The Fantasy Trade Veto

[thatcoolguy_22]

When is it proper to do it?

[*BaseClogger*]

Lets make this a poll: collusion or fairness?

[Stephenk29]

When a guy is in the cellar and simply doesn't care any more = often

[AtomicDumpling]

The veto rule was instituted as a means of preventing collusion in leagues without a commissioner.

In free Internet leagues it is frequently abused by dishonest players to void trades that might help their opponents.

[NJReds]

In free leagues it usually takes a good percentage 4 or more, to veto a trade. I'll make the arguement that in a free league, half the teams don't care enough to veto. If that many are against a trade, there's usually a reason for it beyond not wanting a good team to get better. It's a case-by-case basis.

In the case that Atomic is bringing up, the deal that got vetoed was:

Team A trades: Albert Pujols and Roy Oswalt

Team B trades: Chris Iannetta, Brad Lidge and Johnny Cueto

It's a 12-team, NL-only, Dynasty League

[AtomicDumpling]

In free leagues it usually takes a good percentage 4 or more, to veto a trade. I'll make the arguement that in a free league, half the teams don't care enough to veto. If that many are against a trade, there's usually a reason for it beyond not wanting a good team to get better. It's a case-by-case basis.

In the case that Atomic is bringing up, the deal that got vetoed was:

Team A trades: Albert Pujols and Roy Oswalt

Team B trades: Chris Iannetta, Brad Lidge and Johnny Cueto

It's a 12-team, NL-only, Dynasty League

You were one of the selfish people that voted against the trade. :thumbdown

Some people just can't stand it when one of their opponents improves their team. If you can abuse the system to interfere with my team then don't let your integrity get in the way. :rolleyes:

[*BaseClogger*]

It's a 10 team league.

NJReds, I think you should clarify whether or not you vetoed the trade, and if so, give us your reasoning...

[AtomicDumpling]

It's a 10 team league.

NJReds, I think you should clarify whether or not you vetoed the trade, and if so, give us your reasoning...


This is what NJ Red Machine said after GOnaDs whined about the trade:

"That is a strange deal. I with you."

I took that to mean he was vetoing also.

This is a league where all the players are from Redszone. So you can't get away with anonymously doing things detrimental to the league. This is what sets the league apart from random Yahoo leagues with total strangers. When we started the league we hoped to avoid the types of shenanigans that occur in the random leagues by having a commissioner and a group of adult players that would feel some social responsibility to their "friends" from Redszone.

When two owners come to an agreement to make a trade you do not have the right to nullify the trade unless it can be shown those owners were colluding or conspiring to cheat.

Non-participants in a trade don't know the reasons the trade was made. Everybody has different strategies and ideas of a player's value, especially in a dynasty league.

This league seemed great when we first began. But then some owners quit paying attention early last season and half the owners dropped out after last year. A dynasty league must have continuity from season-to-season or it will quickly fail. The league has some major flaws and a lack of leadership and has devolved into something a few of us have already expressed an interest in leaving. A group of core owners might spin off into a new edition of the league next year and populate the league with other owners that share our vision of what a competitive, friendly, long-term dynasty league should be.

[AtomicDumpling]

It's a 12-team, NL-only, Dynasty League

It is a 10 team NL-only league with 27-man rosters plus 2 DL slots and 19 starting positions .

What this means is that every starting player in the National League is taken and so are almost all the bench players. Most of our teams have several prospects and minor leaguers as well. So if your team has a hole created by an injury for example, you may have to scramble just to find a warm body to put in your lineup. You can't just go to the free agent list and find someone to replace an injured player. The free agent list is completely barren and any prospect with any hope of becoming a good player is also taken. Some of our teams are forced to put part-time players and pinch-hitters in our starting lineups just to try and salvage any production at all.

This situation makes any good player a valuable commodity -- especially catchers and closers. Young guys are highly preferable to older players because this is a long term league.

