To veto or not to veto

[Brutus]

that is the question I ask of fellow Redszoners.

I'm curious what people think of the concept of trade vetoing. When should it be done? How often? I've been the commissioner of an NL-only league for several years. We've gone through some change and I generally don't like to veto.

However, we have cut back what we affectionately call "dump" trades, where one or more high-priced players in the final year of their contracts (auction league) are traded for players to be named later - usually high-value, low-priced stars that are being used on the current team.

Well, it used to be you could do this starting in June. This year we moved it back to August and next year we're doing away with it entirely.

In the meantime, to get around the fact these types of trades were moved until late in the year, an owner tried trading Mike Stanton, Tyler Colvin, Dexter Fowler and a couple of b-prospects (Derek Norris among others) for Lincecum, Tulowitzki, Wright and Upton.

I don't generally like to veto trades, but I decided this was simply not up to snuff. I nixed it and he's upset at me. The other owner wanted Stanton and said most of the other guys he wanted were just traded to other teams building for the future, and he didn't see much left to trade for. Accordingly, he was willing to trade whatever it took to get Stanton.

What is your take on this kind of trade and what's your philosophy on vetoes?

[TRF]

Unless you suspect collusion, I see no problem with an owner making a dumb trade.

Which is not how i voted just now. do'h!

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by TRF

Unless you suspect collusion, I see no problem with an owner making a dumb trade.

Which is not how i voted just now. do'h!

I generally agree with that. And I usually have only vetoed a trade under those circumstances. In this case, I felt a ridiculously lopsided trade would create hostility within the league - especially since the two owners that did it have a history of controversial deals.

Thanks for the input, though. I have been having a hard time with this one.

[Homer Bailey]

Trades I have to veto the most are the ones where guys give up their good players just to get guys from their favorite team.

[Joseph]

I'm all for allowing a veto. I don't want one friend helping another when the first friend is out of the running.

[Captain Hook]

Originally Posted by Joseph

I'm all for allowing a veto. I don't want one friend helping another when the first friend is out of the running.

I agree with this for the most part.

The only thing I'd say about this is that we strive to make our fantasy leagues as realistic as possible.You can't tell me that GMs don't do other GMs favors in real life.You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours later.This certainly only applies to keeper leagues like the one we compete in.If you want to help someone out your doing it at the risk of hurting your chances next year but maybe next year the shoe will be on the other foot and you'll be the one looking for a little help.Plus there's no money involved in our league and that changes things a bit as well.

While I do agree with your thinking as it applies to single season fantasy leagues I think keeper leagues are a different story.

[TRF]

I'd go one further and say if it is a dynasty league, I'd almost never veto. Long term, I don't want to help any team but mine, and I'm hoping everyone else feels the same way. But in a single season league, if a guy is at the bottom, he's likely to cash it in to screw someone over.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey

Trades I have to veto the most are the ones where guys give up their good players just to get guys from their favorite team.

Vetoes of this nature would be why when I run leagues, all protests go through the commissioner. A fantasy player should be allowed to make bad trades if that is what they want to do and they should be allowed to trade for players that make the game more enjoyable for them. Vetoes like this are generally just people irritated they didn't get to the person first.

If you actually talk to the person that you perceive got the hosing, you will come away with a whole new perspective whether you agree with them or not. You aren't their conscience so unless they are cheating let it go. IMHO

Bum

[reds1869]

I only like vetoes in cases of collusion. Other than that fantasy owners should be able to make any deal they please.

[Vada Pinson Fan]

Hey Brutus,

I'm a league commissioner too and I find a commissioner is just asking for trouble when the commish has sole veto power over trades. Leave it up to the league to make those decisions. Should your league choose to go with a no veto policy next year year, well, you just got a taste of what can happen. The guy taking on Lincecum, et al, should be apologizing to the league as should the guy trading them for a lack of good sportsman ship and fair play. If it were me, I'd be looking to replace two managers for next season. They should know better. Collusion is often too hard to prove and a trade such as you described just crosses the line of not being in the best interest of your league to allow.

What if you are in 1st place and the guy acquiring Lincecum and the rest is in 2nd? Again, not worth the aggravation. Allow members to (re-)vote on what to do on vetoes next year. I think you'll be glad you did.

Good Luck Brutus,
-Jerry
PS- Good Luck in our league together but not too much.