• Commissioner Corner Message Board

  • GuitarMark GuitarMark Jun 3, 2009 12:14 PM Flag

    I had to take Trade Vetoing power away

    In two of the leagues I commish, which both have mostly the same players (one keeper one yearly), I had to switch trade review from league votes to commissioner review. This is because virtually every trade that was even the slightest bit uneven was being vetoed, regardless of the needs of the teams involved. It seemed to me that people were vetoing to prevent other owners from improving their teams, so I had to step in. Here are two examples of trades that were vetoed:

    Team A:
    Needed C, 2B
    Got: Utley, Inge, J. Upton

    Team B:
    Needed: SS, SP
    Got: Hanley, Bedard, Victorino

    Uneven? Perhaps, but definitely improved both teams. Team A also has S. Drew at SS, Many SP's, and excess speed, so could spare what he gave up. Team B also has Mauer, and A. Hill, and excess power to spare, so could definitely part with what they gave up.


    Team A:
    Needed: SP
    Got: Maine

    Team B:
    Needed: 2B
    Got: Cano

    Yahoo ranks these guys very differently, but Team A has Kinsler, so Cano was just rotting on his bench, and he was desparate for SP.
    Team B has 8 SP's, and was unhappy with Kendrick as his 2B. It obviously addressed needs for both teams, and both teams obviously dealt from a position of depth.

    Do you think I was justified in removing league votes to veto privileges?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think you're doing a good job at being as fair and impartial a commissioner as you can. The boys in the league weren't mature enough to play with the big kid toys like the Veto, so you had to take it away from them.

      Not being able to perform a single trade just isn't fun. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and your points about improving team weaknesses was well-founded.

      PS - Loretta D may be right about the criticizing political figures thing, but why is that being discussed in a baseball league message board? I love politics but I discuss those in forums dedicated to them, instead of grossly failing to stay germane ...

    • Yes I think you were justified. People do have a tendency to over do vetoing.

    • this is exactly why leagues need commissioners. good call mark. you had to protect the integrity of the league. if you hadnt then people would have quit out of disgust.

    • Absofreakinlutely!!!!

    • Wish I would have joined your league. How things going for you?

    • Thanks Pensfan. Most of the replies have been respectable, there's just a small vocal minority.

    • If managers in your league are consistently using/abusing the veto to block other teams from making trades for ANY reason other than cheating or collusion... then it is the commissioner's duty to make the league interactively fair for ALL teams, meaning that teams cannot use the veto for what they "perceive" as unfair unless they have solid reason to believe one or both of the teams involved is cheating.

      Otherwise the teams that simply use a veto to block trades they just "don't like" are themselves, in effect, actually cheating, by colluding to prohibit honest attempts by other teams at improving their rosters. Some mangers make good trades, some bad, but if nobody is cheating, then no vetoes should ever happen, period. I did away with the veto feature in my league before the season began, all trades have gone through and all are content in trusting this premise rather than opening ratification of trades up to mob mentality and pontification.

      This is an American way of dealing with anything if there ever was one as the constitution provides for a government to protect the people from themselves through the means of democracy by electing a President, in this case, the Commissioner has acted in the best interest of his league as a whole, and when the masses cannot be responsible, it is up to our leaders to take charge. Too bad Bud Selig is not this kind of leader. Good job, and good luck. No Veto!!!

    • Yeah, well, That's what commissioners are for. Most of the league agrees with me. I don't see a problem.

    • OH they caused pain. Veteran managers were ready to walk out of the league because they couldn't get even a low profile trade by without it being vetoed.

    • TYPO: The pitcher offered in trade #2 was James Shields, not John Maine. Please forgive my error.

      • 1 Reply to GuitarMark
      • Either way, the facts and circumstances didn't change. Plain and simple, if there is a hint of collusion (i.e. Last place team who is clearly out of the running trades Utley to first place team for Clint Barmes straight up) then a veto is warranted. Otherwise, if it is two teams in the running, why veto a trade? Apparently they both think they are bettering their teams.

        Some times, you need to take charge of ridiculous situations and USUALLY a seasoned commish can sense shenanigans. Guitar...You have embraced the best of both worlds. Ask the other managers for their input as to why the trade should be vetoed and if there is a logical argument behind the responses, then you veto. How can anyone argue with that??!!! This allows the managers to have input to assist the commish make the RIGHT decision. I think you call that a (controlled) Democracy! Any other way is a either a dictatorship or anarchy!

    • View More Messages

Expert Fantasy Advice

Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Football