Sometimes you can greatly improve your team by overpaying for a particular player or group of players. For example, due to Jeff Kent's retirement I was left without a second baseman on my roster this year. There were no starting second basemen available as free agents of course. So I was forced to overpay just to fill out my lineup. I had to give up Brad Hawpe and Casey Kotchman to obtain Dan Uggla. Hawpe and Kotchman are both out-producing Uggla by a wide margin, but otherwise I would have a vacancy at 2B.

Similarly, you can fill a group of positions with good players by trading a star player.

In an effort to balance my pitching-rich, hitting-poor team I offered Johan Santana for Albert Pujols of the New York Knights -- a hitting-rich, pitching poor team the exact opposite of mine. Knights declined that offer and countered with Pujols and rapidly deteriorating Roy Oswalt for young ace Johnny Cueto, a good hitting young catcher in Chris Iannetta and a proven stud closer in Brad Lidge. I accepted the deal. It helps both teams a lot by filling holes and balancing out lopsided teams.

I was excited by the deal because I enjoy making trades. It is one of the best aspects of fantasy sports. But the thrill was soon ruined when some competitors realized the trade significantly improved both my team and Knights' team. Why not veto the trade to prevent us from moving up in the ranks!

And that is how leagues quickly fall apart.

[WMR]

This is what NJ Red Machine said after GOnaDs whined about the trade:

"That is a strange deal. I with you."

I took that to mean he was vetoing also.

This is a league where all the players are from Redszone. So you can't get away with anonymously doing things detrimental to the league. This is what sets the league apart from random Yahoo leagues with total strangers. When we started the league we hoped to avoid the types of shenanigans that occur in the random leagues by having a commissioner and a group of adult players that would feel some social responsibility to their "friends" from Redszone.

When two owners come to an agreement to make a trade you do not have the right to nullify the trade unless it can be shown those owners were colluding or conspiring to cheat.

Non-participants in a trade don't know the reasons the trade was made. Everybody has different strategies and ideas of a player's value, especially in a dynasty league.

This league seemed great when we first began. But then some owners quit paying attention early last season and half the owners dropped out after last year. A dynasty league must have continuity from season-to-season or it will quickly fail. The league has some major flaws and a lack of leadership and has devolved into something a few of us have already expressed an interest in leaving. A group of core owners might spin off into a new edition of the league next year and populate the league with other owners that share our vision of what a competitive, friendly, long-term dynasty league should be.

Just curious, but why is your definition the only standard that a member may apply when exercising his veto power?

[AtomicDumpling]

Just curious, but why is your definition the only standard that a member may apply when exercising his veto power?

It isn't. That is the standard of fantasy leagues for decades though.

Teenagers and people new to fantasy sports don't realize the history of collusion that caused Yahoo to institute the veto process. They think the veto is an opportunity to prevent someone from gaining an edge, and that is where the problem begins.

Most people will pretend their reason for vetoing a trade was to valiantly come to the defense of a poor, foolish newbie that was taken advantage of by someone else. In reality they are just protecting their own interests.

There are no foolish newbies in our league. There are some dishonest people apparently.

The veto was instituted to prevent collusion in leagues without a commissioner. Most Yahoo leagues don't have commissioners. As a veteran of fantasy sports for about 20 years I have seen plenty of collusion. I have not seen any collusion in a Redszone league yet, but I have seen people try to prevent trades from happening. Vetoing has ruined more leagues than collusion in my experience. The best solution is a strong, fair, trustworthy commissioner.

[*BaseClogger*]

Just curious, but why is your definition the only standard that a member may apply when exercising his veto power?

It's what the veto is for. It's kinda like how the fire alarm is in case of a fire, not because you didn't study for exams or don't feel like working...

[AtomicDumpling]

It's what the veto is for. It's kinda like how the fire alarm is in case of a fire, not because you didn't study for exams or don't feel like working...

