Almost vetoed trade

[bbfl1987]

Okay thanks on the trade feedback and veto for collusion feedback.

What do you do in your leagues for trades and feedback? Do you have public or anonymous vetoes? Something else? What works for you?

In my league, any GM can veto a trade. They must contact the commish and state their case as to why they’re choosing to veto. It’s anonymous to the rest of the league who initiated it. All GMs must then anonymously vote on whether the trade should be canceled. I hate it, but that’s how my league is.

[Gotenks]

Yeah veto powers are generally for collusion trades only in our league. We've had some bad trades too.

Last season Hutton went for Tatar and Schultz.

[chuckcouples]

In my 31 team dynasty league, we have a owner's committee that consists of 6 long time GMs. If any of our 31 GMs, questions the validity of a trade and the commissioner agrees that the trade may not be good for the long term viability of the league, the owner's committee will review the trade. This means that they will give each GM a chance to explain their thoughts on the trade then the committee votes on whether the trade should be processed.

Pretty much the only time a trade goes through this process is when it involves a new GM. We tend to let the GMs who have been around for a while the ability to completely ruin their team if that's what they want to do!!!

[ericdaoust]

Bad trade. What should be "vetoed" is your decision to rebuild, which led to this bad trade.

[Toepick]

Larson for Hall should've been vetoed by Bettman

[FutureChamp]

Our league has been going for 10 years and we are lucky it’s mostly close friends or people who became friends because of the pool.

We got rid of the veto after year two. Was a constant headache. In year one, People whining every time a a manager felt a lopsided trade was made. But only when they weren’t the ones benefitting.

Year two. Hardly any trading cause of the overflow and bad blood from year one.

Now, We will shit on each other for bad deals but the veto is gone. Bad trades happen. That’s real and fantasy hockey.

Clearly stated and agreed between all of us. If it looks brutal enough that it’s collusion, you’re out. No vetos. You’re just out. And it’s never come to that.

And PLENTY of trades were mocked as soon as they happened for how “bad” they were for one manager. 6 months later it looks like a smart move.

Get off the veto train.

[PicklePickle]

I don't like veto. Except conlusion.

You can't judge a trade on the first day. I want to say 80-90% of trades in the NHL are a duo of a Contenders team and a Re/building-tool. Of course for the moment the team that gives the NHL player is losing...that's the point.

In my league we have a mentorship system where a new gm is given a mentor for 4 to 6 months that help him with trading and as to say yes for every trade that the new gm does. The mentor can't trade for the first year with the new gm.

[Atomic Wedgy]

In my league, any GM can veto a trade. They must contact the commish and state their case as to why they’re choosing to veto. It’s anonymous to the rest of the league who initiated it. All GMs must then anonymously vote on whether the trade should be canceled. I hate it, but that’s how my league is.

Hahahahah! May as well just change it to automatic vote if the trade can go through. If you start seeing weird results, I would be wary of the anonymous votes that only the commish sees.

[Atomic Wedgy]

[QUOTE=FutureChamp;2073505]
Now, We will shit on each other for bad deals but the veto is gone. Bad trades happen. That’s real and fantasy hockey.
QUOTE]

This is exactly how our league handles it. You get shit talked for ages if you give up a bad deal. We have a veto rule, but I dont think its ever been used in the 17 years we've run the league. Its easier when everyone knows each other and you have a history together.

[GavinC]

I think the argument that vetoes only apply for collusion is ridiculous. Collusion is almost impossible to prove so the rule is toothless AF, especially this day and age. I personally feel that vetos are a good tool for a league to ensure stability/integrity, but it needs to be a super-majority to trigger. There can't be any sort of collusion on the side of the voters, and it has to be the vast majority of the league that thinks it's a bad idea. One of those rules that's on the books as a deterrent, and (hopefully) is never enforced. Silver lining, this also handles the one-in-a-billion case where collusion is proven.

That said, this veto definitely seems to fall into the voter collusion side of things :/ Should propose to your GM to boost the number of votes required to trigger the veto.

[Axeman33]

I think the argument that vetoes only apply for collusion is ridiculous. Collusion is almost impossible to prove so the rule is toothless AF, especially this day and age. I personally feel that vetos are a good tool for a league to ensure stability/integrity, but it needs to be a super-majority to trigger. There can't be any sort of collusion on the side of the voters, and it has to be the vast majority of the league that thinks it's a bad idea. One of those rules that's on the books as a deterrent, and (hopefully) is never enforced. Silver lining, this also handles the one-in-a-billion case where collusion is proven.

