just started a a money league this year involving a few friends and coworkers. Four of them are fairly new to fantasy football. Anyway, our draft was this past monday and our league is all set to go. Previous to the drafting I set some ground rules illustrating what constitutes a veto. I basically said if its collusion or an extremely lopsided trade to the extent of LT for brandon jacobs. I also asked everyone to get very active on the board and if they dont like a trade, mention it.
There was a trade with a co worker of mine and his friend, whom ive never met and is new to football. The trade was pretty bad in the sense that, the other guy screwed himself out of a starting position. I didnt veto it, but other guys in the league did and it didnt pass. I did a trade with a guy in my league whom ive never met but invited in the league because we have been playing in a common league of a friend of ours for the past 3 years. Our trade was this:
I give: cedric benson and mark clayon
I get: rudi johnson and a kicker(throw in)
The trade was vetoed yesterday and I was very pissed about it. Its a very fair trade that would help both teams out. Anyway, I sent the entire league a message by email and by post stating that they shouldnt veto just to veto and that if those who are new dont know better, dont veto. I also asked all the managers to email me with their reasons why they vetoed. Not one did!
I emailed the guy who I was trading with and he was just as pissed and shocked it was vetoed. I said for him not to worry, I am not gonna let this crap happen in my league. We did the trade again and what happens? It was vetoed again. I talked with one of the new guys in the gym and he said he vetoed the first time because he saw the "yahoo rankings" didnt look even. I explained he cant look at that.
Ok, so sorry for the long posting here. My question to you guys is, I want to lay down some order in this league. I think people are vetoing just to veto, or they see rudi is gonna make my team a power house and are vetoing because of that. Its sad, it really is. I dont want to be a dictator....I find that I am very fair with everything. My question is.....do you think its a good idea to change the vetoing from league votes to commish votes? I would explain to everyone that if they didnt like a trade, either of mine or someone elses, to email me and tell me why. If 4 people have valid reasons why, I will veto the trade. What do you guys think? thanks for your opinions.
If you're going to be a commissioner, be a commissioner. YOU veto trades, don't let it be the majority, because most people don't like trades because it favors (perceived to them) teams that are not THEIRS! A commissioner makes decisions...fair, impartial, and sometimes very unpopular decisions, but he makes them. Now, if you're talking about adding an aspect to the league or changing scoring rules, et al, then majority rules is fine. Other than that, you decide...
I've only been the commish for a couple years now, but b/c I'm always playing with friends & friends of friends, I like to do the majority, or League veto. The problem still remains though from time to time, that some people veto just to veto without totally analyzing.
I think it's a tough situation, and I do like the Commish taking charge in cases like this sometimes; however, I think it's best to keep it as a league majority as long as you know everyone. In your situation though, it's really tough. The best advice I can give is if no one will explain their reasoning for the veto -- change the settings to where YOU alone have sole power. Just be sure to keep any bias out of it if possible..
To be honest if you laid the ground rules before the draft how are you going to change it to commish veto? It'll make you look like you are doing this to get your trade pushed through. This is hard b/c you the commish is involved. In 1 of my leagues, where the commish was involved in a trade, a very unfair trade happened and no one could veto it b/c the commish had the power. We now use a rule that over 25% have to object, 10 team league so 3 votes over rule it. Majority of the time they will say 1 team is taking advantage of another. There's no easy way to do it. Some people feel trades are good and some think that someone is getting the shaft. Don't be suprised when someone else offers a trade for Rudi either. We also lock rosters until the season starts. That may avoid this situation as well. Good luck!
heelfan72 wrote:To be honest if you laid the ground rules before the draft how are you going to change it to commish veto? It'll make you look like you are doing this to get your trade pushed through. This is hard b/c you the commish is involved. In 1 of my leagues, where the commish was involved in a trade, a very unfair trade happened and no one could veto it b/c the commish had the power. We now use a rule that over 25% have to object, 10 team league so 3 votes over rule it. Majority of the time they will say 1 team is taking advantage of another. There's no easy way to do it. Some people feel trades are good and some think that someone is getting the shaft. Don't be suprised when someone else offers a trade for Rudi either. We also lock rosters until the season starts. That may avoid this situation as well. Good luck!
Talk about taking all the fun out of the pre-season. Reading training camp news and making waiver pickups based on that news is what the preseason is all about. Why would someone lock their league like that?
"Cincinatti leads the league in 'Johnsons'" - John Madden
I think its hard for you to change at this point. You're just going to have to accept that there will be little or not trades this year. That or get people to vote. As commish, I setup that I have first veto power on a trade. People should contact me if they feel a trade is unfair and I will decide. Usually you can tell an unfair trade right there because quite a few people will clamor if there is an unfair deal (where if its actually fair, I almost never hear anything, or just this one guy who pretty always complains). Then, to make teams feel they still have a say, I put in place the overrule option. This can be called by any 2 players (was 1 but I already told you about the one guy... ) . Basically this is like congress overriding the prez. If I say a trade is no good, majority can overrule me and trade goes through, or if I say the trade is good, the majority can overrule me and the trade doesn't go through. We've only had a couple of times of calling a vote, and not once have I been overturned! Oh, and of course, I don't have a vote in the overrule.