Veto this? Please respond.

[Shoeless]

The problem with this logic is if this guy trades away another top end player for Roloson/Cammaleri, this could ruin the league. One guy could have another teams top players basically for free.

The problem with this thinking is that you assume it's a good league that can be ruined when you have a guy in the league that makes dumb assed trades like this - it's too late, it's already not a good league. All that a veto does now is maintain the status quo - and guess who that serves - yup, the guys vetoing. Vetoes aren't the answer.

[littleranger]

The problem with this thinking is that you assume it's a good league that can be ruined when you have a guy in the league that makes dumb assed trades like this - it's too late, it's already not a good league. All that a veto does now is maintain the status quo. Vetoes aren't the answer.

Well something has to be done to educate this manager. Roloson won't even be kept after this season so its Cammaleri for Crosby. Maybe his rationale is that hes trying to win this year and believes Crosby will not be that effective. I dont know, just seems like a trade like this could break a league.

[Shoeless]

It's already broken. A veto won't fix that, it will just break it more. Kick the guy out and take over his team and run it by committee - that's effectively what a veto is here.

[BamNeely]

While the main function of a veto is to prevent collusion (I think that's what you meant, not coercion... unless the GMs in your league are seeking each other out in real life to break each other's knees), I also think in principle it should guard against those completely ignorant, moronic trades that will completely throw off the balance of competition in the league.

Haha yeah meant collusion. Though vetos could be used to protect owners from coercion if you happen to be in a mafia ran league!

[Dakkster]

It's already broken. A veto won't fix that, it will just break it more. Kick the guy out and take over his team and run it by committee - that's effectively what a veto is here.

Yeppers.

Agree 100%.

Veto is for coercion or else it all becomes entirely arbitrary.

[TheRook]

The trade is completely one sided but i dont like vetoing. As Shoeless mentioned, you would mostly be vetoing through your own personal interests.

What if the veto did go through? How many of those managers who vetoed the trade would send a lowball offer for Crosby trying to get him?

IMO, you can always tell the quality of the GM's in a league by the trades that are made. If these type of trade are typical, i think the league has taken a wrong turn somewhere, and once that happens you cant really recover it.

[Old_Smokie]

No collusion = no veto, the best advice here would be what Shoeless mentioned and kick the guy out and run the team by committee. See that's why you only invite educated people to a keeper or plan on trying to educate them as they go. As the commish of a keeper league I make sure to always talk player value and worth with fellow GMs in the league. I have a great bunch of GMs this is the only way to avoid stupidity like this.

[valient_dude]

Thanks for the great discussion guys. Wasn't expecting three pages to pop this quick, but maybe this forum needed a good veto debate.

[dodospice]

No veto guys

[Dakkster]

Thanks for the great discussion guys. Wasn't expecting three pages to pop this quick, but maybe this forum needed a good veto debate.

The veto debate flares up here from time to time, yeah

[Riverboat Danglers]

ya i have seen some good veto debates here recently but like many others said if u are serious about using a veto, then why dont you just kick the guy out of the league and run his team by committe. there is no evidence whatsoever about collusion and that should be the only reason why a trade is vetoed. if trades like this happen you just have bad managers

[Shenanigans]

Going to jump on the Anti-Veto committee. As pointed out previously - dictatorship ruins a league just as fast as a horrible manager does. ( although I do feel poorly for you seeing stuff like that happen )

I'm fortunate enough to pool with 9 other rabid GMnerds, that don't miss much ~ so a lopsided trade rarely occurs, and even then its nothing to approach a trade offer like the one in the OP.

Jebus! It seems like I can't get away with anything anymore...unless its a very under-the-radar rookie...but of course those are the sweetest kills. Mwahaha!

If you didn't want to leave the league you're in, but still don't want to have lopsided transactions occur - perhaps you could repair things a little by suggesting to an under-educated GM that : The next time he/she receives a proposal that they aren't sure of....bounce any trades off another manager. (as if looking to see if they'd offer something better)

Of course, that can open its own can of worms...but still better than arbitrary vetoes, methinks.


.

[PittPens1787]

As most have said already, you can't (shouldn't) veto stupidity.

What you should do, though, is have this guy publicly explain what the F is going on in his mind. Just a simple explanation. If he says anything like "Im going for it all this year and Crosby isnt going to help me," let him be. If, when publicly asked on the league message board, he doesn't respond, kick him out. Really just get an explanation out of the guy.