Commissioners, teach my league about trading!

[West Coast Bias]

wtf
Trades they vetoed

Bush/Driver for Gore/Galloway

Mcnabb, L.White, Horn for M.Hasselbeck, F.Taylor

I was going to defend these trades on my leagues message board but when I began typing I had no idea which side I was supposed to defend. I literally did not have any earthly idea which side they thought was getting the shaft. Seriously how even can trades be!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post messages to my league please and I will direct them here.

[steelerfan513]

Neither of these trades are anywhere near vetoable. Just because a trade is uneven doesn't mean it should be vetoed. As long as both owners have a valid reason for doing the trade, then there is no reason to veto a trade beyond collusion or absurdly one-sided trades (something like Jason Snelling for LaDainian Tomlinson).

[dgan]

Message: You guys are idiots. If you are opposed to trading, perhaps you should pass a "no-trade" rule in your league rather than just vetoing every trade that isn't yours. Ridiculous. What is the purpose of allowing trades if you are going to veto everything?

[aqua]

Although I don't think things would go down like this in my league, this is one of the reasons I keep veto of trades as a commissioner power, allowing people to email me their concerns if they have the desire but it is not a vote.

[Max Power]

My league last year had issues like that...people vetoing trades out of spite. It was a mess all year. This year we decided to allow each owner only 2 Vetos to use all season. If a trade gets 4 Vetos (12 teams) that is the only way it will be vetoed.

Hopefully it works this year, but we all think this should solve the problems. Owners need to pick and choose thier battles wisely.

[Battlecreek Dragon]

My league last year had issues like that...people vetoing trades out of spite. It was a mess all year. This year we decided to allow each owner only 2 Vetos to use all season. If a trade gets 4 Vetos (12 teams) that is the only way it will be vetoed.

I think this is a very reasonable solution to a veto happy league. The only thing I would change is that the veto should take 5 votes against instead of 4 (the two teams in the trade don't vote). That way it takes a full 50% of the disinterested owners to veto a trade.

I agree that some leagues are better suited to have veto power vested with the commissioner. However, some are not. I may use this in one of my leagues where it is not.

[Goody]

Although I don't think things would go down like this in my league, this is one of the reasons I keep veto of trades as a commissioner power, allowing people to email me their concerns if they have the desire but it is not a vote.

This is how every league should be set up!!

[Felix the Cat]

My league last year had issues like that...people vetoing trades out of spite. It was a mess all year. This year we decided to allow each owner only 2 Vetos to use all season. If a trade gets 4 Vetos (12 teams) that is the only way it will be vetoed.

Hopefully it works this year, but we all think this should solve the problems. Owners need to pick and choose thier battles wisely.

This sounds like a good system.

Another system I like is one in which the players can vote to veto as many trades as they like; however, when voting against a trade, they must post a message explaining why they are voting to veto. If a vote against is not explained or the explanation is clearly invalid, speculative, or based upon faulty reasoning, the commissioner disallows the vote.

Some examples of bad explanations:

Invalid: "Brandon Jacobs for Thomas Jones should be vetoed because it will make Team A win."
Speculative: "Brandon Jacobs for Thomas Jones should be vetoed because Thomas Jones will probably do better than Brandon Jacobs."
Faulty Reasoning A: "Brandon Jacobs for Thomas Jones should be vetoed because Brandon Jacobs is injured."
Faulty Reasoning B: "Brandon Jacobs for Thomas Jones should be vetoed because Thomas Jones was drafted higher than Brandon Jacobs."