The Fantasy Trade Veto

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by NJReds

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]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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]

Originally Posted by NJReds

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]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

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.

[schmidty622]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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*]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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.