An observation about vetos

[norrisdivision]

Not wanting to start something again here because we've had this discussion on these boards numerous times. But I thought I'd share why I feel the way I do about them in the context of something that just happened in my league. My stance has always been that unless collusion is involved, managers should be free to make whatever deals they want even when they're stupid moves. Lots of guys want trades vetoed simply because they feel they are lop-sided. I'm not cool with this and here's an example of why:

A few weeks ago, assuming Yasiel Puig was months away from a call-up, I traded Puig, Middlebrooks and Heath Bell for Carlos Santana, Kevin Gausman and Mike Moustakas. There was outcry from a couple guys in the league screaming that I had taken this guy to the cleaners in landing Santana for nothing. Not even a month later, look who's the hottest name in MLB. The guy I traded with has been offered front-line pitchers and batters in the past few days for Puig in various 1-for-1 offers. No one is asking about Santana...?

Think before you veto. Live and let live.

[Pengwin7]

I'm OK with vetos.
There is always an example that can be for & against a veto vote.
(Your one example isn't reason enough to eliminate veto voting)

The Puig trade shouldn't have been vetoed... since it was still in the 1st half of the season and any team could win.

However, let's say it's August... in a one-year league... a one-year BIG MONEY league.

Let's say you are in 1st place... in line for BIG MONEY.
Let's say the team getting Santana+ is in 2nd place and has a crappy catcher.
Let's say the team getting Puig is in last place. Last. place.
Let's say the team getting Puig said that they expect him to put up ENORMOUS numbers in a September call-up. That's his reason.

[And let's be clear... the team getting Puig is out-of-it. No chance. Perhaps there's no collusion, though the big problem is always just that... "is there?"]

Seriously... if you are in 1st place (imagine you are inline for $5000 winnings)... would you be OK with this trade?
I would not.

My feeling on veto has always been the same.
1) Allow all non-trading managers a public vote.
2) 75% veto overtuns the trade.

[norrisdivision]

I'm OK with vetos.
There is always an example that can be for & against a veto vote.
(Your one example isn't reason enough to eliminate veto voting)

The Puig trade shouldn't have been vetoed... since it was still in the 1st half of the season and any team could win.

However, let's say it's August... in a one-year league... a one-year BIG MONEY league.

Let's say you are in 1st place... in line for BIG MONEY.
Let's say the team getting Santana+ is in 2nd place and has a crappy catcher.
Let's say the team getting Puig is in last place. Last. place.
Let's say the team getting Puig said that they expect him to put up ENORMOUS numbers in a September call-up. That's his reason.

[And let's be clear... the team getting Puig is out-of-it. No chance. Perhaps there's no collusion, though the big problem is always just that... "is there?"]

Seriously... if you are in 1st place (imagine you are inline for $5000 winnings)... would you be OK with this trade?
I would not.

My feeling on veto has always been the same.
1) Allow all non-trading managers a public vote.
2) 75% veto overtuns the trade.

You are bang on with one-year leagues Pengwin. I've never been in one so I'm never thinking in that context. It changes everything though. My leagues are full keepers from year to year so that's the frame of reference I'm working (and posting) in. Just saying I can't think of a situation in a full keeper league where all teams who are in it for their own good, whether it be short term or long term, should have their deals judged by anyone but the commissioner. A good deal SHOULD hurt all the other teams since it betters the two sides involved for different reasons. If a GM is repeatedly making deals that really are to the detriment of his own team, the commish could look at replacing him in the off-season. I'm just not a fan of the league passing judgement on the long-term consequences of a deal and not letting deals pass based on their current valuations. In the long run, it would never allow serious risk-takers to potentially get ahead of those playing it safe. Would I have traded Matt Kemp for Manny Machado last September? No way, and there would have been complaints had I done so. But I'd do it today and that's only ~50 games later. Go figure though, the Machado owner won't bite! I debated whether or not to open up this can of worms with a new post but I couldn't resist given the short time frame in which the values of the players involved in my trade changed. I thought it might serve as a reasonable example of why not to jump to the standard conclusions when a lop-sided trade goes down in your (keeper) league.

[hyena2323]

While that is certainly a great case to be made for one year leagues (Pengwin), it is precluded by the fact that in this "fictitious" scenario, why would anyone trade young, high ceiling prospects?

Puig, an injured Middlebrooks, Gausman, Moustakas, all young "prospects". Some of these guys probably are not even owned in some 1 year leagues.

I have been the commish for over 8 years in both a 16 team dynasty league for baseball and hockey (both of which started as 1-year leagues with vetoing), with BIG money prizes. Managers being allowed to veto trades for no reason, regardless if you say 75% or 95% of the league needs to vote against it, has no place in these leagues. A commissioner with half a brain and sound knowledge of the game can do a more than adequate job.

In a one year league, there is no way a commissioner would allow the above trade, involving mostly prospects, to be executed and no one in the league would have a leg to stand on, to even argue about it.