VETO? Stastny & Lecavalier for Ovechkin

[Instant Karma]

I'm find with a vote system. A PROPER vote system. I just don't think yours is. If a trade is so bad that it is clearly detrimental to the league, then it will be more than obvious it should be vetoed to all managers. As such, if you want a voting veto system, it should require 100% of the non-trading owners to veto, and should have no issue achieving that.

The problem with unanimity in any situation is first and foremost that some people just don't pay that close attention to their league(s). You don't want something like this to have to go through just because one or more mangers haven't looked in on their league lately.

[audiopile]

I dont normally like vetos but in this case I would vote YES.

My advice is, win this season and quit the league. Your comish is corrupt.

[roenick27]

Lawman, it's not just the volume that I'm talking about, but more so the validation of such. It needs to go something like this IMO:
1) I have no issue with someone wanting to veto a trade. Go ahead and post it publicly on the forum etc
2) you've opened up a can of worms. You better be able to support that with one heck of an argument (the original op no. That is almost 100% obvious, but you get the point)
3) this is where the struggle in my head begins. Say no one else votes to veto. Then it looks bad on the vetoer but maybe they have a good argument? I'm not saying punish them if they are speaking truthfully and make a good argument. If someone vetoes my trade trust me, I'm taking their number down and so is everyone else in the league. But where I struggle is the post from earlier on. I had 3 gms vote to veto a deal. 1) didn't comment further when called out. 2) another said he "didn't like it". 3) said he didn't think it was a good trade. Was a little more in depth but wouldn't exactly convince a jury...
To me this needs to be punished. Vetoes are for collusion or detrimental trades like the op posted. Other than that it doesn't belong in fantasy hockey IMO.
Now there is always a line, but how is that line determined? I think it's a fickle line that is constantly changing based on each trade, otherwise undefinable. So IMO, to curb it, there needs to be some type of protocol in place to deter these situations from happening.
In other words I'm fine with a veto, as long as the vetoer can have the tables turned on them, and they need to be able to state such a strong case that they not only convince the league (say the jury in this case) beyond any doubt that the trade is detrimental (similar to your "air test" you mentioned. If not, they would basically be getting counter sued if that makes sense.

I agree with Pengwin's points (as usual). Luckily for me and my league we have only ever faced a veto vote twice in league history. And both times it actually revolved in part around some guys not understanding the value of keepers in a keep-2 league. The few times I have had to consider a veto vote I have used the "Air of Reality" test. Question: Is there any opinion which is reasonable that allows for each team to argue they can win the trade? Ultimately it's a pretty low bar. I don't have to agree with the guy on his opinion, I can even think it's an idiotic opinion, but if said opinion is honestly held, and within the realm of possibility I'll let the trade pass. Now it's really easy to make these statements in the abstract, it's when you apply the statement to the facts of a trade that things get murky in a hurry.

This trade is so lopsided, and bad for keepers, and amongst a last place team, and between brothers that it screams veto.

I also agree that all leagues should have a veto rule in place at inception. The rule should be clearly outlined as to the: process- how to initiate, how to call for vote, argument beforehand and type of vote (public or private) timeline, and procedure for veto voting. Ideally the rule will also include some guidelines on the proper use and procedure, and philosophy behind why vetos are allowed (collusion is bad, trades so bad lopsided they effect league integrity are also bad). Having clear rules in place will reduce the amount of arguing when it becomes necessary to review a trade.



An interesting idea that I've never considered before. Generally speaking that a guy who complains about every trade and constantly calls for vetos is dealt with by other managers naturally being less inclined to trade with him. I can't say as I've ever heard of a rule that calls for punishment for a failed veto vote. I'd be inclined to give everyone one freebie but that's just me, if guys become a constant problem they can be booted from the league for the benefit of the surviving 11 managers.

[Loch]

Moved to keeper trade talk (some asked a few pages back)...

Oh, and put me in the veto camp.

