Another stupid "should I veto" thread (1 Viewer)

[steelerfan1]

What does your bad experience has to do with this specific VETO?"I know this one veto that was a bad call therefore no veto is allowed"="I have a uncle was proven innocent while in prison, therefore no one should goto prison"="I had a wife who always cheated on me and I had to divorce her, never married again therefor no one should have a wife."Your logic is an epic fail!!

feel your pain as commish, but unless you know the teams are cheating, how can you veto?we just had two trades go through yesterday that are probably going to end our 11 year league, but there was no collusion, just what appears to be really lopsided deals, but each owner had a reason why they wanted to do the trade.the 1 year that i vetoed a trade it was for and owner wanting to trade corey dillon for marty booker.this was when corey dillon was a somebody and marty booker was a nobody.i thought the guy wanting to get booker was getting robbed and didn't allow trade.turns out marty booker became a somebody that year and i was wrong.had a good owner leave that year because i made a decision for HIS team.can't prove cheating gotta let owners run THEIR team.

I couldn't agree more with this. I was in a league years ago that required all of the managers to vote on trades. Team A had running back depth that he wanted to trade to Team B for a stud WR. All of the managers said the WR wasn't of equal value, so they vetoed it. Long story short, the WR put up big numbers in the playoffs that would have won Team A the championship. I haven't been in a league since that allows this veto BS to happen. If it can happen to someone else, it can happen to you.

my point is if you can't prove collusion you shouldn't be able to veto.suspected collusion is not proof of collusion.

 

[bleedgreen]

suspected collusion is not proof of collusion.

I might have asked this question earlier in the thread...but short of overhearing a phone conversation or seeing an email, when is someone able to prove collusion beyond reasonable doubt? If a team was 0 - 8 and traded Peyton Manning to their best friend who was 6 - 2 for Kellen Winslow, would you veto? Just because you didn't catch someone "red handed" you wouldn't veto?

 

[PoolShark]

Very hard to veto as a commish.

You could always put it to the league and use that as cover.

But what I REALLY think is that we allow trades WAAAAYYYY too late in redraft leagues. It indirectly encourages shenanigans.

Next season, trade deadline should be kickoff Week 8. I see more and more of this. It is a ###-for-tat reciprocity expectation from one season to the next.

Seriously.

One problem with the trade deadline being earlier is that the bye weeks aren't over, and this can be a hurdle in negotiations. I like to have the deadline after the last bye week so everyone is on even footing again. As far as collusion, I don't know if the trade was collusion -- it's not a good trade but not enough for me to veto --- I've been reading that Greene is going to get a much bigger piece of the pie moving forward, he could end up being far more valuable in the 2nd half of the season than he was thus far.

In our league we have no trade deadline. As long as your team is still in the running for the playoffs you can make trades. The moment you're eliminated (be it week 7, 12, etc), there is no more trading for you.

Ditto. Trade deadines suck IMO, but if your team has no shot at the playoffs, what's the point of trying to "improve it" if that's what Team B wants to call this? Unless you have to pay for losses or something, where is the benefit for Team B, even assuming he really thinks he's improving his team? At 2-7 I have to think you're out of the playoff hunt in almost any league.

 

[steelerfan1]

suspected collusion is not proof of collusion.

I might have asked this question earlier in the thread...but short of overhearing a phone conversation or seeing an email, when is someone able to prove collusion beyond reasonable doubt? If a team was 0 - 8 and traded Peyton Manning to their best friend who was 6 - 2 for Kellen Winslow, would you veto? Just because you didn't catch someone "red handed" you wouldn't veto?

yeah, i think it's a tough thing bleedgreenwe actually have moved to a league vote, but if the guys making the trade both had reasonable answers what should the commish do? i doubt they could make a reasonable argument for the above case, but if they did, those guys payed their money too.again, these are the gray areas i don't enjoy.

 

[steelerfan1]

Trade deadines suck IMO, but if your team has no shot at the playoffs, what's the point of trying to "improve it" if that's what Team B wants to call this? Unless you have to pay for losses or something, where is the benefit for Team B, even assuming he really thinks he's improving his team? At 2-7 I have to think you're out of the playoff hunt in almost any league.

i think some leagues, at least ours give payouts for weekly high score so you could argue that they have the right to try to improve their team because they should have the chance to get that.also if teams are out of it should they not be allwed to pick up free agents?

 

[bleedgreen]

we actually have moved to a league vote, but if the guys making the trade both had reasonable answers what should the commish do? i doubt they could make a reasonable argument for the above case, but if they did, those guys payed their money too.again, these are the gray areas i don't enjoy.

I understand...I'm sure it's tough to be a commish and have to make these kind of decisions. I think if a commish has sole veto power, he should ask the league in a situation like this to see what everyone else is thinking and then act in the best interest of the league. If a few guys have his back, it should be an easy decision. It's not good for a commish to overreact, but it's also not good for a commish to be afraid to make decisions.

 

[PoolShark]

Trade deadines suck IMO, but if your team has no shot at the playoffs, what's the point of trying to "improve it" if that's what Team B wants to call this? Unless you have to pay for losses or something, where is the benefit for Team B, even assuming he really thinks he's improving his team? At 2-7 I have to think you're out of the playoff hunt in almost any league.

i think some leagues, at least ours give payouts for weekly high score so you could argue that they have the right to try to improve their team because they should have the chance to get that.also if teams are out of it should they not be allwed to pick up free agents?

My league actually does give out a weekly hi score prize, but doesn't allow trades by eliminated teams. FAs are allowed though. Good points, tough questions and unfortunately ones that you'll never get everyone to agree on.

 

[TWP]

Yeah, we have a big payout for high score each week (almost a full buy-in, since it's a 28 team league). So in all honesty, if he had said "Look, i'm out of the playoffs, but I think these guys are boom-or-bust guys. If they bust, who cares, I'm out anyways. But if they boom, I could win high score a week or two." That would actually be in his best interest, but would also screw everyone else in the league. As has been said, tough questions. In any case, here, with all of the circumstances, and knowing the guys, I had to make the call to veto, especially since Team B wasnt really able to defend the trade at all. And I think the fact that 1/3 of the people on this board, where no one ever wants to veto, voted to veto actually is pretty decent support for my position. Again, thanks all.