My trade got vetoed and I am pissed!

[the_future420 3]

So I'm points leader and I had Owen Daniels and obviously he's out for the year. I send a trade proposal to the Antonio Gates owner who also happens to have Celek. I offer Berrian and Garcon for Gates and Hixon. They accept. The Gates owner's other WRs are Hester, Owens, Lance Moore and Sims-Walker and some other trash. This is a must start one TE and 3 WRs league. Seems like a decent trade for both teams right? Gates owner gets some WR depth and still has a top 10 TE option to start every week. I get a TE to replace Daniels, but now I only have 3 WRs in a league where we have to start 3.

 

But the trade gets vetoed. I just so happen to be points leader and in second place. One owner even admitted that had I been in last place, he would have nothing to say about the trade. I am so pissed I don't know what to do.

[the spanker 28]

So I'm points leader and I had Owen Daniels and obviously he's out for the year. I send a trade proposal to the Antonio Gates owner who also happens to have Celek. I offer Berrian and Garcon for Gates and Hixon. They accept. The Gates owner's other WRs are Hester, Owens, Lance Moore and Sims-Walker and some other trash. This is a must start one TE and 3 WRs league. Seems like a decent trade for both teams right? Gates owner gets some WR depth and still has a top 10 TE option to start every week. I get a TE to replace Daniels, but now I only have 3 WRs in a league where we have to start 3.

 

But the trade gets vetoed. I just so happen to be points leader and in second place. One owner even admitted that had I been in last place, he would have nothing to say about the trade. I am so pissed I don't know what to do.

 

You need to find another league is what you need to do.

[KSB2424 3,100]

You don't do anything. Your league has a trade voting policy. That is the league rule. The other owners can vote any way they want for any reason whatsoever. It's there perogative since you have a trade voting policy. Just because you disagree with how or why they voted a way is irrelevant.

 

Take it like a man, then immedialtely after the season or before next, send a note expressing that you would like to change the trade rules and get rid of the voting aspect. All trades go through. If the commish sees any obvious collusion/cheating/dumping then he steps in and reverses the transaction.

 

If they deny your request you can either quit the league next year or deal with it again. Your choice.

[bscheibs 8]

I played in a league once where trades had to be approved by the league. It's supposed to stop collusion, but what happened is exactly what you described- people voted against trades they didn't like rather than voting against trades where people were cheating.

 

Dictatorship works best in fantasy sports. Get a strong Commish and give him all the power. It's a bit of a risk, but in my experience the quality of the commish equates to the quality of the league.

 

...or do what I do. Commish your own league

[Phurfur 70]

Next time read the league rules before you join. This is your fault for joining this league so quit whining!

[the_future420 3]

Next time read the league rules before you join. This is your fault for joining this league so quit whining!

 

Yeah, this is my 4th year in the league and we've had this rule every year, but this is the first time a trade has been vetoed.

[KSB2424 3,100]

Yeah, this is my 4th year in the league and we've had this rule every year, but this is the first time a trade has been vetoed.

How many teams, how long is the voting period, and how many votes will veto a trade?

[WhiteWonder 2,476]

i would still be upset.

 

Ive never been in a league that had a trade voting system without the commish explaining to everyone that trades should only be voted against if they feel collusion has occured.

 

In one league we make sure to agree that trades can't simply be voted against because you think one or both parties have strengthened their teams and it will hurt your own title chances. Then again, in that league the commish has final say and the voting only really acts as a warning for the commish to double check the trade.

 

I would express my concerns in a league message and simply live with it until the offseason. Then either request that the rule be changed or leave the league.

[JackARoot 2]

Go to the home of each owner who voted for the vetoe and punch him in the face in front of his wife and children.

[The Next Generation 10]

Keep offering the trade to the guy and maybe they'll get sick of vetoing it eventually.

[KSB2424 3,100]

i would still be upset.

 

Ive never been in a league that had a trade voting system without the commish explaining to everyone that trades should only be voted against if they feel collusion has occured.

 

In one league we make sure to agree that trades can't simply be voted against because you think one or both parties have strengthened their teams and it will hurt your own title chances. Then again, in that league the commish has final say and the voting only really acts as a warning for the commish to double check the trade.

 

I would express my concerns in a league message and simply live with it until the offseason. Then either request that the rule be changed or leave the league.

My opinion is that you can't have a voting policy and then tell the owners "how" to vote. That's dumb. If you let them vote, then you let them vote. You can't say "Hey guys we all get to vote, but you can only vote this way if this happens or this way if that happens, mmmkay?" That's like saying you can be half pregnant.

 

You either have a voting policy and let the owners vote how they want or you don't have a voting policy and let the commish do his duty (my preferred method).

