I know vetoing is not a perfect practice, nor is it even "good". But trust me, all these "experts" that proclaim how (no trade should be vetoed, and if its very bad kick them out of the league next season) are shortsighted.
I posted about this the other night in another thread, I will try and copy it here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think "vetoing trades" is a better alternative than not having any safeguards in place. I have heard it time and time again in podcasts. "You shouldn't have that ability, we are all grown men, if they cant trade fairly then kick them out of the league for next year". But they are all so blind to the fact that it can screw your league up THIS YEAR.
Suppose one guy makes this trade this year....... Team A - Gronk, Pat Mahomes, Antonio Brown and Alvin Kamara, for Team B's - Jimmy Graham, Marcus Mariota, Laquon Treadwell, and Marlon Mack. This is far too heavily stacked into Team Bs favor.
Do you think that trade is even remotely close? The "experts" would all allow that to fly through in a non-veto league, even though its almost obviously collusion especially if it were blatantly filling Team B's only weak spots. I am in no way saying using a trade veto system is perfect and without issues, but having essentially no safeguard in place is WORSE . Suppose you let that go in a non veto league, how does that bear out for the non offending teams? I will tell you how, it stacks one team unfairly and ruins the league. (I could make this ironclad, if I used an example of say one team trades Todd Gurley for another teams third string Ito Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also note at the time I wrote this, Marlon Mack and Marcus Mariota were injured. I know some can argue that others see future upside far differently than others. But the point is, sometimes these trades the "experts" say should always go through, are so unfair that they heavily sway the outcome of a league, even if not blatant collusion. Most often its one owner taking advantage of another less knowledgeable owner.
What they all don't take into account, is it often ruins the integrity of a league for the entire season, and ruins weaker owners' enjoyment. Often to such an extent it causes them to stop fantasy altogether. Remember guys, not all ordinary, non-sophistocated fantasy players are in multiple leagues like we are. Suppose you are in one main league every year, and its all everyone in the neighborhood thinks about and gets geared up for. Then in week 6 along comes a trade thats so heavily lopsided in someones favor, it makes one team nearly unbeatable, and essentially ruins the league, ruining many casual owners season and fun, thereby driving them from the fantasy community altogether.
Is this an extreme example? Sure. Do I think vetoing trades is a good idea, no I don't. But regardless of what many people think, having at least SOME type of safeguard in place, beats HAVING NONE IN PLACE WHATSOEVER .
I know you can argue this in the other direction, but I'm convinced having veto power is better than having no control whatsoever.
Like its the lesser of two evils.
(and for kicks, the trade posted in the OP isn't even remotely veto-able)
TZM