Todd's Trade Veto Article

Ask questions or post comments on all site articles, essays and analysis pieces.
Post Reply
Message
Author
deansdaddy

Todd's Trade Veto Article

#1 Post by deansdaddy »

Decided to branch the discussion on Todd's article on Trade Vetoes over here on the MB. Writing an article about such a sensitive subject and taking the stance of allowing vetoes opens this up to everyone to share their own thoughts an anecdotes regarding trades and vetoes in fantasy.

I think it is safe to say, that if you took a poll of most serious fantasy players regarding Vetoes, most would say they are against them in general. I know that I personally don't like vetoes, because my experience is they inevitably cause more problems than they solve. The other side of the coin is that without some system to "manage" trades, how does a league preserve the integrity of the season and still create a system that allows owners the freedom to be creative on the trade market in hopes of improving their team?

I will state first and foremost, that if your league is going to have vetoes, you better make sure that things are spelled out clearly in your league's constitution. You should also know going in, that once you implement vetoes - you are creating a new subset of issues to deal with. Todd touches on one of the bigger problems when he talked about his own personal criteria for vetoing a trade. The problem is that I think you have to assume that at least half (if not more) of the owners in your league will not treat their newly acquired "veto" power with the same restraint that Todd talks about. The fact is that if you are battling it out for first place with me and I need to gain ground in SB's and SV's. I trade Albert Pujols and Cliff Lee for Juan Pierre and Chris Perez for the last month of the season. On paper it's a lopsided deal, one that no one would advocate making. Doesn't it make sense for you to veto the deal and hope that 5-7 others only look at the surface? The veto should never be used this way, to just block a competitors deal, but unless you address it - it will be used this way. And it will likely create just as many arguments as you had before when you just allowed every trade to go through.

I think trade vetoes CAN work - if you have a league that is strong, long-standing, with intelligent and dedicated owners and MOST importantly a great commissioner. The sad fact for about 95% of those playing fantasy is this isn't the case. Most come to our hobby via Yahoo and ESPN. I used to play in a free league or two every year, just to stay connected to the product that Yahoo and ESPN were putting out every year. I played in more than a handful of leagues that had vetoes - and in these public leagues - it is just a nightmare. I don't miss playing in public leagues anymore - but we have to understand that this is still the place where tomorrow's players are learning the game. I think we have to be careful in advocating a system that tells players part of playing the game is to judge how other owners decide to play the game. I just don't think it works.

deansdaddy

Re: Trade Vetoes

#2 Post by deansdaddy »

I wanted to start a new thought here - because this deals with something that happen to me.

A few years back I was was in a local league with a lot of close friends. I was one of the founding members of this league, but I was not the commissioner. Over the years the league was split pretty clearly down the middle when it came to how we wanted to play the game. The commissioner of this league, it is fair to say, was at the exact opposite side of the spectrum from me when it came to almost everything regarding the league. He was always a less is more guy and I was always fighting to expand the game. Every year this guy would start the year by implementing some change to the game or rules without consulting anyone. EVERY year, my half of the league would have to stop him by insisting all changes needed to be voted on. Sometimes we lost, sometimes we won - but at least things were decided by league vote. I won multiple titles in this league as did another friend of mine (who is still in the league) as we were definitely the types of owners that would find and exploit every aspect/loopholes that our league allowed. It is fair to say that the two of us (and a third owner) dominated this league for the first 8-10 years of existence. The funny thing is that every off season brought the same result. The commissioner (my nickname for him was Napoleon) inevitably would begin the new season by announcing all his new changes. The guy was an absolute nightmare as a commissioner and every year I had to call him on his power grabs. Every year I had to lead the counterattack. It was a position that unfortunately put me in this guys cross-hairs and he did something to me that to this day still rankles me.

We had had problems with bad trades in this league for years. Any league that allows trades will have them. One problem with trading leagues that I had always felt existed is the lack of a system to ensure that a trading owner received fair value back in a trade. This was especially true when we were talking about a "star" player. I'm sure everyone can relate or relive a situation where you logged onto your league page to see that someone chasing you in the standings just made a trade for a difference maker and you didn't even know the guy was available. It's a problem that always bugged me. If you were going to trade Pujols wouldn't you want to let the entire league know? Wouldn't you want as many people involved as possible? Of course. But the fact is that often times the owners trading studs are out of contention and less willing to seek out the best bargains. Often, they will except the first offer that comes along, without considering the implications on anyone else in the league.