That is a perfect explanation. :beerme:

[NJReds]

NJReds, I think you should clarify whether or not you vetoed the trade, and if so, give us your reasoning...

Crap. I just spent 5 minutes writing a reply, lost my Internet connection, and lost my response.

In any event, the abridged version:

- Yes I was one of at least four, including the guy who made the deal, to veto it.

- No, I'm not a selfish owner or a teenager. I joined the league this year and took over the worst roster available. I'm not winning this year or, most likely next.

- I don't think the veto is only for the most extreme cases. In this case, I thought Cueto, Iannetta and Lidge was an extremely light return for Pujols, who is in his prime and will most likely never be dealt to the AL. If it was Pujols for Santana, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

- I had a deal questioned in a Redszone league. Instead of namecalling and threatening to quit, I explained why I thought it was fair and let the chips fall.

- If the league owners don't want the veto, get rid of it and let the Commish decide on deals. If he's fine with this deal, let him override the veto. We haven't heard from him on this case. I'd be interested to hear his take.

[*BaseClogger*]

- If the league owners don't want the veto, get rid of it and let the Commish decide on deals. If he's fine with this deal, let him override the veto. We haven't heard from him on this case. I'd be interested to hear his take.

Very important point...

[AtomicDumpling]

Crap. I just spent 5 minutes writing a reply, lost my Internet connection, and lost my response.

In any event, the abridged version:

- Yes I was one of at least four, including the guy who made the deal, to veto it.

- No, I'm not a selfish owner or a teenager. I joined the league this year and took over the worst roster available. I'm not winning this year or, most likely next.

- I don't think the veto is only for the most extreme cases. In this case, I thought Cueto, Iannetta and Lidge was an extremely light return for Pujols, who is in his prime and will most likely never be dealt to the AL. If it was Pujols for Santana, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

- I had a deal questioned in a Redszone league. Instead of namecalling and threatening to quit, I explained why I thought it was fair and let the chips fall.

- If the league owners don't want the veto, get rid of it and let the Commish decide on deals. If he's fine with this deal, let him override the veto. We haven't heard from him on this case. I'd be interested to hear his take.

You vetoed a trade between two players with far better track records than yours without waiting to hear an explanation from the participants. So I don't buy your excuses.

There won't be a next year for this league. At least for you.

This league barely survived its first year. If mbgrayson hadn't pulled this league out of the ashes this spring it would have been dead already. I have no desire to play with selfish players and I won't next year.

There are way too many leagues to choose from to justify selecting one with players that don't play fair.

[Dom Heffner]

If I played in a league with a veto power, that trade would have been voted down in a heartbeat.

Even if Lidge was awesome -he is awful- that is still a rotten deal.

If you don't want lousy trades vetoed, play in a league without vetoes.

One can certainly make the argument that teams should reserve the right to be stupid, but you should play in a league that allows that.

That trade is all kinds of awful.

[NJReds]

You vetoed a trade between two players with far better track records than yours without waiting to hear an explanation from the participants. So I don't buy your excuses.

There won't be a next year for this league. At least for you.

This league barely survived its first year. If mbgrayson hadn't pulled this league out of the ashes this spring it would have been dead already. I have no desire to play with selfish players and I won't next year.

There are way too many leagues to choose from to justify selecting one with players that don't play fair.

I've been playing leagues for nearly 20 years. Not once have I ever ran into this problem (or any problem).

And I'm one of the reasons that the league was pulled from the ashes, taking an absolutely pathetic roster for the challenge of turning it around near the eve of the draft. I've already offered to give up my team as soon as someone finds a replacement. I won't leave the team dead. Find someone and I'm out. No big deal. I'll stick w/the Redszone Points league.


As for the veto. The backlash has convinced me that I was wrong. I'm not above admitting that my view on the tool is outdated. I won't be hitting that button again except for the most extreme cases. Thanks to those who articulated their viewpoint in a mature manner.

