Goopster24 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 People equating the right to veto with the right to vote for a rule change. First time in ten years that THREE trades have been vetoed in a week's time. All because of perceived value and because they think one team is trying to "rob" another. No issues of collusion and people want some sort of check "for dumb owners" and for people "who might be making trades in spite of other teams." So laughable on so many different levels. How do I argue this guys? My league mates are so incredibly dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I would keep track of all the trades that were vetoed and see how they come out by the end of the year. Some will invariably favor the team that was supposedly getting robbed. Present this eveidence before the season next year to get the veto rule removed. It wouldn't be right to change it (or anything else for that matter) during the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If this is the way they want to play, there is only one solution. Quit at the end of the year. Nothing else you can do. Lesson learned to never play in a league that votes on trades again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm commish so can't really quit. Not thinking of changing rule midseason. For after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) If you take somebody's money to be in your league, you have to let them run their team as they see fit. They paid their money, it is their team. If the other owners want to make my decisions for me, I'll gladly let them pay my entry fee. That is it, that is all. I'm sure the Chargers would rather be up against Kyle Boller than Carson Palmer, but guess what, it isn't their decision to make. Edited October 20, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbahawk Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you take somebody's money to be in your league, you have to let them run their team as they see fit. They paid their money, it is their team. If the other owners want to make my decisions for me, I'll gladly let them pay my entry fee. That is it, that is all. I'm sure the Chargers would rather be up against Kyle Boller than Carson Palmer, but guess what, it isn't their decision to make. Awesome! Do this! Seahawks 21 is a smart man and not just because he is a Seahawks fan! but it does help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm commish so can't really quit. Not thinking of changing rule midseason. For after. Absolutely you can quit ... somebody else can be the commissioner ... and then he can run everybody's teams to his heart's content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Don't get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I would keep track of all the trades that were vetoed and see how they come out by the end of the year. Some will invariably favor the team that was supposedly getting robbed. Present this eveidence before the season next year to get the veto rule removed. It wouldn't be right to change it (or anything else for that matter) during the season. I'm commissioner of a 12-team local. A couple years ago, when the league was in its second year, one owner made two trades right before the trade deadline (I was involved in one of the trades). People howled and wanted to be able to veto the trades because they said the guy who made the trades was tanking his team, which was sure to finish near the bottom. I told everyone the rules don't allow vetoes, but we could discuss it after the season. Then after the season I added up the total points for each side of the trades. The guy everyone accused of tanking actually made out decidedly better in both trades. I wrote a long note about it and sent it to the rest of the league. We've never had anyone bring up vetoes again. Edit: However, as a compromise, I did end up moving the trade deadline one week earlier in the year. Edited October 20, 2011 by montster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Rugby Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 We no longer have a "veto" option in our league as it was abused. However, a player can call "Shannanigans" on a trade. The league votes less the impacted players and need a unanymous vote to veto. Has only been called once and nothing really happened. The only issue we have is owners who do not manage teams (all new thread needed for that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Don't get me started. +1, but since he did, here are ten reasons not to veto trades: 1) It’s not your job to be the value or fair police for other people’s teams 2) Seriously, you’re not the value or fair police 3) What part of “you’re not the value or fair police” did you not freaking understand!?! 4) Only the person who pays the team's league fees should have the right to manage that team 5) The cliché “unless you can prove collusion”, it ain’t none of your business to meddle in trades 6) Vetoes lead to animosity and retaliation on even “fair” trades, and destroy league trust if not the league entirely. 