Anyway - prior to the season we were yet again discussing what to do about bad trades. We had just recently adopted keepers and that had opened a whole new slew of dump trades and season changing trades. We had a system that basically gave our commissioner the final say in all trade disputes. While we didn't have a true veto - 6 votes (half the league) were required to send a trade to the commissioner for approval. The guy who was commissioner basically set up a system that the only trades that would be overruled were ones where collusion was present/evident. In other words ZERO trades were overturned with these rules and lousy trades continued. With the bar to overturn trades set with collusion being the deciding factor, it basically meant anything was okay. It also meant that if you really hated a trade and thought it was just terrible - your only way to argue against it was to basically argue that two other owners had conspired to make a deal to alter the season. I always hated the position this put the league in and fought it without success year after year.

One season - I thought I had finally come up with a great system for OUR league. I am curious to see what others think of it. I had introduced a proposal that I called "Put Up, or Shut Up!". The proposal was simple. It did away with all vetoes and set up a new way to challenge what you might consider a "bad" trade. Here was the proposal in a nutshell:

-First, all trades once agreed upon would enter into a 48 hour waiting period before becoming official. During this waiting period both sides of the trade were granted new powers. Both owners would have the ability to back out of any trade agreed upon. This to me made sense. It eliminated the scam trades, where injuries were concerned and gave both owners an "out".

-Secondly, the waiting period and ability for both owners to "void" a deal brought in the "Put Up or Shut Up!" aspect. If you didn't like a deal that went down - you then had 48 hours to do one of two things. One - you "Put UP!" - you offered a better deal to either owner in hopes that they take your deal over the one they just agreed to. If they did - the new deal would enter into a new 48 hour waiting period. This to me would force you to offer a better deal to stop a trade you didn't like. It also would hopefully help make sure trades were more balanced. Most importantly if you didn't "Put Up" you had to "Shut Up". You can't complain about a deal when you had the right to top it on either side. Secondly - if you couldn't top either deal the other option would be to simply convince either owner that the deal they were making was a lousy one and hope they just backed out of it. It would bring a new element to negotiations. Say you are going to trade a guy and I call you to say "You really shouldn't make this deal. He is about to become the closer. You aren't getting enough back in return." You back out of the trade and the other owner is forced back to the bargaining table with you. I like this a lot more than just a straight veto. I block your trade by helping the other guy extract more from you in a deal. If you back out of the deal, the other owners are all alerted to the fact that you are willing to deal a certain player. In my opinion - it was a winner of a proposal for the league. Sadly it didn't pass and we went into my final season with the rules as is.

There is more to this story - but I still like my proposal and would love to implement it some day in a league to see how it would work. Anyone else have any ideas like mine to handle trades.

Captain Hook

Re: Trade Vetoes

#3 Post by Captain Hook »

Well I just ready Ryan's post above and have yet to read Todd's article.....BUT let me add a few things

1) I am ABSOLUTELY against trade Vetoes.....or in 99% a vote on a trade (see below)

2) IF you are going to have trades you NEED very good, strong, trade regulations. These rules should take all the grey out of questions about trades - a trade is either legal or it is not.

3) A trade should never be viewed through another competitor's viewpoint. If he is competing with one of the two teams somehow he is going to be against the trade. Again clear, concise trade rules obviate that.


I mentioned a vote above - you could have a league with good rules where there would just be something that many league members have a problem with (they usually involve thinking that someone took advantage of the other person) and thus there might be a time for a league wide vote but it would be very rare.


In keeper leagues there is often a sizeable difference in the valuation of the "current value" vs the "future value involved in the trade, but again if LEGAL the trade should be fine.

I could publish my rules but I think it better to see if people want to discuss the subject and what questions or problems they wish to address here.

SteveB
Major League All-Star
Posts: 327
Joined: January 1st, 2009, 4:28 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#4 Post by SteveB »

Perry hit the nail on the head for me with his #3. To many times owners fail to look at the merits of the trade by itself but vote based on how the trade affects them.


