Out In The Sticks
May 15, 2006
By
Michael Rauch
Volume I, Issue V
Should I Veto This Trade?
This question comes up all the time. There are many differing opinions on what constitutes a veto-able trade and what does not. As usual, I happen to have a very strong opinion on this issue. And again, I’m here to help you through all the pomp and circumstance to break it down to the very core of the question. In effect, to make your life simpler the next time this question comes up in one of your leagues.
In a word, the answer to the question of whether or not a trade should be vetoed is, 97.368% of the time, no. The other 2.632% is debatable.
Oh sure, there are many arguments why more trades should be vetoed, but those arguments are very suspect, especially since they come from people not involved in the actual trade.
Unless there is apparent collusion, then all trades should go through. Period. End of story. Collusion (read cheating) is the only exception.
How, you say, in the name of all that is right and good in the world, can you let lopsided trades go through? It’s obvious that Team B is getting hosed. And worse than that, Team A is right on my tail in third place. If Team A gets Player 1, then he’s headed for the championship. And that’s just not right.
Well, just because it puts your team at a disadvantage is no reason to veto. Probably, you’re just upset because you weren’t the one who got the benefit of someone else’s stupidity. Weren’t able to take advantage of someone else’s gullibility. Get over it. Try to make your own trade with this alleged greenhorn. Quit whining.
Another reason not to veto. I find it hard to believe that when someone signs up to play fantasy sports, they sign up with the intention of their team being managed by someone else. Whenever a trade is accepted, both parties have their own reasons for making the trade. It may or may not line up with your reasoning, but that is not your decision to make.
Once the veto ball starts rolling, it gets increasingly difficult to stop. First of all, the two owners whose trade got vetoed are going to have a chip on their shoulders and vote to veto all subsequent trades that come along. If the next trade that comes along is in the least bit iffy, you’ve already got two votes against before it even comes down to scrutinization from other league members. Then, if that one gets vetoed, you’ve possibly got four automatic no votes and the cycle never ends. You have an incredibly boring league where no trades are made and the only way of improving your team is through the waiver wire.
Or you wind up with a situation where someone dumps or benches all their players for the remainder of the season. Not good either way.
One way to cut down on the number of inexperienced or just plain stupid players is not to play in public leagues. Try to play in leagues with people you know personally or “know” through the web. That won’t completely eliminate any suspicious activity, because sometimes people really do some goofball things. But at the very least, you’ll probably have some peace in knowing that whoever is involved in the trade is doing what they think is best for their team, however out there that thinking might be.
In any leagues that I am commissioner, I let it be known up front what the policy will be on trades in the league. First of all, no league voting, commissioner review, all the way. Secondly, as long as no collusion is suspected, then all trades go through within reason. If I see a shaky deal being made, I will ask the party whom I feel is getting the short end of the deal for his reasoning on making the trade. If it is a valid reason, whether I agree with it or not, the trade goes through.
And if that policy is not good for you, you then have the opportunity to leave the league before play starts.
Don’t even get me started on keeper leagues. There are many more occurrences where a trade will look lopsided in a keeper league. Especially when one owner is playing for the future and the other is looking to make a run at this year’s title. Things can get real interesting in that situation.
Just as an interesting side note, this is a great example of how fantasy players can look at two very similar situations in two totally different lights. A question was asked concerning a trade involving Albert Pujols. The consensus was that the owner trading Pujols was not getting enough in return. However, one respondent stated that Pujols should never be traded unless you are getting Vlad, Todd Helton and a number two starter in return (I can’t remember the exact details, but is was something very similar to that).
In another discussion, the question came out about whether or not to veto a trade involving Pujols in which he was being traded for four above average fantasy players. All the owners in the league were concerned that the guy getting Pujols was getting raked over the coals. Two very similar situations, two very different views.
Recommendation of the Week
With this being the time of year when students are graduating from high school and college, I’ll give a very condensed version of a commencement address. Don’t forsake your family for your friends. Being a few years removed from my graduations, I have found out that for all but a couple of very close ones, friends tend to come and go. Your family is with you forever. Enjoy those people that come in and out of your lives, but don’t put them ahead of your family.
Fantasy Recommendation of the Week
For those of you who drafted Mark Teixeira high and been have disappointed in the results so far, I’ve got some good news for you. Over his career, Tex’s worst two months of the season statistically are April and May. As the weather heats up, so does his bat. In virtually every category, he is best from June through September averaging 7 HR/month, 22 RBI/month and hitting .285.
Feature Articles 
I couldn't agree more on the veto policy. In fact, one of the two leagues I participate in wanted to institute a league voting option. I stubbornly fought the idea, mainly because 99.9% of trades - fair or unfair - do not involve collusion. This is especially true when there is $$ involved. Vetoing trades only causes heartache and hurt feelings, thus increasing the risk of future trades from being vetoed. It's a lose-lose situation.