 

Trying to play the middle ground will eventually lead to this exact scenario and why we see so many threads like this one.

[WhiteWonder 2,476]

My opinion is that you can't have a voting policy and then tell the owners "how" to vote. That's dumb. If you let them vote, then you let them vote. You can't say "Hey guys we all get to vote, but you can only vote this way if this happens or this way if that happens, mmmkay?" That's like saying you can be half pregnant.

 

You either have a voting policy and let the owners vote how they want or you don't have a voting policy and let the commish do his duty (my preferred method).

 

Trying to play the middle ground will eventually lead to this exact scenario and why we see so many threads like this one.

 

Letting the commish do his duty is my preferred method as well.

 

But you certainly can allow a voting process. You're not telling them how to vote, you're telling them when and why to vote. It's more of a safeguard to cheating than anything else.

 

No one creates a league with trade voting because they want owners to be able to veto a fair trade in an effort to keep others from improving.

 

Bottom line, I would never run a league with voting.. but it happens.

[swashbuckler 0]

They voted, you lost. For whatever reason, it's over.

 

That being said, that was a bit of a lopsided trade anyway. I wouldn't have given up Gates for what you were offering. Regardless of what I had or needed, Gates-Hixon does not equal Garcon-Berrian. That's just my opinion.

 

But as it seems, you're gonna have a hard time making moves with haters like that in your league. Good luck.

[BigBlue7 0]

I've been in a friend ($) league for 9 years now.

 

These past 2 years we've had a problem with the league veto.

 

It happened to me this year and that'll be the last time it's an issue for us.

 

It'll be commish veto only from here on out. Anyone that doesn't like it...join another league.

 

The league veto (it's 33% in yahoo) will be an issue as long as it's an option. You just have to piss the right people off for it to change.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Seems like a decent trade for both teams right?

 

No, but it shouldn't be vetoed.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

My opinion is that you can't have a voting policy and then tell the owners "how" to vote. That's dumb. If you let them vote, then you let them vote. You can't say "Hey guys we all get to vote, but you can only vote this way if this happens or this way if that happens, mmmkay?" That's like saying you can be half pregnant.

 

You either have a voting policy and let the owners vote how they want or you don't have a voting policy and let the commish do his duty (my preferred method).

 

Trying to play the middle ground will eventually lead to this exact scenario and why we see so many threads like this one.

 

I disagree. I believe that you can have a voting policy, but provide guidelines as to what the valid reasons for objecting are. You can have a strong commissioner who provides this info just as easily as they would make the decision on all trades.

 

I have actually found that the best way to handle it is to have each objector provide their reasons for objection to the commissioner and let the commissioner be the ultimate decider if the league vetoes a particular trade.

[KSB2424 3,100]

let the commissioner be the ultimate decider if the league vetoes a particular trade.

That is just letting the Commish veto any obvious collusion/dumping/cheating. You are just delaying the outcome by pandaring to your owners. They really don't have a true vote because the commish can override at his discretion. You're just going around your elbow to get to your ass.

 

But if that works for your leage that's cool. You prolly have really good owners where anykind of policy would work.

However as a rule of thumb this method can create can of worms much like this very thread, which is what I try to nip in the bud.

[the_future420 3]

Theres a two day waiting period from when a trade is accepted til when it goes thru so I'm guessing thats the veto time. Its a yahoo league, 10 teams.

 

Its a league with all people I work with except two. I'm gonna propose the rule change next year and if it doesn't change, I'm out.

 

I already made a post about it on the message board. I'm tempted to send the trade through again and see what happens.

[KSB2424 3,100]

Theres a two day waiting period from when a trade is accepted til when it goes thru so I'm guessing thats the veto time. Its a yahoo league, 10 teams.

 

Its a league with all people I work with except two. I'm gonna propose the rule change next year and if it doesn't change, I'm out.

 

I already made a post about it on the message board. I'm tempted to send the trade through again and see what happens.

What percentage of no votes warrants a veto? I don't play in Yahoo leagues.

 

If it is less than 50% then that right there is a problem. At the very least in a voting policy if it is 10 owners then the two traders obviously vote yes, that leaves 8. At least 4 or more NO votes have to be accounted for. Anything less is ridiculous.

[the_future420 3]

What pisses me off even more is that now one of the TEs I would have picked up off waivers was claimed by somebody else because one of the guys I would have dropped for him (garcon) was in a pending trade.

 

 

 

From yahoo:

 

"If your Custom League is configured to use the League Vote option, one-third of the league managers must vote against the trade in order for it to be vetoed. For example, if your league has 12 teams, four votes are needed to veto the trade. We always round fractions up, so a league of ten teams also requires four votes, even though one-third of ten is actually three-and-one-third."