As for Todd's article i think he briefly touches on keeper leagues but in a keeper league situation i think the trade dynamics change quite a bit. A Pujols for Kia example ,like in the article, takes on a whole new light if Pujols is 49 to keep and Kia is 1. What makes "dump trading" work is if you have little turnover in the league. if an owner chooses to void himself of all his great keepers in order to win it all down the stretch it's not so bad if he comes back the following year and takes his lumps because he has to start over. I think the key for me was to get likeminded people in a league. Whenever i was trying to fill a vacancy i would always talk about the dump trading aspects and in fact would include a few from the previous season. If an owner is fully aware there is little problems.

Captain Hook

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#5 Post by Captain Hook »

SteveB wrote:Perry hit the nail on the head for me with his #3. To many times owners fail to look at the merits of the trade by itself but vote based on how the trade affects them.


As for Todd's article i think he briefly touches on keeper leagues but in a keeper league situation i think the trade dynamics change quite a bit. A Pujols for Kia example ,like in the article, takes on a whole new light if Pujols is 49 to keep and Kia is 1. What makes "dump trading" work is if you have little turnover in the league. if an owner chooses to void himself of all his great keepers in order to win it all down the stretch it's not so bad if he comes back the following year and takes his lumps because he has to start over. I think the key for me was to get likeminded people in a league. Whenever i was trying to fill a vacancy i would always talk about the dump trading aspects and in fact would include a few from the previous season. If an owner is fully aware there is little problems.
Well the trade you reference would have to be
a) much later in the year (earlier and there is the chance that Pujols could have a dramatic effect on either team
b) Kia or whomever the $1 player would have to be hitting much better (and in Kia's case there is little future value even at a buck or two wish Hosmer lurking in AAA and hitting over .400)
c) BUT in an NL only keeper league, Pujols in his last year at $$$ for (just for example) $2 Freddie Freeman in his first year would be reasonable for both teams depending on the standings. The player might not be as good as Freeman if either minor league player(s) were included or a favoravble swap of 2012 minor league draft pick(s) were included

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#6 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Todd has written an article about trade vetos and i made several lengthy comments on it. Todd thought there may already be a topic open on the boards on this, so i searched for the word veto and found only two threads - both dating back to May 2010 - and neither discussing trade vetos per se - Todd suggested this may be better suited for the boards rather than comments to the article. I'll post the link to the articles, but I'll include the subsequent comments here.

The subsequent comments;
This is gonna be a long one - I understand your line of thinking here, but it seems to be based on one assumption I find fault with. Let me preface it with these statements;


* My brother is the commissioner of our leagues - now going on 25 and 26 years

* My other brother wrote the league constitution

* I have been sole league statistician and maintainer going on 15 years

So I had do have some experience with this - maybe not as extensive as yours ...but I'm no neophyte either.

Do not confuse stupidity with a manner of running one's team with goals that are contrary to either yours, mine or the "accepted norm". Do not assume that everyone's main goal is to win the league. They have their own reasons for being owners - hell - we allowed them to become members in the first place, didn't we? If someone doesn't like the way Yost manages and feels they could do better and want to grab up every Royal they can in order to "prove" it to themselves? Why not? We may consider those types of owners "stupid" - but what makes us right and them wrong? We take them in as owners and accept their money, but then turn around and expect them to adhere to a standard we feel is the only sanctioned one?

If it suspected that an owner is involved in either collusion or an attempt to damage or destroy a league, that's when someone may have to step in. But the idea of the trade veto won't work because the same types of owners who run the teams differently from the way we would run them have the same veto power we do. And if they used that veto power in a manner consistent with the way they run their teams? Now what?

When trade veto is brought up, everyone seems to assume that the "more knowledgeable" people will win out and restore order to the Force. Why? Unless you can come up with a plan on how to dilute the power of such subversives that isn't blatantly prejudicial, one is at the very same risk from the trade veto that one is from these lopsided trades. "I veto the Pujols/Kila trade." "Why?" "Johnny's collecting too many Royals and I don't like that" The same problem that comes with legislating alleged stupidity in trades can just as easily pop up in vetos.

