Can you believe this????(long)

[bluemeanies]

I'm in a Yahoo league, and there's a 2 day waiver period for trades. No big deal, right? Well, my commish has a policy that a trade can be vetoed if 2 or 3 other owners e-mail and complain. WHAT???? That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard, because a trade is between two teams and no one else. The waiver period serves a purpose, which is to avoid having losing teams dump all their good players to a team and get a cut of the winnings. It's not to give owners who don't like what they'll be up against an opportunity to stop a trade. I just made a deal for Manning and R. Williams while giving up Garcia and M. Harrison. Both teams involved believe it will benefit them, and who's to say it won't? It might not get vetoed, but I'm steaming just over the possibility that it might for all the wrong reasons? Sorry about the length, I just had to vent a little bit. Am I off base here or what?

[Shitney™]

that's not your commish's policy. it's standard yahoo and most other leagues' policy

[Guest]

In the leagues I've been in, it's taken a majority of the owners to veto a trade. It seems like at least one person will complain on every trade...

[hawksfan896]

Before I get started, that trade is silly. You're getting a 2 for 2 advantage over the guy. Depending on your other RB, you should dominate the league. I am a commissioner in a yahoo league and I would certainly protest it. I'm almost sure the trade would go through though, and here's why: Yahoo doesn't allow commissioners to personally have the final say in trades or acquisitions, there would be too much room for error (commishes making their own teams good), so the only thing that can happen is a fellow owner (or owners) filing a protest with yahoo itself. Any owner in the league has the same right as the commish to lodge a protest. I've seen a trade vetoed once (in a yahoo baseball league though), and I personally lodged a protest this year that led to a trade being vetoed (a 3rd rounder for a 17th the day after our draft), but I don't see how they could veto this one. Williams and Harrison are both arguably the #1 guys at their position, and Manning isn't THAT much better than Garcia. Yahoo won't veto stupid trades, just obvious collusion.

[phunkadelic]

Having protests and vetoes is normal. That isn't strange at all.

[Transmogrifier]

Yes, I can believe it. It's standard procedure. But if this is a 12 team league, then it might be an issue as only 2 people are required for a veto. Even ten teams could be a problem. Most leagues it should be a majority of those not in the trade.

[Ben_ffc]

i'm getting dangerously close to launching a personal crusade.

that trade will benefit you more than it will benefit the other guy. so what? that's what trades are about. you're not cheating, the other owner's not cheating. you're shafting him and he doesn't know it. this makes you a better fantasy player. that's legal.

people that protest these trades should shampoo my crotch.

the veto is designed to prevent collusion, an effort willingly made by both teams to increase the chances of just one team's victory. if you had given up scott covington and chris davis for manning and williams, then red flags go up--somebody's just plain giving up.

but marvin harrison is arguably a first round pick. manning and garcia are of similar caliber.

even if the trade were less even, a protest should only be elicited by a blatant--and i mean, wide open horsepoo--dumping of top-tier talent.

i don't want to hear any more whining from the little girls, now. instead, go find the weak link in your league, and exploit them.

b

[Cornbread Maxwell]

I'm almost sure the trade would go through though, and here's why: Yahoo doesn't allow commissioners to personally have the final say in trades or acquisitions, there would be too much room for error (commishes making their own teams good), so the only thing that can happen is a fellow owner (or owners) filing a protest with yahoo itself. Any owner in the league has the same right as the commish to lodge a protest. Yahoo won't veto stupid trades, just obvious collusion.

huh?

Are you talking private or public? The rules are completely different. You must be referring to public leagues. In private leagues, like the one being discribed in this situation, the commish holds all the power. Only he has the right to veto. Sure, the fact that there is a conflict of interest in every decision is obvious, but that doesnt change the fact that this is how it is done.

Being a commish is a huge responsibility that I would guess less than 5% of Yahoo commissioners understand. I am a firm believer that the only trades that should be vetoed are when collusion is apparant. True, it can sometimes be tough to sniff out, but that is just one of the responsibilties of the commish.

I completely feel for you, bluemeanies. You were able to get off a great legitimate trade, and have seen it vetoed by a conflict of interest. Maybe you will join those of us fleeing Yahoo free leagues for honest competition leagues elsewhere. Ideally, the commish will not own a team in the league, and many pay fantasy sites are set up this way. Personally, I doubt I will play in anonymous private Yahoo leagues again because of this sort of reason. If it isnt anonymous, and you know the people involved, make sure you realize this is just a game and relationships can change online. If you know these people, dont do anything drastic or dramatic like cursing them all and dropping your team. Simply say ok, and play out the season. Obviously you wont join them again next yr.