Trade was vetoed. Should I overturn? Need help...

[i_b_sparks]

This trade was vetoed in a league that I am commissioner in yesterday. 12 team 1pt PPR redraft. Top 6 make the playoffs. Team A is currently in the playoffs while Team B is not. Team A would have received Hakeem Nicks. Team B would've received Nate Washington, Marcedes Lewis, and Baltimore D/ST.

I must add that the owners of the 2 teams in question are brothers and they are both new to fantasy football in a league full of veterans. The veto in our league takes 4 votes and I can see how 4 people thought that the trade was lopsided. Team B was been vocal on the message boards about how the trade shouldn't have been vetoed. How he needed to upgrade his Houston D/ST and how Nate Washington isn't that much of a drop-off from Hakeem Nicks. Everybody in the league knows hes a Ravens fan and HOU hasn't done much points wise the last 3 weeks under our league settings.

He also pointed out that team A would be putting all his eggs in one basket with Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Victor Cruz and we should let him. I have told both owners to call me and state their case as to how the trade helps both teams but neither has yet to do so. Trade deadline is today. Should I overturn this veto???

Team A:
QB: Eli, Manning, Matt Schaub
WR: Victor Cruz, Lance Moore, Nate Washington, Andrew Hawkins
RB: Arian Foster, Ben Tate, Jonathon Stewart
TE: Aaron Hernandez, Jermichael Finley, Marcedes Lewis
K:Gostkowski
D/ST New England, Baltimore

Team B:
QB: Matt Stafford, Ben Roethlisberger
WR: Jordy Nelson, Hakeem Nicks, Brian Hartline, DHB, Randy Moss
RB: Adrian Peterson, Jacquizz Rodgers, Mark Ingram, Peyton Hillis
TE: Tony Gonzalez, Dennis Pitta
K: Justin Tucker
D/ST Houston

[insomnyteq]

I would ask to find out why the trade was veto'd. its not a particularly lopsided deal,not one that should have been vetoed IMO. we reserve Vetos in our league for Obvious bad deals, but a deal like this is just not one that should be stopped.

[Hags888]

This is part of the trouble with allowing the league to vote on trades. Many people just don't like seeing another team improve via trades, and will vote no out of jealously or spite, or just as a way to prevent opponents from improving their roster. It doesn't make sense at all, but there ya go. The fact that you only require 1/3 of your league veto a trade is the majority of your problem. The veto number should be higher IMO (my 12-teamer is set at 6 votes, and we've only needed it once).

IMO, the trade is fair. Vetos should only happen for collusion or obvious sabotage, and in this case, it is neither. So, I'm not sure what your other league members are seeing in this to warrant a veto. So, I would probably overturn the veto, as long as it's spelled out in your league constitution that this is allowed. Then I would change the voting rule to require more teams to have to cast a veto.

[jwill2287]

I setup my league so only I could uphold or veto trades. My opinion is that if two people agree to a trade (lopsided or not) then that is between them and not for me to stop. However, I still try to keep a semblance of fairness here. I would not uphold someone trading AP for Ryan Williams or anything like that. I use a couple of trade analyzers online just to make sure it's not a complete sham and then uphold it. This prevents other owners from blocking a trade because they don't want to see someone else's roster improve. I don't like people blocking my trades (which I always do my best to make it is as fair as possible while still improving my roster) so I'm not going to stand in anyone else's way.

[shawngee03]

if the rules state it takes 4 to veto, then thats how it should be. i agree you need to change that rule to either more teams required to veto or commish only veto. but as it stands you shouldnt do anything

like ive been saying a lot on here lately...a good season for a commish is one where he doesnt have to make any desicions or piss anybody off