feel obligated to veto every trade. Then youre stuck in a league with absolutely NO TRADES at all. On the other hand, who am I(commish) to say whether a trade is to be passed or not? There always seems to be one or two teams that take advantage of other teams that are not as informed on players. How are your guys leagues ran as far as this matter, and how do you feel as far as league or commish veto? If its league veto, how many votes to veto? Half the league? A quarter of the league?
Signed... A disgruntled commish whos going to retire after this season. smh
I've been at this for over 20 years now and I'll give a brief recap of my experience.
For the longest time, my leagues had some kind of "self-regulating" trade mechanism PLUS a veto option. In all those years, the veto was NEVER used. In the one or times it could have been, the most common response from those who wouldn't pull the trigger was it wasn't the merits of the trade itself but, rather, if they exercised it the feared by persecuted and avoided as a trade partner. In the meantime, the trade mechanisms would always turn out to be rife with loopholes to the point where trades were *worsened* to merely make them in a way to get around the mechanism. One caveat - the veto rule stipulated that it could only be used if one specific criteria was met.
In the last couple of years, I managed to convince everyone to get rid of the self-regulating mechanisms (almost all of which were predicated on the salaries of the players involved) and strictly have a veto that could be exercised for any reason by an owner. Migrating to on-line services (CBS, ESPN), the veto also became a truly anonymous submission plus the Commissioner has the power to override the veto or clear the trade before it even goes to one. The end result actually has been substantially "fairer" trading and much less argument.
That being said, I'm really not a fan of trade regulation at all. In 4x4 or 5x5 formats, no player can possibly contribute to more than half the categories and with rare exceptions even contribute to THAT many (i.e. 4 or 5.) That doesn't even count the risk of injuries, pitchers almost never being "sure things", etc. that often, in the end, mitigate the aftermath. Unless there is some kind of massive 10+ player swap that goes way out of it's way to one team dumping itself to oblivion and one dominating the league even if half the players underwhelm, I'm not convinced that trade regulation (including in just about all cases, veto rules) is necessary. If the league really appears to be that corrupt at the Commissioner level or among the owners, there's always one smart strategy - leave it.