Veto Trade Rules (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

A seven year league I have been a part of implimented the veto trade rule this year. My topic of discussion is why? This league has a horrid history of trades as it is and now they are vetoing every trade I manage to get accepted. I think this rule just invokes the question to each team as "will this trade help my team or not". I think this sucks and trades should only get vetoed if there is clear collusion or a clear loss of interest of one team to make trades to improve. So:

(veto = commissioner or 1/3 of the teams)

1- Does you league have the veto rule?

2- Do you like it?

3- Is it abused like I think it is?

4- What is the strategy here?

TIA

PS. I would list the trades that were vetoed, but I think that is probably better for the Assistant Coach Forum.

 

[Ozymandias]

No, we do not have a member veto rule. Commissioner decides. but has never vetoed in 7 years, because no trade has ever smacked of collusion. However, if we did have a veto rule, it would have to be unanimous (other than the teams involved.)

 

[Fish Out of Water]

Voting is seems to draw the most controversy. Your league seems tired of bad trades and it's strict standard will reduce your league to a no trade league with the exception of groups of owners that will not be comfortable if confronted when a trade gets vetoed.

Strategy: Don't wast time on trades anymore. Point out why every trade accepted in future could be unfair. It is very hard to have a trade 2/3 of a league will see as helping both team and be equal in value.

Good luck.

 

[supersecretid]

Here's what everyone is going to say:

"Commissioner veto only. Only veto is there's collusion."

The response that never seems to be given to that is: What if you really enjoy playing with your friends? What if your friends are casual fantasy players and not that good? Do you just let weaker owners shred their teams and give up their best talent to the more experienced owners? I've been in leagues where that happens and it's not fun.

So if you don't do that then how do you determine what is fair? I get really tired of the "only veto for collusion" statements. I can't believe that's always the best solution.

 

[tonydead]

No, we do not have a member veto rule. Commissioner decides. but has never vetoed in 7 years, because no trade has ever smacked of collusion. However, if we did have a veto rule, it would have to be unanimous (other than the teams involved.)

I have submitted the question to the commish on the latest trade asking wheather it was a commish veto or a 1/3 team vote. It seems too easy for a third of the teams (possibly loosing teams) to not want winning teams to make trades. My point, winning teams make trades + bad teams voting against trades = bad rule and boring league.Thanks

 

[BigSteelThrill]

2 veto'd trades in 20 years.

Lots of crying, gnashing of teeth and smack talk about unfair trades. Its a better deterrent.

But unfair trades almost always make it through the veto process.

Several teams must complain within 24 hours. Then it goes to the rules committee. 99.9% get passed.

 

[tonydead]

Here's what everyone is going to say:"Commissioner veto only. Only veto is there's collusion."The response that never seems to be given to that is: What if you really enjoy playing with your friends? What if your friends are casual fantasy players and not that good? Do you just let weaker owners shred their teams and give up their best talent to the more experienced owners? I've been in leagues where that happens and it's not fun.So if you don't do that then how do you determine what is fair? I get really tired of the "only veto for collusion" statements. I can't believe that's always the best solution.

Ok, then what is fair? Do you have any ideas? 1/3 of the league vetoing because they don't see an advantage to them of a top team getting a trade they negotiated seem fair does it?Thanks

 

[tonydead]

2 veto'd trades in 20 years.Lots of crying, gnashing of teeth and smack talk about unfair trades. Its a better deterrent.But unfair trades almost always make it through the veto process. Several teams must complain within 24 hours. Then it goes to the rules committee. 99.9% get passed.

Your rules seem better. Mine is 2 days and no such thing as a rules committee. We are at 33% passed this year.

 

[Wadsworth]

Had a trade before this season started in my main league that was basically Maroney(1.12) for Chad Johnson(2.24). Some people freaked at what a steal the guy getting Maroney was getting. What a difference 3 weeks makes.

I hate veto voting with a passion and wouldn't join a league with it ever again. It causes far more problems than it solves. I've seen trades vetod and later polled the owners that voted for the veto and found out they were split down the middle on which side of the trade they thought was unfair. I lost a championship due to a vetod trade where they thought I was getting ripped off. If that trade goes through, I would have won a lot of money. It takes a special league for it to work I guess, if it ever really works at all.

 

[Max Power]

my league has had a veto problem for the past 3 years. Vetos like crazy. This season we tryed to solve the problem by limiting the amount of vetos each owner can make.

Our limit is 2 vetos all season. once you use them, you are done and have no say anymore. If 6 owners (12 team) veto a trade it will not go through.

So far this season 3 trades have been made with no problems.

A system like this will be useful in the future, it really makes owners pick and choose thier battles.