Do I understand frustration? You betcha. But if we didn't have differing philosophies about players and how to run our teams, when would we ever make a trade? When we deal, we assume at least two things, IMHO - the player(s) we trade for will help us; and they will continue to at least perform at the level they were when we traded for them. But that's an assumption - you can't take it as fact at the time of the deal. You take risks. You're in an only and the stud you just traded for went to the other league and your league doesn't allow stats to accumulate for guys traded to the other league? Most unfortunate - the guy doesn't get a do over.You ever have someone trade for a stud who gets hurt an is down for the season? Most unfortunate - gut it up and move on. The trade is a point in time transaction - heck, you're supposing how it will turn out - you just made the deal, right? But you can't bank that supposition at that time. You have to play it out.

The trade veto is a bad idea because it's based on the same faulty logic as the lopsided trade in the first place - that all the owners will "think, behave and have the same values" as "we" do - and there's no guarantee about that either. and once someone gets wounded by a trade veto, it seems to me they will not only go out of their way to retaliate if they feel they have been dealt with unfairly - but the league will have provided them with the weapon and ammo to do just that.

Got a bad owner? Acknowledge it and dis-invite him next year. But for the current year - put your objections on record and let the league take its course.
Todd Zola wrote:To me, the key is all I am saying is that this is not a black and white issue, there is a gray area. It may take a very, very, very dark shade of gray for me to veto, but it exists.

I think there is a thread on the message forums and it may be easier to continue this there, but I do not agree that the solution is to deal with it this season and toss the owner for next season. If the situation is extreme enough to warrant replacing the owner, it is egregious enough to deal with it now.

People invest time in this they could be investing elsewhere. My PRIMARY point is it is unfair to the rest if the league to invest some of their valuable time in a league, to have it be compromised. I think this trumps all reasons for saying unequivocally, NO VETOES.

That is, I don't believe the league should just take its course if this course has been impacted significantly by the trade.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#7 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Thanks for the heads up ,Perry - any way we can get that post in the Commish's office forum deleted?

Now, last season, there was a good example of what I considered an objectionable trade. Now, my idea of a fair trade in roto is that each trading partner gives up something of value at the time of the trade. No PTBNL, no other considerations, etc. ...it's the way i feel. I like both owners involved in the trade so it's nothing personal. Here's the trade (and please remember, this is an NL only Keeper League that took place in July of last year);

Team A gives up Brad Lidge 20 units first year of contract. Team B gives up Jameson Taillon 5 units contract yet to start.

That was the entire trade. I told each owner I thought the trade stunk and i presented my case to the commissioner - we argued about it for hours - and I got nowhere - and we share the same bloodlines. My point was you can't trade something you don't have and he didn't see it that way - now I am not proposing that "equal" compensation be present for a deal to be made - the value of such compensation is in the eye of the two traders. But each side should have to give up SOMETHING tangible at the time of the trade. But it appears not everyone thinks as I do.

So, as I said - if you have an owner that is either involved in collusion or intends to willingly damage the league, you need to step in right away. Failing that, I can't see any reason for allowing individual trade vetos. You make the point to your league commissioner, wait for the ruling and the move on.
Last edited by da_big_kid_94 on April 21st, 2011, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

Captain Hook

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#8 Post by Captain Hook »

1) post in the Commissioner's Forum deleted.....BUT there is an aspect of this that should be there IF people want to continue the topic as it relates to Commissioner's handling of such trades

2) Your example of Lidge 20A for a (presumed) minor leaguer Taillon ($5 when activated)
is a perfectly reasonable "current value for future value" type of trade in NL keeper leagues.....again IF the rules permit this is perfectly fine
2a) If there are people who don't like a trade of an existing contract for "just" a minor leaguer then Change the rules so that each side has to give up one current player (so Lidge for XRP + mler Taillon)

Again the "beauty" of some beholders shouldn't have to be argued against the "unfair lens" of others in the league. COLLECTIVELY the league decides what type(s) of trades there should or shouldn't be in the league.

Here is a trade from my AL keeper league last year:
M. Gonzalez (13D10), mlers Flowers and Hosmer, and 2011 5th round minor league pick to
Ichiro (27D09), Farnsworth (10F10), Cervelli (10F10) and 2011 3rd round minor league draft pick

Just a very reasonable trade for both teams - certainly the team that got two+ months of Ichiro and whatever they got from Cervelli and Farnsworth did better in 2010. The other team will recoup that later.

