Veto or no veto?

[Buckeye33]

This is simply a post to get everyones opinion on a trade that was made and if you would veto vote it in your league. Just curious.

Team A gets:

Hanley Ramirez

Team B gets:

Alfonso Soriano
Tim Hudson

10 team 7x7.

[RedsMan3203]

Veto!

[NJReds]

No doubt. Veto that in a heartbeat.

[CTA513]

Veto, the trade is lopsided in favor of Team B.

[Johnny Footstool]

Ramirez for Soriano OR Hudson = Fine.

Ramirez for both = Veto.

Even if there is no collusion between the owners, you've got to protect the integrity of the league.

[Buckeye33]

This is how I figured most everyone would respond. I'm the commish of this league but it's a league vote veto policy so we'll see if everyone in the league votes or not.

Thanks

[Dom Heffner]

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.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

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.

You mentioned that deals have to make both teams better. I agree. And it's usually obvious which trades help both teams and which trades are simply exploitation.

The problem occurs when one owner rips off another in such a lopsided manner that it changes the balance of power in the league. Then you've got 8 guys playing out the string because one owner is stupid and another owner ripped him off.

[Benihana]

don't you think the Kearns trade would have been vetoed if it were in a fantasy league?

[Dom Heffner]

The problem occurs when one owner rips off another in such a lopsided manner that it changes the balance of power in the league. Then you've got 8 guys playing out the string because one owner is stupid and another owner ripped him off.

Again, what is ripping someone off? Does the guy giving up more have more on his bench to replace what he gave up? How do you gauge valuie in a 10 team mixed league? Everybody is loaded, so it makes it easier to appear to get swindled.

I sent an offer the other day of Mark Teixiera and Scott Kazmir for Carl Crawford. My firends think I'm nuts, but I have a loaded bench right now with Frank Thomas and David Ortiz able to play first, so Teixiera is expendable.

If someone were to veto that deal, I'd be pretty upset.

If you are going to veto trades, why not just veto draft picks? If you're worried about the balance shifting, why not overrule a draft pick like taking Juan Pierre in the second round?

These leagues aren't set up to be balanced. There will always be some stupid owner, and part of the game is to find that guy and get the best of him.

If you have someone in your league who gets ripped off easily, the answer to me is to not invite them back rather than havining everybody babysit people. Especially owners with something to gain.

[Johnny Footstool]

Teixiera and Kazmir for Crawford shouldn't get vetoed, especially if you gave the other owners your rationale. Again, when trades help both teams, it's usually pretty apparent.

However, if you needed a catcher and offered Teixiera and Kazmir for, say, Kenji Jojima, I would veto that deal.

[TeamSelig]

I agree that vetoing is dumb.... I think its just there for completely ridiculous deals where they are probably cheating

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by TeamSelig

I agree that vetoing is dumb.... I think its just there for completely ridiculous deals where they are probably cheating

It's there to keep the league honest and fun.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Benihana

don't you think the Kearns trade would have been vetoed if it were in a fantasy league?

An all-star shortstop and an every-day right fielder for two minor leaguers, two relievers, and a bottom-tier shortstop? Yeah, I think so.

[butlerbulldogs]

trades should never be vetoed, unless there is collusion...the people vetoeing are just mad that they didn't make the trade...if every trade was fair there would be no need to have trades, and if every "name" player couldn't be traded for a guy doing better there would be no point to even draft