I hate vetoing a fantasy sports trade, yet I’ve done it twice this weekend. I understand an owner doing a high reward/high risk trade and I won’t veto that. I understand being desperate at a scarce position and doing an unbalanced trade just to get a starting goaltender in hockey or a qb in football. However, if you accept a completely unbalanced trade, I think that the owner on the bad end of a deal should offer a brief explanation as to why they did. When I see an unbalanced trade, I’ll look at both teams to see if I can figure out if they made the trade to try to improve a particular stats category. If I can’t figure it out and the league is a keeper league, I’ll just have to veto unless I can convince myself otherwise.
If it hurts your team or assists a rival, veto it.
With all due respect, that’s bullshit and an abuse of commissioner power.
If there is collusion involved, veto it. Otherwise, stay out, and next year don’t invite morons into your league.
Or alternatively, institute a last-place monetary penalty to keep even the last place teams competing until the end.
I think vetos should be reserved for situations where there is collusion between the teams involved, or some kind of actual cheating involved. In my opinion, if both teams make a deal because they think its helping their team, it should be allowed. From what I’ve seen in leagues I’ve been in, if there’s trades happening where one team is getting consistently ripped off, and they don’t involve cheating, the problem probably has a lot to do with the ripped off owner’s overall knowledge of the sport, or at least the fantasy aspect of it. Sometimes you just have to look at how smart or committed some of the owners are, and possibly steer more casual ones towards more casual leagues.
And upon posting I see I pretty much restated what ReticulatingSplines said in the post immediately above mine. I didn’t mean to copy, I guess we’re just on the same page!
As a FF commish, I try my best to look out for the league. That can sometimes be a difficult thing, especially when the league is full of family and friends.
I only stop a trade if I see a clear imbalance. I then talk to the two folks involved, to see where their minds were at the time they made the trade.
If I’m satisfied that the person on the crap end of the trade wants to make the trade and is just a moron, I’ll let the trade go through. If I think there is colluding or someone just doesn’t give a crap about their team any more, I’ll veto it.
I have one guy in my league that does a star dump every year when he’s officially out of the playoffs. So, I’ve had to bar this kind of behavior. I will also not let someone “throw” a game by not starting anyone, or not trying, unless both teams involved are out of the playoffs. I don’t want someone to get a free win because someone is throwing a tantrum.
Then, I look for someone to replace the player that can’t handle losing.
I’ve run the same league for 10 years, so I think most people are comfortable with what I’m doing and trying to do. People can make a very fun thing a true pain in the ass for me if they want to.
As others have said, the only reason to veto a trade is collusion. If someone makes an honest bad decision, that’s their problem.
I assume gonzomax was kidding.
Gonzomax is correct. You do what you need to do in order to win, and one of those things is to hurt your rivals and/or prevent them from getting players that will improve their team.
Let’s say, for example, that you have the top QB, RB, WR, WR2, RB2, TE, and DEF in fantasy and are easily winning every game by double or triple your opponent’s points. Should you drop some of these players to make it “more fair?” Let’s say another player drops 2nd best QB. Should you ignore it because you don’t need it, or should you try and get that player just to prevent someone else from getting them?
I don’t like the discussion around here that includes a lot of criticizing of trade vetoing. These critics spin it by insulting people that suggest it, but you do what you have to do to win. If you don’t, you don’t win. If you don’t think vetoing is good, just say that and leave off the insults.
Oh, from the commissioner’s point of view, I don’t think one person should have sole veto power. Nobody will be happy, including the commissioner.
Vetoing a fair trade just because you’re a dick is a… wait for it… dick move. Vetoes should only be used when there’s a major imbalance in the trade (and even that can be waved through with an explanation from both participants) or obvious cheating.
Seek reasons from both parties. If it makes sense, then let it go.
Vetoing a trade for the simple reason that it hurts your own team is, simply, bush league. It’s on the same level as seeing your opponent has his DEF on bye, and going through all the available DEFs and add/dropping them to get them all on waivers. It’s a dick move that reeks of poor sportsmanship. People who do shit like that in leagues I’m in tend to not get called back next year.
I’ll happily beat anyone, dick moves or no dick moves - because when you resort to crap like that it tends to mean you can’t win within the normal parameters of a fantasy league.