Trade Vetoing?

[fjohnson522]

First time participant to this site. Im the commish in a league of close friends and it seems every year controversy arises over some unforseen set of circumstances. This year is no different. The current settings are such that all trades can be vetoed if at least 5 team managers or the league commish decline them. We recently had 2 trades vetoed by the majority of the league that at face value seem to be fair trades for all parties involved. Need some advice.

Trade #1: r. white and b. scott for d. bowe and m. bush
the circumstances behind the trade need to be explained. The team giving up white and scott is in first place (7-1) but has really been hit by the injury bug the past few weeks. He has d mcfadden, r mathews j best and b scott(who he picked up last week as a fill in). Well this week if he keeps his current roster, scott will probably be his only rb getting playing time. So he wanted to get m bush as a replacement/handcuff for mcfadden and then find a number 2 rb from free agents. The trade was veted by 5 team managers and both parties involved in the trade are upset.

Trade #2: j. best for r. bush
Again, the same person is looking to drop best and pick up bush because he is riddled with injuries. This trade happens to involve me. Im willing to take the risk of j best not playing again at the cost of giving up a mediocre r bush. This trade too was vetoed by 5 team managers.
How does everyone feel about this? Should teams be permitted to veto trades for any reason they see fit, especially when the trade offers seem fair and mutually benefit all parties involved. Thanks in advance for the input.

[Honeybadgers]

Both trades seem fair on the surface. The only reason to veto a trade is that there is some sort of collusion going on. For example, a last place team clearly out of the playoff race giving away his best players to his friends to help them win.

it appears that teams are abusing their veto power for the betterment of their own teams. As Commish I'd ask those vetoing the reasons for it and unless they have a solid reason I would remind them the purposes of the veto power, ask them to reconsider their vote and in need be push the trade through

[dgan]

^^x2

Have them read this forum. There are a hundred threads in here with comments from long-time fantasy footballers that go over nearly every scenario you can imagine and whether trades should be vetoed. The only reason to veto is because of evidence or sufficient suspicion of collusion. Your league owners need to realize they do not have the power to govern the strength of other teams.

Basically, in a 12 team league, it is against the best interest of 10 teams every time 2 teams make a trade. Therefore, a wise person would veto any trade proposal that doesn't involve himself. Obviously, the owners in your league have figured that out, and that kind of governing cannot be allowed in a league. Also, when you've had a legit trade vetoed, you'll probably stick it to others when they try to make a trade. Bad situation.

Has collusion ever been a problem in your league? If not, and if there isn't a ton of money involved, I would just abolish the power to veto. Our league hasn't had veto power on trades for 7 years now - same type of thing - we're all friends. So why would we cheat each other? It's never been a problem. The other solution would be to make it a 2/3 or unanimous vote required to veto a trade, or just give all the veto power to the Commish (and two deput Commish on trades involving the Commish). But only if HE actually understands the reasons to veto a trade.

[krazymop]

This is exactly why I don't play in leagues where the other teams have veto power.

[bigmck]

This is exactly why I don't play in leagues where the other teams have veto power.

I am exactly the other way. I don't play in leagues that has a Commish Veto. I have in the past and the Commish vetos too many trades. I prefer to let the Owners run the league, even the leagues that I Commish.

[GAMETIME03]

both trades seem to favor the team that is 7-1. are you or the other person trading with team #1 out of playoff contention?
i agree with the above-poster that no1 should veto unless they believe that there is some collusion going on and since it is a league of close friends, no vetos should occur.
however, i do not believe that you should use your commish powers to overrule the veto, each person is entitled to one vote in the league, 5 / 8 people that were not included in the trade didn't like the trade.

[Sydewinder]

We had the exact same situation this year, except this was the trade that was vetoed (I was involved in the trade AND I am the commissioner...we use 6 votes to veto in a 14-team league)...

I give Joe Flacco and Willis McGahee FOR Philip Rivers

This was the week before McGahee went off with 2TDs and over 30 pts in our league.

It was vetoed about two hours before the trade would have gone through, and as people were talking alot about it on the message boards, many people weren't shy about expressing their reasoning behind vetoing - that they thought it made my team too strong and would "automatically" win me the championship. However, the guy who was trading with me had to start Javon Ringer that week, instead of picking up the 30+ points from McGahee had the trade went through. Even though the trade was basically fair (I have Tebow as my starting QB and McGahee is my flex RB behind Rice and F-Jax), it was just too easy for many people from the league to veto based soley on the reason that they didn't like the teams being helped out. Everyone agreed that it was basically fair, and the person who was the MOST pissed off about the veto was my trading partner, who has an injured Best, Marshawn Lynch and Javin Ringer and not much else...

That's why I suggest you either abolish all vetos and let the commish step in if a trade is unbalanced (if you trust the commish) or do as we are utilizing next year - the Fair Trade Commission. Basically, I picked three of the most level-headed members of our league (minus myself) and appointed them to a commission that will be able to veto trades if two of the three of them think it's TOO far lopsided or if they suspect collusion is involved. Likewise, I hold power over them and can overturn the commission's ruling if I think they're making a biased decision. The key is selecting the right people, and also stating that each year, one commission member will be swapped out for another person from the league, so the commissioners don't get too bogged down with needing to make these decisions year after year.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be necessary...but our league has gone to the edge of the cliff and I feel this is the best option for the integrity of the league. Hope this helps

[dmbhawker]

I hate the league veto system because every owner should veto every trade because the trading teams are making their team better(alledgedly).

Now if you are in a league where everyone is a serious fantasy player i think the league veto system can work. But if its a competitive group of friends then I think the Commish system works best if you have a good commish. After playing fantasy for 5+ years i have played in leagues with crappy commish's that basically veto because it makes 2 other teams better.

So from experience, if you don't trust the commish to make the right decision don't play in the league. Being a Commish myself, unless it is blatantly obvious it is player dumping or an unfair trade i don't veto anything as a commish because cases can be made to support most trades.

my 2 cents
goodluck!

[chargersdiehard]

Allowing owners to veto a trade no matter the number of votes needed to veto is not in the best interest of a league. Owners, especially in a money league, will always find a reason to veto a trade that they feel will make another team stronger. Unless a trade appears to be done with collusion there really is no reason to veto a trade. Owners usually have sound reasons for agreeing to the trade based on their opinion of how to run there team. I am not saying that commisioners are always the best but that one person hopefully always has the league best interest at heart instead of his/her team when making that decision. I have been a commissioner of a league for four years now and have never vetoed a trade yet.

[bigmck]

The leagues I run I always set them up so a Veto is hard to come by. If a trade gets vetoed the Owners are always pissed and causes hard feelings.