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#9 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Captain Hook wrote:1) post in the Commissioner's Forum deleted.....BUT there is an aspect of this that should be there IF people want to continue the topic as it relates to Commissioner's handling of such trades

2) Your example of Lidge 20A for a (presumed) minor leaguer Taillon ($5 when activated)
is a perfectly reasonable "current value for future value" type of trade in NL keeper leagues.....again IF the rules permit this is perfectly fine
2a) If there are people who don't like a trade of an existing contract for "just" a minor leaguer then Change the rules so that each side has to give up one current player (so Lidge for XRP + mler Taillon)

Again the "beauty" of some beholders shouldn't have to be argued against the "unfair lens" of others in the league. COLLECTIVELY the league decides what type(s) of trades there should or shouldn't be in the league.

Here is a trade from my AL keeper league last year:
M. Gonzalez (13D10), mlers Flowers and Hosmer, and 2011 5th round minor league pick to
Ichiro (27D09), Farnsworth (10F10), Cervelli (10F10) and 2011 3rd round minor league draft pick

Just a very reasonable trade for both teams - certainly the team that got two+ months of Ichiro and whatever they got from Cervelli and Farnsworth did better in 2010. The other team will recoup that later.
And most people would think that, Perry - except for one thing - I stated July for a reason - at the time of the trade, Taillon hadn't signed yet - so all that his owner was giving up in the deal was the POTENTIAL rights to Tailon IF he signed with the Pirates by the August deadline. At the time of the deal, there was no guarantee that his trading partner was going to receive ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL for giving up Brad Lidge in a 4x4 NL only no less. Now it just so happened that Taillon signed - but this was WEEKS after the deal was made. At the time of the deal, Taillon was NOT NL property - and that is why I objected to the deal. I have no problems with trading minor leaguers for major leaguers - but at least some form of compensation is changing hands at the time of the deal - value is another question entirely. in the example you gave, the rights to each of the players involved was already determined at the time of the trade - not the case in my example. And that's why I thought the deal should not go through - but it wasn't seen that way. I still believe I'm right and I don't accept that opposing point of view - but I recognize their right to have it - and that's why I think trade vetos just won't work.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

Captain Hook

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#10 Post by Captain Hook »

[quote="da_big_kid_ I stated July for a reason - at the time of the trade, Taillon hadn't signed yet - so all that his owner was giving up in the deal was the POTENTIAL rights to Tailon IF he signed with the Pirates/quote]

Well I think you are trying to split the hairs too fine - it Was July, Taillon had been drafted by the Pirates in June and there was no reason to think he wouldn't sign - sure the Pirates can be too cost conscious at times BUT they drafted him #1 overall and knew what it would take....

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#11 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

And I think you are trying to take a supposition and make it a fact - no reason to think he wouldn't sign? It would be unprecedented for a player not to sign and enter the next year's draft hoping to be picked up by another team? You and I both know there have been quite a few guys like Aaron Crow who have done just that. Would your feelings be different if, instead of Tallion, the player had been Matt Purke or LeVon Washington in 2009? If Tallion had decided not to sign by the August deadline ....what then?

And this discussion between you and I is a shining example of why trade vetos won't work. You and I both have strong viable views on this and we aren't going to change(most likely :lol: ) - so why would we believe a "stupid" owner would suddenly get religion when a veto falls in his lap?
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8260
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#12 Post by Todd Zola »

This is the second example this week why I miss the old boards, but then, if this is indeed the second example this week, perhaps these boards aren't so bad after all :)

I am sort of surprised no one has chimed in with the usual peace-maker: so long as the entire league agrees, there is no bad rule.

In this case, if the entire league is on board with trade vetoes who is anyone to say they are bad?

And if the entire league is against them, who is to say they are wrong?

So maybe my future angle when dusting off the "trade veto" column is to contend that I would have no issue playing in a league that has a mechanism to veto trades, provided I agree with the process and do not feel the process is abused by my fellow league mates.

Obviously, given their druthers, others would opt not to play in such a league, regardless of the mechanism.

If I am in a league and the other owners do not care if someone deals Carl Crawford for Jarrod Dyson, then perhaps the solution is for me to find another league. if they do not care that their valuable time spent preparing for the league could be compromised, who am I to tell them how to think.

