To Veto, Or Not To Veto
Jun 11th, 2008 by Tyler Norton
The question really lies with your commish. The way I see it, there are three reasons vetoing trades are allowed in leagues.
- A. The commish is too lazy to check each trade, so by allowing vetoes he covers his own ass for not paying attention.
- B. There is frequent collusion and there needs to be a league-wide involvement to help stop it.
- C. The commish wants each trade to be fair for both teams.
Let’s pick these apart one at a time shall we? In example A the commish should be removed from power. Period. If the leader of the league can’t handle critiques and doesn’t stand on his principles, then he is in the wrong place as commish. Find someone who has the time to look at all the trades and make sure there is no collusion.
In example B there is a need for new members, not a new commish. No one likes to have a league ruined by collusion and under the table dealing. This should not, and cannot be tolerated. That being said, vetoes are NOT the correct way to stop it. Again, you need a commish who rules with an iron fist to crack down on these things and prevent them from happening.
Last but not least is example C. This is the meat of the issue here. The real question is not “should we use vetoes or commish review to make trades fair”, but rather “why do all trades need to be fair?” As long as a team is not loading up talent and shipping it off for nothing for financial gain, then there is no reason to veto trades.
Isn’t the point of trading to try to improve your team by giving up less than you get in return? Sure there are the occasional need-based even trades where both teams are informed and happy, but when you are the one doing your homework and making good trades you deserve to be rewarded.
Personally, I do not think vetoes have any place in fantasy sports. All it takes is a semi-hardworking commish (how many trades are there that take place anyway), and a league that is not corrupt. If anyone can come up with a good reason (besides maybe a corrupt commish) that vetoing is a good thing, then I am all ears.
Maybe collusion goes on in public leagues - I don’t know, I don’t participate in them - but I think single vetoes are a very slippery slope. This is a competitive game and if one manager doesn’t realize what he is doing and gets burned on a deal that’s his problem. No one protected the Mets when they traded Scott Kazmir away for nothing. If you need vetoes to prevent collusion you need a new league. The leagues I commish are set to no review/no veto. Plus, who wants to wait 3-5 days for something to process.
In my leagues, I set them up to allow me to review all trades, and give other owners a 24 window to submit objections. Unless I see collusion, all trades are allowed. I always have felt that managers should be free to make bad trades and that it is not my place to supplant my judgment for theirs.
24 hour window, that is.
I have vetoing on in my league because we have a wide variety of skill levels involved. Plus, new members aren’t exactly a dime a dozen, so I want everyone to be happy—which they won’t be if they get suckered into a huge lopsided trade. I’ll let some go, but not the ARod for peanuts type trade.