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

1) The rules suck. League voting AND you don't even need a majority to get vetoed = lame

 

2) Your owners suck

 

3) I feel your pain... I play in a couple of leagues that has the same preset format (I assume you are using MFL as well?), and trades get vetoed all the time. I don't even bother anymore. So don't fret... a couple of my leagues suck too.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That is just letting the Commish veto any obvious collusion/dumping/cheating. You are just delaying the outcome by pandaring to your owners. They really don't have a true vote because the commish can override at his discretion. You're just going around your elbow to get to your ass.

 

But if that works for your leage that's cool. You prolly have really good owners where anykind of policy would work.

However as a rule of thumb this method can create can of worms much like this very thread, which is what I try to nip in the bud.

 

I don't think that a commish with absolute authority is the right way to go. I also think that having multiple owners who have the ability to objectively look at a situation is helpful, particularly when you have a commissioner who wants to make a trade. I like having at least 3 people who understand the general philosophy of the league who can be participants in the trading approval process.

 

My point was less on the commish making the final decision, but more on having objectors provide reasons for their objections. When a person vetoing a trade has to admit that it is because he does not want his opponent this week getting better, he looks like an asshat. When that objection is done anonymously, then they feel much more likely to object due to stupid reasons.

[Knowsome Bobarino 0]

They voted, you lost. For whatever reason, it's over.

 

That being said, that was a bit of a lopsided trade anyway. I wouldn't have given up Gates for what you were offering. Regardless of what I had or needed, Gates-Hixon does not equal Garcon-Berrian. That's just my opinion.

 

But as it seems, you're gonna have a hard time making moves with haters like that in your league. Good luck.

 

This really isn't the point though. This trade was not an attempt at collusion, therefore it shoudn't be vetoed, period. I agree that the rules are flawed in giving teams the power to vote on trades. I agree with many of the other reponses when they say, there's not much you can do about it right now. At the end of the year, petition the league to lose this rule. If they don't, find a new league.

[darwin 0]

Keep offering the trade to the guy and maybe they'll get sick of vetoing it eventually.

 

 

This is the correct choice. Maybe make minor changes to it until they give up on the veto.

[PATSSOX 22]

few years ago we used to play on Yahoo and it only takes like 3 people of 12 to veto a trade. I finally got them to move league to CBS and pay more and i took over as commish. We use the majority veto 7 of 12. but i told them NO TRADE will get vetoed unless it is clear collusion. if it gets vetoed as commish i will push it through

[PATSSOX 22]

good, you are the emperor of your league. Rule as a god. Allow all trades unless collusion is proven and the burden of proof is on the owner who objects to the trade.

 

 

yes all trades will go through unless it is obvious

[uwilose123 2]

I think it should of been vetoed. That guy has no business giving up Gates and obviously he's not FF savvy. He's getting no improvement with Berrian or the other junk you offerred him. There are one or two in every league.

[uwilose123 2]

I think it should of been vetoed. That guy has no business giving up Gates and obviously he's not FF savvy. He's getting no improvement with Berrian or the other junk you offerred him. There are one or two in every league.

 

 

 

To further my point, I would have been pissed if I was in your league and your in first and that guy made that trade. It does nothing to help his team and he is giving you a potential top five TE for Garcon and Berrian who haven't done squat all year. How thats a fair trade b/c you benefit is beyond me. I'm glad you have a proactive commissioner.

[macca 0]

http://www.sbnation.com/2009/10/27/1103259...release-johnson

 

http://football.realgm.com/src_wiretap_arc..._larry_johnson/

 

I have been through these situations before and I have found only one solution that works time and again. You need to find out who voted against the trade. Then, and this is the key to it working, you need to find out the schedule of their wives and kids. When you know that each owner's family is home, you ring the doorbell. When he answers the door, punch him in the face in front of his family. I can't promise they will stop voting against your trades. I can promise they will think twice about it. HTH

[KYSteel 0]

To further my point, I would have been pissed if I was in your league and your in first and that guy made that trade. It does nothing to help his team and he is giving you a potential top five TE for Garcon and Berrian who haven't done squat all year. How thats a fair trade b/c you benefit is beyond me. I'm glad you have a proactive commissioner.

 

 

Doesn't matter. The guy paid his $$ like everyone else and he can make as many bad moves as he wants with his team as long as he's not doing it purposely to cheat. This isn't fantasy Babysitting.

[gocolts 300]

So I'm points leader and I had Owen Daniels and obviously he's out for the year. I send a trade proposal to the Antonio Gates owner who also happens to have Celek. I offer Berrian and Garcon for Gates and Hixon. They accept. The Gates owner's other WRs are Hester, Owens, Lance Moore and Sims-Walker and some other trash. This is a must start one TE and 3 WRs league. Seems like a decent trade for both teams right? Gates owner gets some WR depth and still has a top 10 TE option to start every week. I get a TE to replace Daniels, but now I only have 3 WRs in a league where we have to start 3.