7) It’s a childish practice and always biased solely towards one’s own team's interests 8) You don’t know about the future as well as you think you do, and everyone disagrees on player’s value. Vetoing is only going to increase the chance that karma is gonna make you look like a fool about who comes out on top. 9) Trades are supposed to improve teams, or else they wouldn’t do it. There’s no such thing as a trade where at least one of your opponents doesn’t get perceivably stronger. Trades don’t have to be “fair” for it to be advantageous for that team, so “imbalance” is a total BS excuse, when the goal of the game is to build the strongest possible team. 10) Vetoes are totally ghey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 +1, but since he did, here are ten reasons not to veto trades: 1) It’s not your job to be the value or fair police for other people’s teams 2) Seriously, you’re not the value or fair police 3) What part of “you’re not the value or fair police” did you not freaking understand!?! 4) Only the person who pays the team's league fees should have the right to manage that team 5) The cliché “unless you can prove collusion”, it ain’t none of your business to meddle in trades 6) Vetoes lead to animosity and retaliation on even “fair” trades, and destroy league trust if not the league entirely. 7) It’s a childish practice and always biased solely towards one’s own team's interests 8) You don’t know about the future as well as you think you do, and everyone disagrees on player’s value. Vetoing is only going to increase the chance that karma is gonna make you look like a fool about who comes out on top. 9) Trades are supposed to improve teams, or else they wouldn’t do it. There’s no such thing as a trade where at least one of your opponents doesn’t get perceivably stronger. Trades don’t have to be “fair” for it to be advantageous for that team, so “imbalance” is a total BS excuse, when the goal of the game is to build the strongest possible team. 10) Vetoes are totally ghey. Well put, totally agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm commish so can't really quit. Not thinking of changing rule midseason. For after. Here's what I would do. If you don't have very specific written rules already on the league site, this would be the time to create them, using something like MS Word so you can distribute copies to the league. Tell them next year that vetoes no longer apply, all trades will be approved by the commish, and only direct evidence of collusion or extremely lopsided trades would be rejected. Make a point of giving examples of lopsidedness, like a top 20 WR for a kicker. Put in a statement that the commish will not attempt to assess the merits of a trade other than in such an extreme scenario as stated above. Then as a good faith gesture, put some other rules changes to a vote, like adding PPR or extra points for long field goals, and ask the other owners for suggestions for any other changes they would like to vote on. I think as commish, certain things need to be done by executive decision and this falls into that category. And at the same time you can show them you value their input and aren't trying to be a dictator. If they object, tell them they need a new commish and you're done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Commish of a 16 team league. This season I evened it out a bit by not having full power on trades, at least not all of them. Don't want it .So I picked 5 guys to be in a committee. They have the right to vote of trades that I bring forth to them. I don't do that for all of them. IF I think the trade is ok, then I'll put it through. If anyone in the league has a problem with it. I'll bring it forth to the committee. The committee also votes on any trade I make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Awesome! Do this! Seahawks 21 is a smart man and not just because he is a Seahawks fan! but it does help I like this Bubba guy already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I like this Bubba guy already! he's a good guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Awesome! Do this! Seahawks 21 is a smart man and not just because in spite of the fact he is a Seahawks fan! but it does help Fixed. Now I can agree with your statement... (Hey, my team sucks - again - this year.) We vote on trades. In my 8 years in the league, we average maybe one trade per year, and it never gets vetoed. Ever. I'm fortunate to be in the league I am. We're all adults, and everybody acts that way (except when smack talk is involved). Usually, within a week or so after the season ends, we'll have a furious email thread going around with all of us, figuring out next year. Our Commish asks for suggestions, and if enough people chime in (kind of an informal vote first, think "squeaky wheel"), we vote on it. For example, one year we decided on "keepers". After that one year, we nixed it b/c nobody really enjoyed it as much. IMHO, I guess I see this being dependent on who the guys are in your league. In my league, vetoes aren't a problem, never have been... to the point we could probably do away with it (knock on wood). But we keep it, mostly because (I think) it's at least a symbol representing the fact we all have a voice in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) You're the commish. Change the rule to "no vetoes except for overt collusion" and let everyone who doesn't like it quit. Then fill their spots with intelligent FFers. Damn, this stuff is so simple... Edited October 20, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.