Re: Veto or no veto?
I hate vetoes.
In fantasy, there should be no veto, becuase it is impossible to gauge value.
On paper, that looks awful. In reality, the dude giving up Tim Hudson may already have 4 or 5 starting pitchers and doesn't need Hudson's points.
He also may have a terrible fantasy shortstop.
The whole purpose of trades isn't for them necessarily to be even, it's to make your team better.
If both people do that, then it's a good deal.
David Ortiz for John Maine sounds like an awful deal, but if the guy trading Oritz has Hafner as a DH option as well, it isn't that bad.
Or, this guy may think that Tim Hudson will regress to the mean - he is going to- and become, well, Tim Hudson again, so he dumps him off.
We never know what the future might hold, either. We had a guy trade BJ Ryan for Barry Bonds at the beginning of the year, and all of a sudden that deal looks sweet for the guy who has Bonds. In April, we were slapping the guy's back who got Ryan.
And, if somebody wants to get ripped off, then let them get ripped off. In your system, those other owners get to veto a deal they were too lazy to put together.
I don't play in leagues with trade vetoes because the very reason you want to prevent trades- unfair deals- also lends itself to the voting process: unfair votes from owners who are jealous or who don't want another team to get better (especially division rivals if your league uses divisions).
There are always going to be deals that are awful- that's part of the game. But I'd rather haver that than 12 people deciding something for my team that I put together.
If you're watchin' a parade, make sure you stand in one spot, don't follow it, it never changes. And if the parade is boring, run in the opposite direction, you will fast-foward the parade. --Mitch Hedberg