 

But the trade gets vetoed. I just so happen to be points leader and in second place. One owner even admitted that had I been in last place, he would have nothing to say about the trade. I am so pissed I don't know what to do.

The main thing you need to do is use this as an argument to change this insane "Voting on trades" business. Push for 1 owner, the commish if you will, to approve/deny trades if cheating is involved. This should be clear to everyone after they think about the argument this clown admitted he used to vote no.

[macho tony 0]

I would offer him a bit more for Gates. Then they can't veto it again.

 

What is he supposed to do with 2 #1 TE's though? What if he has been shopping one of them around to no avail? It's getting kinda late in the season and it would behoove him to acquire some players who can help him. I'm sure another team wouldn't mind having Gates/Celek, so maybe they should get off their ass and get involved, if they're so worried about a top team landing Gates.

[davidbostonisgood 2]

QUOTE(the_future420 @ Nov 4 2009, 09:25 AM)

So I'm points leader

 

I don't really care.

 

QUOTE(the_future420 @ Nov 4 2009, 09:25 AM)

Seems like a decent trade for both teams right

 

Poor attempt at misleading people.

 

 

Other than that, the rest is gray area. Lots of different opinions. Who's to say they are right.

In the end you have to go by league rules. Sucks when you are on that end of it.

Personally I probably wouldn't veto it if I had a vote, even though it is not equal in my eyes. In my opinion he could ask for more from you and you could/should/would be willing to give up more than what you did.

 

Interesting to see how fantasy football evolves in the next 10 years. This seems to be an issue that might not go away.

Every answer that I've seen screws over certain team owners.

[Boston Three Party 6]

I'm in a league where my trade for MSW was in question, but passed.

 

It's of course my brothers league, I don't **** with votes on trades, I approve them.

 

Next year I'll make it a point to not allow voting in any league I'm in. It's your business to do the same. People are idiots. End of story.

[Jeremy 0]

What pisses me off even more is that now one of the TEs I would have picked up off waivers was claimed by somebody else because one of the guys I would have dropped for him (garcon) was in a pending trade.

From yahoo:

 

Not that you don't have a right to be upset over a bogus veto, but you might have avoided this problem had you offered a more equitable trade in the first place.

[Stewburtx8 67]

I think it should of been vetoed. That guy has no business giving up Gates and obviously he's not FF savvy. He's getting no improvement with Berrian or the other junk you offerred him. There are one or two in every league.

 

 

You must win every league that you are in right? Because obviously you are fantasy football savvy and can predict the future.

[justforbeer 41]

offer garcon or berrian for celek strait up.

 

if they veto that, then I would start a riot and break something.

[BirdBradyBobbyOrr 0]

You don't do anything. Your league has a trade voting policy. That is the league rule. The other owners can vote any way they want for any reason whatsoever. It's there perogative since you have a trade voting policy. Just because you disagree with how or why they voted a way is irrelevant.

 

Take it like a man, then immedialtely after the season or before next, send a note expressing that you would like to change the trade rules and get rid of the voting aspect. All trades go through. If the commish sees any obvious collusion/cheating/dumping then he steps in and reverses the transaction.

 

If they deny your request you can either quit the league next year or deal with it again. Your choice.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but he's 100 percent correct.

 

The only difference is I would let the league know immediately of my intentions and I would include a link to this thread. I would let this thread do the talking and the rest of your league argue over it. You just let it be known that you'll accept it but that you don't agree with it.

[WhiteWonder 2,476]

I don't think that a commish with absolute authority is the right way to go. I also think that having multiple owners who have the ability to objectively look at a situation is helpful, particularly when you have a commissioner who wants to make a trade. I like having at least 3 people who understand the general philosophy of the league who can be participants in the trading approval process.

 

My point was less on the commish making the final decision, but more on having objectors provide reasons for their objections. When a person vetoing a trade has to admit that it is because he does not want his opponent this week getting better, he looks like an asshat. When that objection is done anonymously, then they feel much more likely to object due to stupid reasons.

 

this guy gets it

[KSB2424 3,100]

this guy gets it

Like I said before. That is a great way in the perfect world. And if it works for your league fine.

 

However there is a reason we see so many threads just like this one. And it's because leagues think they can have a voting policy but also think they can tell people how to vote (give them parameters). It is a recipe for disaster.

 

Maybe you guys are in leagues where it works. Kudos. But as a 'general rule' it will eventually lead to a problem (we see them all the time on this board).