 

[tonydead]

my league has had a veto problem for the past 3 years. Vetos like crazy. This season we tryed to solve the problem by limiting the amount of vetos each owner can make.Our limit is 2 vetos all season. once you use them, you are done and have no say anymore. If 6 owners (12 team) veto a trade it will not go through. So far this season 3 trades have been made with no problems. A system like this will be useful in the future, it really makes owners pick and choose thier battles.

I like this idea! If there is a veto rule give out a limited number. Kindof like challenge flags! Thanks for posting a solution!!

 

[gman8343]

I've commished one league since '95 and there have been two trades in that time that have been vetoed. One today.

I let all trades go through, then if an owner believes the trade is unfair they let me know and I pick 3 random owners who weren't involved in the trade and they vote on it, majority rules. I'd rather not let everyone vote on every trade, especially on a website, cause I think the risk of many trades being vetoed is much greater, and I'm a big believer that trades should go through unless there's obvious collusion.

Only twice has there been an official complaint, though people gripe all the time about one team getting raked over the coals. The one that was vetoed today was Lamont Jordan & Derrick Mason for Willie Parker & Torry Holt. The owner who complained said it was threatening the integrity of the league, and the othes agreed. The guy who traded away Parker/Holt is new and seems to be an idiot - he claimed he pressed the wrong button and sent the trade offer with Parker when it should have been Brandon Jackson, but was too embarrassed to admit it until after the trade was vetoed.

 

[Gravedigger]

I don't think other owners know why a team makes a trade and I don't think they should be forced to tell people.

I won a championship or two by, once I had a decent chance at getting to the play-offs, starting to trade my best players for slightly inferior ones who had great play-off match-ups. The league is about winning championships, not total points. You cannot evalute my trades anymore than I can evaluate yours.

And, if you say I should just explain that to everyone - why should I tell people how I think? If my tactic works, why should I just hand it to everyone else?

What about the guy who realizes his main competition is X and he makes trades to have great players against X during the two weeks they play - but a worse line-up against the teams he doesn't fear?

Add the fact that some folks are so deep at a position that they can AFFORD to dish a better player for a lesser one if it improves their line-up and I think evaulating one-for-one projected player points is silly.

Now, if you have collusion, that's where things are unfair. That is vetoable if you ask me.

Lastly, if someone takes advantage of a newbie, I think the commish can consider it 'unwitting collusion' and bring it to a league vote. It is not as though these newbie senarios are tough to sniff out. Giving up LT the first time you are in a league, for Curry, is certainly unwitting collusion. A commish with any experience should be able to control this situation as well.

 

[Wadsworth]

I don't think other owners know why a team makes a trade and I don't think they should be forced to tell people.I won a championship or two by, once I had a decent chance at getting to the play-offs, starting to trade my best players for slightly inferior ones who had great play-off match-ups. The league is about winning championships, not total points. You cannot evalute my trades anymore than I can evaluate yours.And, if you say I should just explain that to everyone - why should I tell people how I think? If my tactic works, why should I just hand it to everyone else?What about the guy who realizes his main competition is X and he makes trades to have great players against X during the two weeks they play - but a worse line-up against the teams he doesn't fear?Add the fact that some folks are so deep at a position that they can AFFORD to dish a better player for a lesser one if it improves their line-up and I think evaulating one-for-one projected player points is silly.

 

[jagerbomb]

Here's what everyone is going to say:"Commissioner veto only. Only veto is there's collusion."The response that never seems to be given to that is: What if you really enjoy playing with your friends? What if your friends are casual fantasy players and not that good? Do you just let weaker owners shred their teams and give up their best talent to the more experienced owners? I've been in leagues where that happens and it's not fun.So if you don't do that then how do you determine what is fair? I get really tired of the "only veto for collusion" statements. I can't believe that's always the best solution.

 

[jagerbomb]

For the league that I commish, the sole responsibility for vetoing trades lies with me. It's stated in the rules that I can veto for collusion or blatantly lopsided trades and that I have full discretion in identifying trades that meet those criteria. I will listen to input as respond to any concerns, but the rules are clear that I make the final decision. Luckily I haven't had to veto in the 5 years that I've run the league and hopefully I never will. I think this is the best way to run it.

I also added a rule that once you trade away a player, you can't have that player on your roster for the rest of the year, this eliminates some of possibilities for collusion, "renting" players to cover a bye. I'm aware that some may disagree with this one, but I think it's a good way to avoid problems.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This gets solved if you have a good "neighborhood watch" kind of system in the league. Owners are less liekly to try to get away with shenanigans if they know their friends will call them out on it. Everyone knows what's right and what's wrong.

If someone gest out of line with a trade, the commish should make the decision. A league should never be empowered to approve a trade between two teams. Owners are going to vote in their team's best interest.