But, if someone else is in the league and all but that person are in an uproar over the deal, who is that person to tell the others to "STFU and deal with it"?
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#13 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Todd Zola wrote:This is the second example this week why I miss the old boards, but then, if this is indeed the second example this week, perhaps these boards aren't so bad after all :)

I am sort of surprised no one has chimed in with the usual peace-maker: so long as the entire league agrees, there is no bad rule.

In this case, if the entire league is on board with trade vetoes who is anyone to say they are bad?

And if the entire league is against them, who is to say they are wrong?

So maybe my future angle when dusting off the "trade veto" column is to contend that I would have no issue playing in a league that has a mechanism to veto trades, provided I agree with the process and do not feel the process is abused by my fellow league mates.

Obviously, given their druthers, others would opt not to play in such a league, regardless of the mechanism.

If I am in a league and the other owners do not care if someone deals Carl Crawford for Jarrod Dyson, then perhaps the solution is for me to find another league. if they do not care that their valuable time spent preparing for the league could be compromised, who am I to tell them how to think.

But, if someone else is in the league and all but that person are in an uproar over the deal, who is that person to tell the others to "STFU and deal with it"?
Who was it that said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? There really isn't any problem with the concept of a trade veto. It's in the execution where things get sticky. Again, if you have owner(s) whose acumen is called into question on trades themselves, why would anyone think that putting in trade vetos in such a league would be a good thing when the same people who brought things into question in the first place are involved? Your caveat "do not feel the process is abused by my fellow league mates" says it all.

It's like Bill Engvall's Preparation H bit - Ever notice the Preparation H label says "DO NOT TAKE ORALLY"? Know why that's there? Means someone had to have already done it! Same thing with the veto - you won't know about any abuse until after it's already happened.

And as for the old boards, I concur ... I miss them as well and some of the folks who used to hang there (cept for maybe a few). But ... c'est la vie.
Last edited by da_big_kid_94 on April 22nd, 2011, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8260
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#14 Post by Todd Zola »

Perhaps the insanity part is continuing to dust off this topic, OTOH, it did bring a little more traffic to the home page and forums ;)

As alluded to, I am in a league that uses vetoes. What has evolved is a sort of self-policing where the "score" of each trade has sort of led to an understanding within the league of which deals are okay, within the context of this particular league and which are met with some degree of discord. The result has been on the whole, even the negotiation process is now devoid of the "insulting" offer. While I admit this league may be the exception as opposed to the rule, the veto process has actually helped shape the league and we have not had a veto in years. That said, almost every deal has had a NO vote for one reason or another, many for the "negative" reasons others have talked about. But since it takes 9 of the non-involved 12 owners to enact a veto, this too self-polices.

Hmm, what other hot-button topic can I dig up for next week.....
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#15 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

Todd Zola wrote:Hmm, what other hot-button topic can I dig up for next week.....
Might another way of phrasing this be topic redux? Or maybe a topic out of KC? Or maybe from Baylor U?
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

User avatar
Todd Zola
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8260
Joined: December 25th, 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#16 Post by Todd Zola »

da_big_kid_94 wrote:
Todd Zola wrote:Hmm, what other hot-button topic can I dig up for next week.....
Might another way of phrasing this be topic redux? Or maybe a topic out of KC? Or maybe from Baylor U?
Was thinking more along the lines of a site piece that would inspire comments. Otherwise, I would call the White Sox lucky and put a BOLO out for a fan of the team.
Catchers are like prostate exams -- comes a time where you can't put if off any longer, so you may as well get it over with and take it up the butt - The Forum Funklord

I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons - The Forum Funklord

Always remember, never forget, never say always or never. - The Forum Funklord

You know you have to seek therapy when you see one of your pitchers had a bad night and it takes you 15 minutes to find the team you have him on. - The Forum Funklord

Black Sox
Major League All-Star
Posts: 350
Joined: January 4th, 2010, 10:39 am
Preferred Style: 5x5 Mix

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#17 Post by Black Sox »

Trade Veto's are a hot button topic and many people have some strong opinions on the subject. I've used the veto button for many different reasons, and have had many people share their views on how they use them also, they include

1. Stop an "unfair" trade - The biggest problem I've found in my leagues has been the trading the underperforming early round pick for the hot starting player. I always look at the pedigree of the hot starter to judge the likelyhood of season long breakout, or simply a hot start. My personal belief is that "most" players perform to previous levels unless were dealing with a skill increase or decline ( ie I think Crawford will course correct and be what we thought he would be where as I belive Jeter will not ) As with anything your dealing with people's preception
and while I think my opinion on players correct more often this is where the argument for letting people manage their teams as they see fit comes into play. ( I've done it )