[mbgrayson]

If the league owners don't want the veto, get rid of it and let the Commish decide on deals. If he's fine with this deal, let him override the veto. We haven't heard from him on this case. I'd be interested to hear his take.

Well, belatedly, that is me. I had a busy week at work, and missed this whole issue until Saturday morning. This is what I posted today on the league message board under the title "Hang in there":


I don't think anyone abused the system, and I really don't want anyone to quit.

I can understand that feelings run high when an anticipated blockbuster trade is voted down, and things are posted in the heat of that moment.
Right now it takes four managers to overturn a trade. I think upon more reflection, that some who voted down this one might not vote the same way again.

Therefore I will leave the rule as 'league votes' on trades. I am new this season as commissioner, and as this past week shows, sometimes during the work week I may not spend enough time monitoring the league, so I don't want to take over sole review of all trades at this time. I will do so in the future if it appears that the league is simply voting down every trade.

As to the 'right' standard for using a veto, the arguments have been nicely put forth here, and on the Redszone thread in the fantasy section titled "The Fantasy Trade Veto". There are good arguments on both sides, but in this league, given the quality of managers, I think vetos should be very lightly used.

Mike
NL Commish

[WMR]

You vetoed a trade between two players with far better track records than yours without waiting to hear an explanation from the participants. So I don't buy your excuses.

There won't be a next year for this league. At least for you.

This league barely survived its first year. If mbgrayson hadn't pulled this league out of the ashes this spring it would have been dead already. I have no desire to play with selfish players and I won't next year.

There are way too many leagues to choose from to justify selecting one with players that don't play fair.

Wow, a little harsh don't you think?

NJ is a good guy.

[NJReds]

Wow, a little harsh don't you think?

NJ is a good guy.

Thanks.

I'm also only one of at least 4 in the group that hit the veto (including the guy who pulled the trigger on the deal). I'm the one who stepped up to explain. But I'm the bad guy that's bringing down this league. :mooner:

[schmidty622]

You vetoed a trade between two players with far better track records than yours without waiting to hear an explanation from the participants. So I don't buy your excuses.

There won't be a next year for this league. At least for you.

This league barely survived its first year. If mbgrayson hadn't pulled this league out of the ashes this spring it would have been dead already. I have no desire to play with selfish players and I won't next year.

There are way too many leagues to choose from to justify selecting one with players that don't play fair.

That's class.

I run a league that has been active for about 4 years now. It's a 12 team yahoo, head to head, mixed leagues, 6x6. I have always disliked the yahoo veto system in public leagues so we do things a bit differently. Upon the completion of a trade the league members have two days to vote against a trade if they so choose. As the commish I do not submit a vote so that it will not be possible to tie if things come to that. If I receive the 6 vote majority in the two day time frame the trade is voted down. If I have received no votes against in 24 hours the trade is processed.

This accomplishes two things for the league: It allows us to make trades freely, without having to worry about them being anonymously voted down, and it makes it so that owners need to check their teams fairly regularly to keep up with the action. There has only been one trade voted down the entire four years and that trade was obviously and disgustingly out of whack. I think the system has worked pretty well, and is leaps and bounds better than the veto system.

[TRF]

AD, that was a junk trade and you know it. I'd have vetoed it too.

I wouldn't trade just Pujols for that return, even if long term I think Cueto is the next Santana.

[*BaseClogger*]

AD, that was a junk trade and you know it. I'd have vetoed it too.

I wouldn't trade just Pujols for that return, even if long term I think Cueto is the next Santana.

So what if you wouldn't have done that trade? Why would you veto it?

[IowaRed]

You can't have, create, or join a league that gives a manager the power to veto and then complain, berate, exclude, those managers when they use that power. One of the following (or a combo) is the reason for your harshness towards NJ, your trade for the best player in baseball for a questionable return didn't go through and/or his opinion of vetoing differs from yours. There are a lot of people with differing opinions on vetos but it's within both your league's (apparently) and Yahoo's rules. It's your opinion on vetos vs. his and 3 other managers. Why not try to rework the deal to everybody's satisfaction? If this league really is full of mature players wouldn't that be the way to go?

