Hey Hoop-Ballers,
i'm sure this topic has been discussed time and time again. But what's your philosophy on veto. Should they be Commish only or owners veto?
i firmly believe the Commish should have veto power only. and that only in rare cases of collusion should a commish even veto a trade. But some owners feel they don't have an opinion. my thoughts are i can't stop people from making stupid or smart deals. absence of proof of collusion i stay out.
let me know your thoughts or stories. what does your league do?
Standard leagues on Yahoo require 25% of the members to vote against a trade in order for it to be vetoed, so four of the 12 members. I think this is a good policy. It's been tested over the years, and this is what they've deemed the best method so far.
Why do you want solely the commissioner to have that power? What if the commissioner is corrupt?
I once joined a random league that wasn't public. It was mostly guys who knew each other and they opened it up to a fill a few spots. As the season progressed, my team rose to the top and the "good ole boys" didn't like it. They started making unbalanced trades to try to compete with me. I was the only one vetoing the trades because they wanted to see me lose. I voiced how I didn't agree with them on the message board and the commissioner proceeded to drop all of the droppable players from my team and then locked my team so I couldn't even pick up garbage waiver guys. Bogus. I would've won the league otherwise. I've only experienced this once, but I learned from it and won't join a league like that again. Now, I'm mostly only in public leagues.
I think by requiring 1/4 of the members to veto a trade, it is more representative of the league's opinions. If veto power rests solely with the commissioner and the commissioner isn't the most knowledgable, you can have unbalanced trades going through.
Whether a trade is intended as collusion or not, really unbalance trades shouldn't be permitted. In a public league I'm in right now, there was a pending trade of Dennis Schroder for Michael Kidd Gilchrist. Clearly this is unbalanced and the enough players voted against the trade for it to be vetoed. Was it collusion? Who knows, may one owner really loves MKG or hates Schroder. It doesn't matter. Whether it was collusion or not, that trade shouldn't go through.
Now, of course there's buying-low and selling-high. Depending on what you know, you may look at one of these trades and say, "wow, that guy's getting a steal," or "this guy's getting ripped off." Usually buying-low or selling-high deals are balanced enough for them to not be vetoed, but if all power is with the commish, vetoing a trade rests solely on one guy's opinion, opposed to the whole league. What makes this guy a deity? Does he know something we don't? Does he know where all the players will be ranked at season's end?
If you have the whole league weighing in, everybody's opinions are factored in.
In short, I think the standard league system or requiring 1/4 of the league to agree for a veto is pretty good.
Hey Capt,
Thanks for your story and opinion. After reading some more and considering your story, what may be the most equitable is to find a middle ground. Ultimately, if it's a redraft league there should be more guidance as to the definition of fair. But, in keeper or dynasty leagues determining fairness is nearly an impossible task. Simply because fairness absence statistical reasoning is highly subjective. There are so many variables. Trying to figure out the reason behind someones future plans is nearly impossible. Can we agree we are just referring to REDRAFT leagues?
With that said, i'm not generally a fan of pure authority (i.e. Commissioner veto power) but the alternative is fraught with pitfalls and abuses. If we are talking about redraft leagues i feel, if an owner has an issue with a trade, they should express their grievance to the Commish, publicly or privately. The Commish should ask the other two owners what their reasoning of the trade is. At which point the Commish can make their findings and either allow or disallow the trade.
If the Commish is corrupt as you said or is in cahoots with the other owners, you should leave that league ASAP. You can tell pretty quickly if the Commish is being shady. That'll be the last league fee you'll pay in that league ever again.
If your league wants to collectively have a voice then all disputes can be made publicly. And you can make it that if owners want to override the Commish's decision it'll require a 2/3 vote and a clear explanation why. If there is 1/3 of people voting against it, then the owners in the trade must explain publicly why they are doing the trade. And the Commish could review it. There are a bunch of combinations you can do. Ideally, you want to keep the peace and make the league fun.
But i think vetos are precious and dangerous tools that should be used in only rare cases. I'd love to hear more creative ways people have made work.
Commish only, Veto should only be done in case of cheating.
In that example, I really don't see why Schroder for MKG should be vetoed at all if both sides agreed to it. I'm almost always against vetoing an agreed upon trade.
Commish only, I agree.
Need to join leagues you can trust.
