JTWood wrote:Your league needs to understand that the only reason to veto should be collusion. If they think you guys are working together for some lopsided benefit to one party, then the trade should be vetoed. Otherwise, they are dictating value, and we all know that value is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.
Like it or not, the veto process empowers other owners to have some say in player value. I don't agree that collusion is the only reason to veto a trade and I don't see the point of spreading it as gospel. Yahoo leaves vetoing discretion to its managers and nowhere states that collusion should be the only reason to use it.
Or maybe it's just the definition of collusion that needs to be better understood. A player who is treating his team frivolously and accepting trades out of apathy is almost as collusive (and potentially damaging to the league) as one who is negotiating an outright firesale.
When the value difference is extreme, players reserve the right to veto deals they are uncomfortable with.
I recognize that vetoes are necessary, but only in rare cases.
I've been the commissioner of my league for 4 years, and I only had to veto one trade, in the first year of my league, and it was blatant collusion.
Neither manager was invited back and since there has never been a problem.
That said, with only the information provided, I couldn't say for sure that I would veto this one. I'd need to know a little more, perhaps most importantly, how active the manager giving up Morneau has been.