[AtomicDumpling]

AD, that was a junk trade and you know it. I'd have vetoed it too.

I wouldn't trade just Pujols for that return, even if long term I think Cueto is the next Santana.

I wouldn't have traded Pujols for that return either, but that is no reason to veto someone else's deal.

Since the trade was made Lidge has blown a couple of saves and Iannetta has gone on the disabled list, so the package is even less attractive now.

The guy that made the trade has a long and exceptionally good track record of winning fantasy baseball leagues according to his Yahoo profile. He is not some clueless rookie being taken advantage of by an experienced player. So why should lesser players at the bottom of the standings feel entitled to override the trade? There is no logical justification.

He was originally offered Johan Santana for Pujols, but he decided he wanted Cueto, Lidge and Iannetta instead and offered me that deal. I accepted. At the time of the trade he led the league in R, HR, RBI, and AVG by large margins. His ranks were near the bottom in pitching. He badly needed points in the pitching stats to bump him up to first place and give him a good shot at winning the league. He was trading from strength to cover his weaknesses like any good fantasy player should do. You can't win with an unbalanced team. Even though he was losing Pujols the trade was definitely going to help him move up in the standings.

[AtomicDumpling]

You can't have, create, or join a league that gives a manager the power to veto and then complain, berate, exclude, those managers when they use that power. One of the following (or a combo) is the reason for your harshness towards NJ, your trade for the best player in baseball for a questionable return didn't go through and/or his opinion of vetoing differs from yours. There are a lot of people with differing opinions on vetos but it's within both your league's (apparently) and Yahoo's rules. It's your opinion on vetos vs. his and 3 other managers. Why not try to rework the deal to everybody's satisfaction? If this league really is full of mature players wouldn't that be the way to go?

You only got a very small piece of the story, so you really shouldn't be making conclusions about the situation.

The guy violated the standards of the league, then tried to confuse the issue, then bad-mouthed the people he screwed. He deserved to be called out on it.

I didn't create this thread. I only responded to the false stories and excuses made by those who acted selfishly. Some of those statements were made here and some elsewhere. This thread was not created to discuss the disputed trade anyway. It was created to discuss trade vetoes in the world at large and not in our specific league. It was NJReds that brought his actions in our league into the discussion.

As far as I am concerned this mess doesn't belong on Redszone at all. I moved past this issue last week and won't be addressing it again.

[NJReds]

The guy violated the standards of the league, then tried to confuse the issue, then bad-mouthed the people he screwed. He deserved to be called out on it.

As far as I am concerned this mess doesn't belong on Redszone at all. I moved past this issue last week and won't be addressing it again.


I wasn't going to address it anymore either, but I'd like to clarify a few thingst that you said:

- I (and at least three others) didn't violate the league standards. We violated your personal standards.

- I didn't try to confuse the issue.

- I didn't badmouth anyone.

I don't mind that you called me out for the veto, and I understand why you are upset about it. But let's keep the accusations of my behavior accurate.

[nate]

This isn't the dynasty league, is it?

I'm confused!

[TRF]

So what if you wouldn't have done that trade? Why would you veto it?

2 reasons.

1st it smacks of collusion, I say that not knowing the parties involved.

2nd and probably less of a reason is it almost seems like an experienced player taking advantage of a less experienced player. perhaps that isn't reason enough to veto, but I'd at least want an explanation from both parties.

If the team receiving Pujols/Oswalt is in the top 3, and the team dealing them is in the bottom three, I say shenanigans.

[*BaseClogger*]

2 reasons.

1st it smacks of collusion, I say that not knowing the parties involved.

2nd and probably less of a reason is it almost seems like an experienced player taking advantage of a less experienced player. perhaps that isn't reason enough to veto, but I'd at least want an explanation from both parties.

