I am in the middle of some issues with one of my leagues. I would like to get some unbiased opinions on the issue and thought this would be a good place to do it.
Basically the question at hand is "When and Why should a trade be vetoed?" I am not going to answer the question or really partake in the discussion in order to keep it totally unbiased for our league and hopefully link this article to our league site.
Thank you for any help, even if you don't share the same thoughts I do.
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Teaching is the Greatest Job in the World!!! (during the Summer)
If its a team owner(member of your league) veto vote, they really don't need a reason to veto a trade. If it's your commish vetoing the trade, he would need to give specific reasons as to why he won't let the trade go through. Usually that reason is one team is helping another team stack their team.
I think a manager should only veto if there is obvious collusion or the trade is so lopsided that it doesnt make sense.
You should NOT veto just because you don't want one of the teams to get a certain player, or if you think one team will be too good. If the trade makes sense for both teams then you must let it go through. You can't let personal reasons affect how you vote for a trade.
For example, lets say team A has a ver strong team with several players on his bench that would be good starters on any other team. Lets say this is his team:
SS, Marvin, Chambers (Driver, Stallworth)
And team B has
Ronnie Brown, Rudi
D Jack, Stokely, Berrian
Now team B needs help at WR and team A is stacked at WR so a good trade might be Gore, Driver, and Stallworth for Rudi and Berrian.
Now, some people in my league would want to veto because team A would be so stacked, but this is NOT a valid reason for a veto. It helps both teams and the trade is fair so you must let it go through.
The Miner Part 2 wrote:only should be vetoed if it's obvious collusion. that's it.
I can't stand communist commish's.... trying to assess whether a trade is "balanced". Now, I'm not talking about a LT for Steve McNair trade... because that would be a flag for collusion... otherwise value is in the eye of the beholder.
To some noobs - Antonio Bryant > Tory Holt, Fitz, TO, or etc because he has done better thru 2 weeks.
If those noobs want to trade away a marquee WR stud for a two week hot WR... that's their prerogative. Does it stink for the other owners in the league... sure, but it's their own darn fault for not proposing trades.
"Balancing" = Jealousy.... see it time and time again.
The Balanced Man wrote:A trade should be vetoed only if it does not reasonably help both teams.
I don't think you can use this as a measuring stick because it is completely undefined. Who determines whether it is "reasonably helpful to both teams"? When you start judging trades like this, you get to the point where there are fewer and fewer trades in your league because so many will get vetoed.
The only definite thing you can say that is vetoable is if there is collusion involved. If you're in a league that someone will accept an extremely lopsided trade that will change the balance of the league and they think its a good trade, you shouldn't be in that league.
I had a trade vetoed yesterday that really pissed me off. After posting the trade here, the general idea was that the trade was pretty fair. I give D. Bennett, J.Lewis and D.McAllister and I get C. Johnson.
Here is an example of 4 Poor Reasons to Veto a Trade. The trade was vetoed by 4 owners, so I went and asked each owner why they had vetoed the trade, here are the four answers I recieved:
1. "I wanted C. Johnson, so I vetoed the trade so I could trade for him".
This is a horrible reason to veto a trade! The manager should be locked down from doing trades for a few weeks as punishment
2. "You were just trading your bench players for his starter".
I drafted 7 starting RB's (J.Jones, Droughns, C. Taylor, F. Taylor, D. McAllister, J. Lewis and A. Green) so that I could do trades like this. The point is, if my bench is better then his starters (Benson and Pittman), then it shouldn't matter who I'm trading, it's about quality.
3. the person that accepted the trade voted against it, "John Doe (manager from example #1) told me that the trade didn't help my team".
I am very anti- voting against trades that you accept (that shouldn't be allowed). And I'm anti- rallying people to veto trades because you want to the trade for the player.
4. "Jamal Lewis is questionable for Sunday, so the trade wouldn't have helped his team".
First, Jamal Lewis has been Q every game. Second, the trade is not just for the week, it's for the year. Third, you're not supposed to evaluate the trade based on the teams involved, you're supposed to evaluate whether the trade is fair.
mysticphysh wrote:If its a team owner(member of your league) veto vote, they really don't need a reason to veto a trade. If it's your commish vetoing the trade, he would need to give specific reasons as to why he won't let the trade go through.
Fellow league members owe no responsibility to say why they're voting down a trade. They just have to vote.
A commissioner should veto (learning nugget of the day: veto comes from the latin, "i forbid") in cases of collusion, obvious mistake (trading marvin harrison for chad jackson) or where it so unbalances the league that there's obviously something else going on and it's just going to ruin the league for everybody else (tomlinson for ronnie brown or chad johnson for marques colston).
I've never vetoed a trade as a commissioner. But I've only been doing leagues where I knew most, if not all, everyone else. And the winnings are too low for anyone to want to be a yutz to conspire with someone else. So I've been lucky. But I have seen people post trades on these boards that I would have had no problem putting the kobosh on.