Vetos

[lmcjaho]

Okay - need some opinions here.

In our Cafe Dynasty league we recently had a trade get vetoed, mostly due to the fact that Yahoo doesn't show the fact that a 2006 pick was included to balance out what was otherwise a somewhat lopsided deal. This has raised the issue of what is a valid reason to veto a trade and I am looking for some opinions here...

My personal take on trade vetos is they should only be used if there is an obvious case of one owner tanking his team on purpose for the sake of screwing up the league, not just because I think one player is getting more out of a trade than the other...

For argument's sake let's use Alex Smith and Julius Jones. If Jones were my #2RB and I thought Smith was going to be the next Montana and I was willing to take the hit for this year without Jones in order to secure Smith now before he explodes onto the scene and his value goes high enough to make him untradable, what right does anybody else have (especially in a Dynasty format) to veto my trade just because they don't see the same future I see for Smith?

Also important - if we allow vetoing this trade now, what happens later in the season when someone who is obviously out of the playoffs wants to trade an immediate-impact vet for rookie picks or developing players - will the rest of the league that is still in the running be vetoing if the trade is to a team that is also still in the hunt just because they don't want that team any stronger right then?

[Santacruzer]

I think vetos are a vital "tool" to keep things from getting out of hand in leagues where there is a difference of experience, or outright neglect with some owners.

I don't think the commish, or whoever votes to veto the trade should vote against it because they think it isn't a trade they would do.

You should be able to raise your point, and show that you are not "tanking" or "inexperienced", but have a different opinion than some other owners. I think that thinking outside of the box sometimes, and not just being a Lemming, is what leads to championships. Sometimes

[BGbootha]

The veto is tehre for the purpose of stopping cheaters. I have always said the only time to use the veto is when you think someone is cheating. in fact using the veto is in essence calling two individuals cheaters!!!!!!!

It is not there to use when you don't like a trade, or my favorite, you wouldn't have done it if you were the owner of team A. Well guess what thats what makes it interesting. So yeah theres my $0.02. I could only wish more people in fantasy sports thought the same way.

Now I guarentee most people on here will agree with the two of us. However most people on here are a little more fantasy saavy than the rest. The fact that this happened in a cafe league is a little surprising however.

[dream_017]

Here are 2 quotes that I have seen around the cafe and totally agree with regarding the veto of trades:

The Balanced Man wrote:
Here is what my league uses as a standard to judge. Don't know if it helps:

1. FAIRNESS IS when the trade reasonably benefits both teams involved.

2. There is a Presumption of Fairness for all trades.

3. Three Factors involved in what reasonably benefits both include: Statistics, Potentiality, and Team Needs.

4. In order to reject a trade, you should feel that there are no reasonable benefits to both teams in Statistics Potentiality, and Team Needs. Hence, if one or more Factor is reasonably fair for both sides, and they are reasonably equivilent, the trade should be UPHELD. If no factor are reasonably fair, The Trade should be REJECTED.

5. The case may also exist where on player is high on one factor, and the other player is high on another. For example, one may want to trade a player that has very high potential (Ex: Steven Jackson) for a Player that is Statistically Superior (Ex: Andre Johnson). This trade should be accepted as long as you feel that it reasonably benefits both teams, even though the benefits to the teams do not derive from the same factor.

6. Statistics- Look at this by examining how statistics compare. The league suggests considering three year player averages, last years stats, and the stats for the current year.

7. Team Needs- Team Needs include: The need to fill a position (EX: A team is short on Quality RB), The need to change team structure in order to win more games (EX: I am 4-5 and need different personnel to gain different results), and the need to add depth to ones roster.

8. Potentiality- Potentiality is when a player has a chance to score many more points in upcoming weeks than they have previously. (EX: A RB starting because a starter will not play, addition of a Stud QB to an offense that will make a WR that much better, etc. However, a current stud player does not have any potential. A stud is statistically superior, but there is little chance that they will score many more points in upcoming weeks as compared to former weeks.

flyhigh wrote:
I would only block a trade or vote to veto one if I believed that the two owners were in collusion, one owner was dumping players because he was out of the playoffs, or if one owner was being scammed (ie. didn't know about a serious injury).

Who am I to judge how another owner wants to run his team. If he just enjoys having his favorite players on a team, or has a hunch about someone that others don't agree with, that should not stop a trade...........IMO

[steelerfan04]

The only reason you should use the veto is if you think some fantasy veteran is seriously taking advantage of a newb or, as BGbootha said, to stop cheaters. Other than that let trades go through, even if you don't think it was a great trade for one team.

[lmcjaho]

Thanks all for the posts so far - anybody have a different opinion to express in the hopes of enlightening us?

There have to be a few of you out there - otherwise how did the trade get vetoed in the league?

[UNDEFEATED]

I am in a league that vetos trades.....for no reason other than to be A-Holes.


kinda sucks. What do you guys think?

[Pete123444]

In redraft leagues, I think the only trades that should be vetoed are the collusion/cheating trades.

But i'm not of the same mind when it comes to dynasty leagues. Dynasty leagues can be killed by a guy who is a very good trader. The league will quickly get unbalanced and everyone quits. And this hasn't been a rare occurence in my experience. It has happened alot! I personally have been in 6 dynasty leagues that were destroyed this way. I know i'm probably in a minority here but if a trade is real bad i veto it in dynasty leagues. But the good thing about the voting system is; that usually 7 or so others have to feel it is a bad trade too, or else it will go through. So, it's not just vetoed because "I think it's unfair". The majority feel it is. And most leagues I'm in, especially my dynasty leagues, have some very FF saavy people.

[Heavyg25]

I am in the league that this post involves and even though I personally didn't veto the trade, I can see why there was a missunderstanding involving it. The trade was a straight across trade, Chris Brown for C. Frye. It wasn't until later that it was explained that a future draft pick was involved. I still believe it was a simple missunderstanding that was blown out of purportion.

[Heavyg25]

In redraft leagues, I think the only trades that should be vetoed are the collusion/cheating trades.

But i'm not of the same mind when it comes to dynasty leagues. Dynasty leagues can be killed by a guy who is a very good trader. The league will quickly get unbalanced and everyone quits. And this hasn't been a rare occurence in my experience. It has happened alot! I personally have been in 6 dynasty leagues that were destroyed this way. I know i'm probably in a minority here but if a trade is real bad i veto it in dynasty leagues. But the good thing about the voting system is; that usually 7 or so others have to feel it is a bad trade too, or else it will go through. So, it's not just vetoed because "I think it's unfair". The majority feel it is. And most leagues I'm in, especially my dynasty leagues, have some very FF saavy people.

I totally agree with this post, my view about this is very simular and I couldn't have said it any better myself.