If the team receiving Pujols/Oswalt is in the top 3, and the team dealing them is in the bottom three, I say shenanigans.

Collusion? We are talking about a free, Redszone league here. These guys are both experienced players and as has been stated, AD sent one trade and then accepted a counteroffer...

[AtomicDumpling]

2 reasons.

1st it smacks of collusion, I say that not knowing the parties involved.

2nd and probably less of a reason is it almost seems like an experienced player taking advantage of a less experienced player. perhaps that isn't reason enough to veto, but I'd at least want an explanation from both parties.

If the team receiving Pujols/Oswalt is in the top 3, and the team dealing them is in the bottom three, I say shenanigans.

Did you read the previous posts in the thread?

There is no reason to suspect collusion given there is no money on the line in this league. Both players are well-established members of Redszone. This was the 1st trade between the two teams. The league is a dynasty league in its second season.

At the time of the trade, the owner trading away Pujols was in 3rd place and the other owner was in 4th. The vetoing owners were lower in the standings. The vetoing owners didn't ask for or wait for an explanation from the more experienced owners before voting against the trade, which shows they were more interested in protecting their own interests than preventing a rookie owner from being taken advantage of.

According to his Yahoo fantasy profile, the player trading Pujols is certainly no rookie and in fact has a long track record of winning fantasy leagues. He is a very experienced and skilled owner. He knows what it takes to win. He knows the goal is to field a balanced team that is good in all ten categories. He had large leads in all offensive categories except stolen bases. For example, he leads the league in batting average with a .306 AVG while the 2nd place team has a .276 AVG. In RBI he has 293 compared to 255 for the 2nd place team. He also comfortably leads in Runs and Home runs. So he can definitely afford to trade some offense for some pitching. His pitching ranks were awful. Since it is impossible to gain any more points on offense he will have to gain ground in the pitching stats if he wants to win the league. It only made sense to trade a stud hitter to obtain lots of wins, saves, strikeouts and good ratios with a promising young catcher thrown in as well.

Winning a roto league is about obtaining good numbers in every category. You don't win by having players with great "ESPN reputations". It is about the numbers, and you can get good numbers in a variety of ways. This is especially true in a very deep NL-only league where there simply are not enough players to go around. When players get injured the owner is often forced to play with an empty spot in their starting lineup. The top-ranked player on the free agent list is Matt Diaz who is ranked #673 and has only 77 ABs on the season and is owned in only 1% of Yahoo leagues. So an every-day player in the major leagues has a lot of value in an NL-only league with 29 man rosters and 19 starting slots. In our league the key to winning is to maximize your games played by making sure you have someone to fill every starting slot rather than trying to collect the most productive players. Often it is better to have two decent every-day players than one stud player. It is a lot different than a mixed league.

[Bumstead]

Speaking from my experience as a former Commission and a constant player of keeper and re-draft (on-line and off-line) leagues for 15+ years, I can say that giving the owners the power to veto trades without a majority of them agreeing to it is asking for trouble. And why would the people involved in the trade vote? Their votes can't count as they already agreed to the trade. Where is the other owner that made the offer and why isn't he/she explaining why he voted against his own offer??? My belief is that if you have 10 league 'owners' and you are going to use the 'veto' option (which I will never use again), then at least 5 owners would have to vote against a given trade for it to be vetoed (this would be 5 owners not involved in the trade out of 8; a majority). Ideally, the Commissioner should handle this and in a league like this only trades where collusion is PROVEN should a trade be overturned. No willy-nilly trade vetoing.

Dynasty league...hmmm...I'm in a couple of keeper leagues (13 team in the NL and 12 team in the AL) that are very competitive...it sounds fun if you are there from the start.

Good luck.

Bum

[TRF]

Well, let's see. The player trading Pujols lost offensive performance. Not a little, but a lot. Oswalt for Cueto is nearly a wash. which leaves the key to the trade Lidge.

yeah, whatever.