That said, this veto definitely seems to fall into the voter collusion side of things :/ Should propose to your GM to boost the number of votes required to trigger the veto.

I agree that collusion is hard to prove unless you can honestly say you know everyone in your pool personally.

For example, the pool in my signature is a pool with a slew of friends and co-workers and believe me, I'd know if there was collusion or not. In most of my other fantasy pools that I do online, I dont know most of the guys personally or at least not the point where I'd say I do. I cant see collusion through a computer monitor.

That being said, I do think there's two sides to vetoes. One, I do think that if a new GM comes in and is unknown to others, a veto might not be a bad thing if he's making a few really questionable trades. The issue falls with who are we to determine someones capabilities in judging players and how they are preceived, value wise. I have always been on the side of "let the GM run his team how he wants". The issue comes down to how familiar are you with this GMs thought process.

Let me give you a different example. I am in a bunch of keeper pools with Eskimo Brother. At least two for sure. If he was to make a trade that made me go "woah, wtf is he thinking here?", I wouldn't publicly question it. I would say it to myself, but I know him well enough and his hockey mind to know he must have an agenda as to why he made this trade and I'd trust his thought process on it. On the other hand, if a new GM just came into one of my keepers and did that same questionable trade, I'd be more vocal on my opposition.

I do think veto has a place in fantasy sports, especially if you dont know these people well and haven't experienced their knowledge yet. That doesnt mean your or my knowledge should be considered superior, but that his knowledge should also be challenged until he can prove he really has an understanding of what he's up to.

There's nothing worse for a fantasy league than to have a new GM come into a league, get raped on a few trades and then watch him leave and the Commish is now scrambling to find a replacement for a team that has little to no value and no one wants to take it over. Anyone who's done any fantasy sports for any amount of time can say they've seen this happen and it's garbage for any league to let it happen. All you are doing is making the league worse.

I dont have an issue with some sort of voting committee when it comes to questionable trades as long as it's small; say the Commish and two trusted members of the league. They should only vote when it's contested and considered a bad trade for the league. Sometimes when you have too many voters, you'll get those bitter betty's who are mad they missed out on certain players and vote against a trade just for spite. Keep it simple and keep it small.

Sorry for the ramble.

[Pengwin7]

I think the argument that vetoes only apply for collusion is ridiculous. Collusion is almost impossible to prove so the rule is toothless AF, especially this day and age. I personally feel that vetos are a good tool for a league to ensure stability/integrity, but it needs to be a super-majority to trigger. There can't be any sort of collusion on the side of the voters, and it has to be the vast majority of the league that thinks it's a bad idea. One of those rules that's on the books as a deterrent, and (hopefully) is never enforced. Silver lining, this also handles the one-in-a-billion case where collusion is proven.

That said, this veto definitely seems to fall into the voter collusion side of things :/ Should propose to your GM to boost the number of votes required to trigger the veto.

Yes - love it!
It's nice to show up to a thread and not have to say what you believe... 'cause somebody else has said it!
Nice work - big rep! (Sent!)



***My own thoughts, below, re: How Should Leagues Deal With It***


As for vetoes - PUBLIC.
They.shall.be.public.votes.
And there should be a majority vote among all non-trading GMs remaining.
Votes count only if votes are made: Veto or No-Veto.
If only 7 GMs voice opinions, and 4 say veto, and 3 say no veto, and 3 don't show up... yeah, overturn that trade!
GMs also need to chime in when chiming is needed.


Veto-ing a trade (IMO) is usually a pretty bitch-move if it can be made privately.
One should stand up on a pedestal and yell out your concern if you see it.

I don't think I've ever veto-ed a trade, but I definitely believe that vetoes are an essential part of good fantasy leagues, especially where the GMs are a randomly collected hodge-podge with some fair-weather fantasy fans that might give up caring.
(The most typical "unbalanced trade", I've found, is when one GM doesn't really care much about the league and just gets worn down and gifts some players over to a buddy or somebody... just to do... something. Then everybody raises shit and that GM ends up leaving at end of season. Seen that MANY, MANY times. And knowing that situation will always exist is reason enough for leagues to have vetoes. The whole "Veto is for Collusion Only" stance is for the unexperienced. There's a place for the veto, in.deed.)


[btw. Effin great thread. I thought I was an abrasive commenter... but it seems I've been leapfrogged on the forum bitchy-ness list lately. Get out the mf popcorn!]