2. Payback - Someone objects to your trade, you return the favor on theirs ( I've done it )

3. Envy - You wanted a player but were unable to work out a trade, someoene else swoops in and gets him. ( never have )

4. Self Preservation - Your in 1st but your main competitor is nipping at your heels. He makes a deal right before the deadline that you feel will enable him to pass you. (I've did it for the 1st time ever last year, but here's why. The team in question had spent all season preying on the weak and had made a multitude of questionable deals, hence why he was in 2nd. I had objected publicly to a few, but hadn't actually voted to deny them. His last trade was fair ( which makes what happend even funnier ) and would have made the final outcome closer than it was. My objection ended up being the deciding vote. IMO he had gotten a few too many "breaks" and I wasn't going to lose a league title I felt I had earned "the right way".

My one issue with the way most veto processes are run is that it's done in secret. If your willing to object to someones trade then you should be able to stand behind the objection and give an opinion if asked as to why you objeced. I understand the reason why its private is to try to prevent retribution, but in my experiance anyone who's had a deal overturned just objects to every other deal going further on the principle that if they can't trade as thry see fit, then no one can.
Boston Black Sox
Steve Le Blanc

da_big_kid_94
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1574
Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#18 Post by da_big_kid_94 »

I may be taking a simplistic position on this but, as long as there is some form of compensation exchanged at the time of the deal on behalf of all parties involved, there really aren't very many "bad" trades. There are lopsided trades sure - but all we can do is judge them at the time of the trade. The players have to actually do what we think they will do after the trade - and that's where the hindsight comes in. How many "lopsided" trades have you witnessed where it blew up in the owner's face because it didn't go as envisioned? And, besides the obvious ones (as with the one stated below), who's the arbiter of lopsided?

If you could reasonably assure me that, in a league that has installed trade vetos, the owners are viewing the trade only with regard to commensurate value and to the overall well being of the league, I could support it. But there's no one who can give me those types of assurances. You will have owners who will say Pujols for a 2012 17th round draft pick is OK by them because it doesn't directly affect them. Other owners will look at standings an think they have a new challenge to their squad that they could very well do without.

The concept of the trade veto is a noble one. i can not say the same about the agendas of all those who hold those vetos.
These are my views based on my own opinions and observations - your mileage may vary.
"KNOW THY LEAGUE" - the Forum Funklord - 4/13/2009
Fantasy is managing stats ... roto is managing teams

User avatar
viper
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1464
Joined: December 31st, 2008, 11:32 pm
Preferred Style: Currently in an AL-only league with the Bill James Technical RCA as the single hitting category and ERA as the single pitching category.
Contact:

Re: Todd's Trade Veto Article

#19 Post by viper »

I guess my view on trades is worth a paragraph or so.

The reason I do not like keeper leagues is my personal belief that any deal involving future player has to be allowed. Pujols for Harper is legit. You should not stop a weak team from looking down the road, even 3-4 years. I resigned from my first and last keeper league this winter. I left a team that has a decent chance to win with a number of very solid under 27 year olds.

I was attracted to the NFBC because of its no-trade rule. I have seen and been hurt far too often by a deadline deal which was very lopsided but but disallowed. And these were mostly in competitive ESPN leagues. We all value players different but in a redraft league when the last place team deal with a contender with a "godfather" type deal, it can be discouraging.

I'm currently in four local 10-team leagues. Six people are in all four. None of these leagues even has trade reviews but it is known that unfair deals will be undone. Two limit your trading partners after certain dates, the earliest being the all star break. I have yet to see a deal that was unfair. The leagues pay the top four teams so trades seem to always involve teams with money aspirations.

For one person to be a commission-in-charge of deciding if trades are fair can be a problem. We all evaluate players differently. This is the main reason that trades happens. This like life in general, if 20 people were asked about a supposed lopsided deal, the final tally would probably included each side being considered as lopsided by a few observers.

In all my fantasy years, the best deals I have made were the ones I decided not to make.
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh

Mike Ladd
Buffy, the Umpire Slayer

Post Reply