BTW, I've won a few leagues myself, and that sure as hell didn't help the guy getting three players. Now bad trades, and yes, this is a bad trade are part of fantasy baseball. 4th place guy, if he's the one getting the three players isn't going to win this league. 3rd place guy might. sometimes guys give up a bit on their fantasy teams and "try" things. That's one of the problems I have with it. Maybe he thinks Iannetta COULD hit .320 w/ 25 HR's as the catcher, and he wants to gauge his performance for a team he has that actually has a shot at winning.

but yeah, it's a crap trade.

by comparison I traded Wieters, Berkman and Slowey for Beckett, Kazmir and D. Lee.

The guy was willing to wait on Wieters. I had offense to spare and needed pitching. he was in the opposite boat. I ended up dropping Lee a week or so later. I know not every trade is fair and balanced, But I'm not seeing how getting Iannetta, Lidge and Cueto benefits anyone over what was given up.

[AtomicDumpling]

Imagine if real ML baseball used the Yahoo vetoing system. :D It would probably be impossible to trade a star player or improve your team for the pennant chase. The shenanigans would be wild and crazy. The game would be changed completely.

In Yahoo it is an anonymous vote where only 1/3 of the owners can overturn a trade. So in MLB it would take only 10 teams to shoot down trades. They wouldn't have to give an explanation or a reason, nor would we even know who vetoed the trade. The decisions would be made purely on how the trade affects them, rather than any noble thoughts of protecting one of the participants.

The teams would announce a trade and the fans would all get excited. The players would be held out of action and begin the move to the new team. Then all of a sudden the league would jump in to say the trade has been canceled. Nobody would know why the trade was nullified nor who vetoed it. The fans would be irate. Conspiracy theories would run rampant.

Trades like last year's Sabathia trade would never happen. The NL Central teams and the other contending teams in the NL (and probably the AL too) would have voted against it.

Voting blocs and alliances would form. There would be unwritten agreements between teams to support each other during votes.

The fight between the Yankees and Red Sox would reach new levels as they struggled to veto every trade made by the other.

Imagine the anger and hysteria among Reds fans if the Adam Dunn trade last year had been vetoed by other teams. Marty would have had a stroke.

[TRF]

Imagine if real ML baseball used the Yahoo vetoing system. :D It would probably be impossible to trade a star player or improve your team for the pennant chase. The shenanigans would be wild and crazy. The game would be changed completely.

In Yahoo it is an anonymous vote where only 1/3 of the owners can overturn a trade. So in MLB it would take only 10 teams to shoot down trades. They wouldn't have to give an explanation or a reason, nor would we even know who vetoed the trade. The decisions would be made purely on how the trade affects them, rather than any noble thoughts of protecting one of the participants.

The teams would announce a trade and the fans would all get excited. The players would be held out of action and begin the move to the new team. Then all of a sudden the league would jump in to say the trade has been canceled. Nobody would know why the trade was nullified nor who vetoed it. The fans would be irate. Conspiracy theories would run rampant.

Trades like last year's Sabathia trade would never happen. The NL Central teams and the other contending teams in the NL (and probably the AL too) would have voted against it.

Voting blocs and alliances would form. There would be unwritten agreements between teams to support each other during votes.

The fight between the Yankees and Red Sox would reach new levels as they struggled to veto every trade made by the other.

Imagine the anger and hysteria among Reds fans if the Adam Dunn trade last year had been vetoed by other teams. Marty would have had a stroke.

MLB does have this in effect (kinda) for any trade after the deadline. Some trades that REALLY helped teams have been completed after the deadline, and others have been blocked.

