league veto power is terrible!!!

[Bloody Nipples]

just look what my league just vetoed:

I would have gotten Wood/Baldelli/Kolb

He would have gotten Garland/Benitez/Kaz

That is a very fair trade IMO ( )

[patterson4president]

i'd rather have the wood side b/cuz of wood alone (but baldelli is a major bust). However that trade should never be vetoed....vetoes should only be used if there is evidence of collusion b/cuz peoples opinions vary and you need to respect that.

[Bloody Nipples]

Well, I just pulled the same trade again, except with Cintron instead of Baldelli. Lets hope my league wisens up.

[Kelly Gruber]

It sucks sometimes. Some guys veto for stupid reasons; they want to trade for the same player you're trading for, and shit like that. What should be done is return to the old system; people veto by posting messages and the commish presses the veto button. That way veto-ers do not stay anonymous and have to explain themselves to the disgruntled owner(s) and that might deter them in the future from vetoing so hastily. What I do now is talk it over with the most respected guy in the pool and when I propose the trade he posts a message saying that it is fair and then people do not veto it. The unfortunate thing is that this gives him a lot of power...I'll still win anyways...

[Danimal]

Little early to say Baldelli is a bust. I thought the team getting Wood was getting a pretty good deal.

[agchris02]

the team getting wood is ROBBING the other team, that is EXACTLY why vetoes exist -- two fold reason
1) protect against collusion
2) protect against outright idiots, which is the same result as colluding (as in this case)

I know i would have clicked veto without thinking twice

[fishingmn]

I'd have been tempted to veto it as well.

Obviously you are getting the better end of the deal.

The problem with one sided deals is that they throw off the competitive balance in a league which makes it less fun for all involved. My answer for those leagues that allow 1 or 2 teams to load up on talent at the expense of others is to quit which just makes the league that much more crappy.

[WharfRat]

That's definitely a veto-able trade, wood/Garland and Baldelli/Kaz are both in your favor. But I see what you're saying, I've had perfectly fair trades vetoed, it's frustrating. The tyranny of democracy.

[Transmogrifier]

Vetos should only be done for one reason: Collusion.

If both owners believe it helps their teams, then you let it go. The commissioner didn't step in and tell the Red Sox that they couldn't trade Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, did he? Stupid owners, overreacting owners, and poor player decisions are part of fantasy.

[Pogotheostrich]

Vetoing a trade for any other reason than collusion seems to me to be the act of a bitter owner. No one is forcing anyone to make trades. Just because the trade favors one owner does not mean that it should be vetoed.