To Veto or Not To Veto (1 Viewer)

[Road Warriors]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

Anyone can create extreme examples to try to make a point. If a trade like that went through, it would certainly raise the spectre of collusions. The receiver of Nate Washington would never be able to justify why he thinks the deal makes his team better.

This.

Right, hence the need for the veto in the example I gave. I'm just saying that you can't say "never veto without proven collusion". There are extreme cases where it's necessary.

It may not be proof of collusion, but if an owner making a trade can't articulate how it improves his team, that's close enough to collusion for me to veto. You don't need wiretaps or written confessions, and it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law. Common sense can rule the day.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

Anyone can create extreme examples to try to make a point. If a trade like that went through, it would certainly raise the spectre of collusions. The receiver of Nate Washington would never be able to justify why he thinks the deal makes his team better.

This.

Right, hence the need for the veto in the example I gave. I'm just saying that you can't say "never veto without proven collusion". There are extreme cases where it's necessary.

It may not be proof of collusion, but if an owner making a trade can't articulate how it improves his team, that's close enough to collusion for me to veto. You don't need wiretaps or written confessions, and it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law. Common sense can rule the day.

Agree.