Veto Worthy?

[Sour Masher]

I know this is an old, and reoccurring discussion. I'll preface this by saying I'm in the camp that does not believe in veto votes except in cases of suspected collusion. That said, I just joined a newly started keeper league that allows all trades to be voted on and can be vetoed if 6 of 14 owner vote against it. No reason need be given and the voting is anonymous (I joined as a favor, and I didn't look all that close at this rule).

I just had my first deal accepted, and now it enters a league review period of 24 hours. Now, I realize I am getting the better end of it, but here is the context: this guy went all in with hitters. We start 8 pitchers, and he only had 8 rostered, two of them are hurt--Price and Pomeranz. This is also a daily league, so starters are at a premium, because you can rotate in extra starts every day, but he left the auction with no pitchers on his bench, and two on the DL. We also have a deep bench--8 spots, and two DL spots, so pitcher pickings are slim, even in a 14 team league, since most guys are using lots of bench spots on starters.

With that context, I made him an offer and he accepted. I offered him Danny Duffy $14 and Aaron Nola $3 for his Nelson Cruz $25. I realize I pick up $8 in the deal, but given his roster needs, the deal helps him. He is loaded in the OF and he is desperate for pitching. I never met this guy. I just decided to make him an offer this afternoon, because I looked at each team to see if any needed pitching for hitting, and his stuck out. Already, two people have voted, and one is a No. I don't yet know if 5 more people will vote No, but that first No already has me pissed off. Your thoughts?

[Hornsby]

Like you said, nothing should ever be vetoed, unless there is a case of obvious collusion. I would suspect that you'll survive the veto procedure since the deal is fair, but it'll grind your gears in the future.

The RJ basketball league folded up in no small part because we had 2 owners who would vote to veto just about every deal...the last straw was when they vetoed a deal for Giannis from a contender to a team that was not, because they decided that Giannis wasn't good enough to deal for a top 20 player.

[overkill94]

How is that even close to vetoable? Duffy is a solid SP3 and Nola is a great bounceback candidate at a great price. Of course Cruz is the best player and you're getting the better end of the deal but this deal is in no way lopsided.

[Sour Masher]

How is that even close to vetoable? Duffy is a solid SP3 and Nola is a great bounceback candidate at a great price. Of course Cruz is the best player and you're getting the better end of the deal but this deal is in no way lopsided.

I think it is fair too--especially given his situation right now. I suspect the veto comes from either this guy didn't see my trade partner literally doesn't have enough pitchers to start, and is desperate for it, and/or he was mad he didn't think to make a similar offer. I'm hoping it ends up just being one vote. Even so, it surprised me. This is the first time the fate of my deals--all deals--will be left up to anonymous voting.

[The Feral Slasher]

I know this is an old, and reoccurring discussion. I'll preface this by saying I'm in the camp that does not believe in veto votes except in cases of suspected collusion. That said, I just joined a newly started keeper league that allows all trades to be voted on and can be vetoed if 6 of 14 owner vote against it. No reason need be given and the voting is anonymous (I joined as a favor, and I didn't look all that close at this rule).

I just had my first deal accepted, and now it enters a league review period of 24 hours. Now, I realize I am getting the better end of it, but here is the context: this guy went all in with hitters. We start 8 pitchers, and he only had 8 rostered, two of them are hurt--Price and Pomeranz. This is also a daily league, so starters are at a premium, because you can rotate in extra starts every day, but he left the auction with no pitchers on his bench, and two on the DL. We also have a deep bench--8 spots, and two DL spots, so pitcher pickings are slim, even in a 14 team league, since most guys are using lots of bench spots on starters.

With that context, I made him an offer and he accepted. I offered him Danny Duffy $14 and Aaron Nola $3 for his Nelson Cruz $25. I realize I pick up $8 in the deal, but given his roster needs, the deal helps him. He is loaded in the OF and he is desperate for pitching. I never met this guy. I just decided to make him an offer this afternoon, because I looked at each team to see if any needed pitching for hitting, and his stuck out. Already, two people have voted, and one is a No. I don't yet know if 5 more people will vote No, but that first No already has me pissed off. Your thoughts?

My guess is that if the league votes on all trades then there may be a different thought process about what is an acceptable trade and what is veto worthy. Maybe it is even acceptable to vote down trades based on self interest. That's just part of the way the league is set up and I think you will just have to live with it if you are part of the league.

