Vetoable Trade

[Tiger15]

I think this is a good trade.

It's not totally balanced (there's no rule that a trade has to be balanced), but it helps both teams (which is the ultimate goal of trading).

I definitely wouldn't veto.

[Matthias]

Again, not sure why you guys are falling over yourselves to say the trade is fair. He's the commissioner. He can't judge his own trades. It's up to his league to decide.

[joe bass]

You are stuck now that you've put it up to a vote.

In the future this may help.

We are in the sixth year of our work league, and I've been commish the last two. One of the first off-season rules I proposed (and here is just about the only place voting makes sense) was to eliminate trade voting. We had too many people voting down trades for all kinds of silly reasons, such as:

- Don't want to make a strong team stronger
- Don't want to make someone in my divison stronger
- Just to be an A$$hole

I was just as guilty of that nonsense in my first year or two of playing, but after you've done this for a few years, you realize that except for (2) circumstances, it should be up to the two teams in the trade to decide what is fair between them. If someone makes a 'bad' trade, too bad; you can't legislate to prevent stupidity.

A Commish should only Veto a trade where an owner is player dumping. This usually happens because:

A team owner just 'gives up'
Especially w/ first year FF team owners, you get some idiot that just starts making stupid trades to piss people off.

Collussion
(2) team owners decide they have a better chance of 'winning' the league if they trade all the good players from one team to the other.

Unless I feel one of these circumstances is at play, all trades are approved. Any trade I am involved in is reviewed by The Assistant to the Commissioner (he was a former Commish himself).

This year I added a rule that minimizes the potential for an owner to player dump. The team that scores the fewest points at the end of the year has to pay the 2nd lowest point team $.25/point difference. On average, that would've come to $25. This also keeps teams that are "out of it" motivated to actively check the waiver wire, and to set their best line-up.

[J_rob_the_ Baller]

I dont think its vetoable.

Unless the other owners can justify why they veto the trade, and only if that justification is something about it being an ufair deal, and not because it makes one team to strong, then MAYBE with a 7/10 vote, i would consider allowing the veto.

Problem is, the only reason people veto it is because it makes one team stong, probably hurting everyone elses chances of winning.

[Matthias]

MAYBE with a 7/10 vote, i would consider allowing the veto.

MAYBE with 7 of the 8 teams not involved in the trade caring enough to object you'd consider allowing the veto? Wow. That's amazingly democratic of you.

[Kilroy]

MAYBE with a 7/10 vote, i would consider allowing the veto.

MAYBE with 7 of the 8 teams not involved in the trade caring enough to object you'd consider allowing the veto? Wow. That's amazingly democratic of you.

The problem with being "democratic" is that chickens**t owners use the veto for no other reason than they don't want their opponents teams to improve.

Have any of the owners that have vetoed the trade given any reasoning why they did so?

[Crippler]

What do you do? You let it go through. Its NOT vetoable. Stupid lopsided trade though.

[Matthias]

What do you do? You let it go through. Its NOT vetoable. Stupid lopsided trade though.

Do you guys even read these posts? First line.

I am the commish in a 10-team league and just accepted a trade that was proposed to me.

Or is your "advice" that he should let his own trade go thorugh?

[LS2throwed]

MAYBE with a 7/10 vote, i would consider allowing the veto.

MAYBE with 7 of the 8 teams not involved in the trade caring enough to object you'd consider allowing the veto? Wow. That's amazingly democratic of you.

The problem with being "democratic" is that chickens**t owners use the veto for no other reason than they don't want their opponents teams to improve.

Have any of the owners that have vetoed the trade given any reasoning why they did so?

thats why we took out veto trades, where if mroe then half the owners vote against it, it doesnt go thru, but it was done discreet, so if the first place team is making ANY kind of trades to improve no matter how fair, they are voted against, and you never know WHO or WHY they vote against it....



but why do u see this trade as lopsided? i can look from both angles and see why they would at least want to make the trade, im sure you might see one end who looks better, but i think you just have to act as if you were both owners, would it make sense to make that trade, or would you see ANY reasons why they would want those players over who they have

[Crippler]

What do you do? You let it go through. Its NOT vetoable. Stupid lopsided trade though.

Do you guys even read these posts? First line.

I am the commish in a 10-team league and just accepted a trade that was proposed to me.

Or is your "advice" that he should let his own trade go thorugh?

Here is the first line: "Trade's go through by commisioner review, so what do I do?"

My answer is: You let the trade go through. You dont cancel the trade just because people arent happy. Neither team is cheating, so its a valid trade.