[RangerFan]

This trade was a very clear veto. The bigger question is how to set up a system where vetoes can be evaluated. One suggestion is the whole league vote. But, as it was brought up, some managers don't pay as close of an attention or have some ulterior motives. Another way, and what one of my leagues set up, was to have 3 trusted managers decide if there is any veto. It has worked well.

[Instant Karma]

I think we're over-thinking it. I would think if somewhere around 33-40% of a league vetoes a trade, that should be enough.

With people being traditionally reluctant to veto trades in the first place, if you can get that much of an objection then it's likely something that shouldn't go through, even if the vetoes are in the minority.

[pmorrow]

[domo604]

I hate veto myself, but that's an absolute terrible trade that smells of collusion...no way can you sell me that "oh lecavalier is back and fantasy relevant, i'm getting back lots of depth"

that's ridiculous and hope rest of managers in your league see it and veto it, ovechkin is too big especially for fantasy playoffs

[The Comish]

I'm glad the trade in question here got the big VETO. Horrible, horrible deal even if collusion wasn't involved...yeah, likely story. I'm not buying it either, but they could have at least made it look better. Dumb and dumberer.

In leagues I commish, I don't allow veto voting. I know this is going to come off as arrogant, but I run my league like North Korea - I make all the calls and if a General questions me, he disappears. Okay, maybe I'm kidding (seriously, just maybe) about the guy disappearing, but I don't think you can leave something as important as this to a vote that has the potential to be compromised by individuals campaigning for or against veto's to suit their personal circumstances. I've been running money leagues for more than 25 years and have earned a reputation as a fair commish with a little hockey knowledge. It helps that I know most of the guys in my money leagues personally.

Only a handful of times in my 25 years have I questioned the integrity (that's what you're doing when you openly ask for a veto) of a trade. Once, the owner was relatively new to fantasy hockey and ran into a ruthless owner spamming trade offers. I didn't outright veto that deal, but I quietly asked the shark to revise his offer if he wanted it approved (it would have compromised the integrity of the league, but it wasn't collusion).

Another time, two guys got into a pissing match in another league they were both in and one of the guys made a very lop-sided deal to try and screw the guy he had an argument with. I knew what was going on, and I questioned both guys as to how the deal came about and what each side got out of the deal. I got a lot of righteous indignation. The trade was pretty well constructed, but the timing of it caused me some concern. Reluctantly, I allowed the trade to go through, but it still bugs me today when I think about it. I ended up not letting the one guy back in our league and I dropped out of the league he was running because if I can't trust the commish in a money league, I'm outta there. The patsy who took the shyster's trade ended up leaving our league a year later. I didn't try to convince him to stay.

This is a great line for commish's:

I tend to take the same philosophical approach to collusion that that judge so famously took with pornography way back when: "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

[StuntMan12]

Yeah not a good trade at all...and that coming from a guy like me is a big thing.

[Call of Doughty]

the word VETO came up 347 times in this thread......oops 348 times......

[rangerfan2430]

the word VETO came up 347 times in this thread......oops 348 times......

Veto
Veto

I had to make it 350

[larrylintz]

im a no veto guy, but this is a no-brainer veto and if your league hesitates in killing this deal they r doofuses. and yeah, you needed to mention the brother thing off the top,

[Doug Glatt]

Cheeky bastard, trying to pull a deal like that. As a rule of thumb its not good to have spouses/siblings in the same league. I cant remember one that didnt eventually have a collusive trade occur, sooner or later. This one is egregious though.

[StuntMan12]

Cheeky bastard, trying to pull a deal like that. As a rule of thumb its not good to have spouses/siblings in the same league. I cant remember one that didnt eventually have a collusive trade occur, sooner or later. This one is egregious though.

The worst spousal trade ive seen was Hall/Shattenkirk for Versteeg/Tyutin and the team getting Hall and Shatty ended up winning the league because of it and both have since dropped out of the league after that season. Its a money league to boot.