[Sour Masher]

My guess is that if the league votes on all trades then there may be a different thought process about what is an acceptable trade and what is veto worthy. Maybe it is even acceptable to vote down trades based on self interest. That's just part of the way the league is set up and I think you will just have to live with it if you are part of the league.

Yeah, reasons for voting are not defined. they should be. This is partly my fault. The commish asked me to look over his newly written constitution for him prior to him officially starting the league, and I missed this. He wants this to be a long running money league, so I think this will be something that needs to be clarified for the long term health of the league.

[The Dane]

This is the biggest problem with veto rules. You can never trust if an owner really thinks it's a case of collusion or he just thinks it will hurt his team. Or he's upset because you didn't take his offer over this other guys. I have one league that uses veto, and I am on the record as voting YES on every single rule that comes up, simply because I am certain these guys are all playing for themselves, so even bad trades are fair trades, as far as I'm concerned. The same league has an owner that votes NO on every trade that isn't his own as a protest against the trade system. It's so fucked up.

Perhaps, this should be a feature for leagues: Some completely different, unconnected league, just with a similar rule structure has their trades votes on deals for you, and your league should vote on other league's deals. So, at the very least, it's an arbitrary judge. Maybe CBS could even have a trade rater, where owners could just sign in and rate a bunch of pending deals, or something like that.

[Hornsby]

This is the biggest problem with veto rules. You can never trust if an owner really thinks it's a case of collusion or he just thinks it will hurt his team. Or he's upset because you didn't take his offer over this other guys. I have one league that uses veto, and I am on the record as voting YES on every single rule that comes up, simply because I am certain these guys are all playing for themselves, so even bad trades are fair trades, as far as I'm concerned. The same league has an owner that votes NO on every trade that isn't his own as a protest against the trade system. It's so fucked up.

Perhaps, this should be a feature for leagues: Some completely different, unconnected league, just with a similar rule structure has their trades votes on deals for you, and your league should vote on other league's deals. So, at the very least, it's an arbitrary judge. Maybe CBS could even have a trade rater, where owners could just sign in and rate a bunch of pending deals, or something like that.

Many years ago, I think that Bob set up something called the trade judge...it wasn't perfect, but it was totally independent of any leagues or owners.

[cavebird]

I disagree with the never veto anything but collusion theory (this was discussed ad nauseam back when I was a regular) because unless you have a league full of sharks (which is hard to find) it degrades into a league where winning is achieved by whoever can get the chumps to make the most bad trades, which usually involves personal friends and the line between collusion and just being the guy that knows how to screw over chumps the best is hard to define. That being said, I agree that it should never be league vote without reasons---that just runs into teams trying to veto trades to help themselves even when it is a fair trade that helps both teams.

As for this trade, as someone who has no problem with vetoes, it is close, but I would allow it. The other guy could probably get more for Cruz, but if there is an advantage to pitchers in the league, it makes some sense---Duffy is good, and Nola has tons of upside. If the league is a keeper league, it is obviously fine.

[Sour Masher]

It was a false alarm. Only 3 people ended up even voting. Us two involved in the deal and the one no. I guess it didn't even register as vote worthy for the rest.

We keep up to 20, so I may end up missing Nola at that price, but I'm happy with it now.

[ironfist]

If you must allow this voting system, maybe when you reach the veto amount, the two owners get one last chance to plead their case, to explain why they made the deal from their end, then ask if anyone wants to re-vote. Personally, I also don't like having to pass trades through any review process.

[TranaGreg]

If you must allow this voting system, maybe when you reach the veto amount, the two owners get one last chance to plead their case, to explain why they made the deal from their end, then ask if anyone wants to re-vote. Personally, I also don't like having to pass trades through any review process.

this is a good idea ... I'd also suggest that 6 of 14 is a pretty low bar for a veto (I understand that they thought to remove the owners involved in the trade & then took 50%) ... but I think the opinion of the two owners involved are still relevant, and I'd push for a 50%+1 = 8 owners required for a veto.

[Gregg]

I think you have to define what is the intent of the veto in this league. Most of us view the veto as a way to prevent collusion and nothing more.

It looks like some leagues use vetoes for the purpose of eliminating or slowing down dump trades. It seems most of us in here have accepted dump trades as an acceptable part of keeper league strategy. The mere mention of the word veto can get tempers to flare. Yet, dump trades have hurt many a league over the years.

As long as everyone in the league plays by the same rules and is having fun, I don't really see an issue with it. I personally don't think I would enjoy a league that votes on trades. But then I also do not play in draft leagues.