[IowaRed]

based on the limited information I don't see the collusion aspect but if I had the opportunity to veto I would. The clear-cut best player in fantasy baseball deserves a much better return regardless of the format or cats. Again, if your league or Yahoo doesn't require discussion or explanation or if none is offered, those owners are free to veto at will. Your anger/disgust is misplaced in my opinion, it should be towards the rules rather than those exercising their right to veto as they wish. I think NJ should be praised for stepping up and offering an explanation when none is required

[Bumstead]

I disagree: if you want to push veto button, you better have the stones to step up and say why you did it; people curling up like a coward under a rock is what makes this function a huge problem in these leagues. But, all the Yahoo Public League crowd thinks this option is for their own personal amusement without recourse. In a league of friends, this option just tears up the league. Responsibility still exists if you push that button (the veto button). In my leagues, cowards aren't welcome; as a commissioner if all 4 owners don't step up with their reasons I would overturn the veto.

[mbgrayson]

I disagree: if you want to push veto button, you better have the stones to step up and say why you did it; people curling up like a coward under a rock is what makes this function a huge problem in these leagues. But, all the Yahoo Public League crowd thinks this option is for their own personal amusement without recourse. In a league of friends, this option just tears up the league. Responsibility still exists if you push that button (the veto button). In my leagues, cowards aren't welcome; as a commissioner if all 4 owners don't step up with their reasons I would overturn the veto.

I AM the commissioner in this league, and there is no way that I would overturn a veto just because a couple owners voted it down and didn't explain themselves. There are now a number of people on this thread that have also said they would have voted to veto, so I think the reasons are fairly clear....people thought the trade was too lopsided.

As I said before, I didn't vote against it. That means that 4 out of the remaining 9 managers did. (It is NOT only 3 to veto, it is 4 of 10 that must approve a veto). We know AD didn't vote against it, and Basecloggers has said he supported it (not that it was an even trade, but that he wouldn't veto it). We also know that the other manager involved in the trade voted against it, and NJ has also stated why he did. So 2 of the remaining 5 voted it down also, and haven't said anything. I'm fine with that.

To me, it goes back to the initial rules. When there was no rule requiring public voting, and no rule requiring explanations, it is unfair to retroactively impose such a rule now and force a trade through. Of course, if a majority of the managers want to impose those rules for the future, I would certainly agree.

I have also said that if it appears that trades are rountinely vetoed, I will consider changing the approval process from 'league votes, to commissioner decides'. But to my recollection, this is the first trade that has been vetod in the two season that this dynasty league has been running...and at least one has already said he would not vote to overturn it again.

Let's move on.....

[Bumstead]

I AM the commissioner in this league, and there is no way that I would overturn a veto just because a couple owners voted it down and didn't explain themselves. There are now a number of people on this thread that have also said they would have voted to veto, so I think the reasons are fairly clear....people thought the trade was too lopsided.

As I said before, I didn't vote against it. That means that 4 out of the remaining 9 managers did. (It is NOT only 3 to veto, it is 4 of 10 that must approve a veto). We know AD didn't vote against it, and Basecloggers has said he supported it (not that it was an even trade, but that he wouldn't veto it). We also know that the other manager involved in the trade voted against it, and NJ has also stated why he did. So 2 of the remaining 5 voted it down also, and haven't said anything. I'm fine with that.

To me, it goes back to the initial rules. When there was no rule requiring public voting, and no rule requiring explanations, it is unfair to retroactively impose such a rule now and force a trade through. Of course, if a majority of the managers want to impose those rules for the future, I would certainly agree.

I have also said that if it appears that trades are rountinely vetoed, I will consider changing the approval process from 'league votes, to commissioner decides'. But to my recollection, this is the first trade that has been vetod in the two season that this dynasty league has been running...and at least one has already said he would not vote to overturn it again.

Let's move on.....

Obviously, I'm not in the league, so I was just stating my opinion from my experience. I was under the impression that the guy who proposed the trade was one of the 4 who vetoed the trade...that ain't right. But anywho, I love fantasy baseball so I sometimes read these threads. No offense or authority questioning intended; just my opinion...you know everyone has one...:D

Good luck.

Bum