Is this Veto Worthy?

[Goirish374]

I don't know why people who have this opinion keep answering these questions.

Because education is important.

Most new dynasty players come to the format from redraft, where there is a practical and straightforward utility to the inclusion of league veto. Most players new to dynasty do what we did when we were new to dynasty--they port in their existing league structure or seek out leagues that are only minimally modified versions of the redraft leagues they are familiar with. Most players new to dynasty expect league veto to be a part of their league construction in the same way they expect waiver priority or trade deadlines to parts of their league.

I am almost certainly not as good a dynasty player as you. I haven't been doing this as long as you. I had to learn a lot of things the hard way and from reading posts here in DLF. It isn't intuitive that there is a different way to do things and, for me, i learned most of it from reading threads like these.

Further, I can absolutely say i learned more from the threads based on opinions contrary to the ones I already had.

[djeternal2]

I would never play in a league that allows vetos.

Exactly. You have willingly chosen to be a participant in a league that allows the other 11 owners to run your team.

For full disclosure as participating member in the league...................

-The second rounder will be 11th overall (only 10 teams).

-The same owner that originated this thread traded Blount/Doug Martin for his first (ended up being 1.01) week before deadline last year when owner was out of it.

-Two years ago the same owner traded Decker for first rounder (being 1.01) again.

-Commish told every member of the league to hold off on trades for time being as he was considering removing this owner from league after the owner dropped Kevin White and Pierre Garcon and has finished last for 3 consecutive years. The posting owner was able to pick up Kevin White for free based off of this. The commish did not want this team to be destructed anymore. Not even a week later, this trade went through......

If you and others in the league think this owner is not up to snuff then boot him. Don't leave him in the league and tell everyone else to not trade with the guy which is worse imo. That said this should never, NEVER have been vetoed. From your info you have had multiple years where you question how he runs his team. Frankly he should be able to run his team however he damn well pleases as long as he pays his league fees. It's HIS team. It does not belong to the league or any other owner in the league.

[sugbear65]

Now I'm not gonna get into logistics over wether or not a commish should make a rule without voting on it, that is another subject. But what it sounds like is the commish made a rule telling everyone that owner was off limits to trade with until his situation could be resolved. I'm not agreeing with this tactic, but if that was what I was told, and then someone made a deal with said owner, I would vote to veto it too. Honestly I'd argue it shouldn't be vetoed, but just nullified since it contradicted a rule. It sounds to me like the issue isn't the trade itself, but that you made the deal with an owner that had been "trade blocked"

[clarion contrarion]

I don't know why people who have this opinion keep answering these questions.

Because education is important.

Most new dynasty players come to the format from redraft, where there is a practical and straightforward utility to the inclusion of league veto. Most players new to dynasty do what we did when we were new to dynasty--they port in their existing league structure or seek out leagues that are only minimally modified versions of the redraft leagues they are familiar with. Most players new to dynasty expect league veto to be a part of their league construction in the same way they expect waiver priority or trade deadlines to parts of their league.

I am almost certainly not as good a dynasty player as you. I haven't been doing this as long as you. I had to learn a lot of things the hard way and from reading posts here in DLF. It isn't intuitive that there is a different way to do things and, for me, i learned most of it from reading threads like these.

Further, I can absolutely say i learned more from the threads based on opinions contrary to the ones I already had.

outstanding contribution !

my opinion on vetoes has been repeated a zillion times but I want to puke when I hear guys say I don't want morons to ruin the league !
they seem happy to beat morons year over year but how dare someone venture towards independent thought or a contrary method of player evaluation. Just stay withe the herd and don't look up or make noise ...... well EFF that if I have morons in the league I want them out not protected from their own stupidity . whew soapbox put away .

and just to reiterate terrific post Irish !

[Shoreline Steamers]

Not veto worthy. But then it sounds like trades with this owner were forbidden anyway.

Not a typical veto situation. More of a league maintenance issue, of which it seems the best way to fix this is to remove the owner in question and find someone with a more realistic view of player/pick values.

[Tsunami]

outstanding contribution !

my opinion on vetoes has been repeated a zillion times but I want to puke when I hear guys say I don't want morons to ruin the league !
they seem happy to beat morons year over year but how dare someone venture towards independent thought or a contrary method of player evaluation. Just stay withe the herd and don't look up or make noise ...... well EFF that if I have morons in the league I want them out not protected from their own stupidity . whew soapbox put away .

and just to reiterate terrific post Irish !

I want the morons out of the league too, but you don't know who is a moron until they do something moronic. And then you can either remove them or you can veto it and give them another chance. Some people are just new, and some are permanently moronic.

Or you can never veto and put the trade through and let it ruin your league.

[SteelLake]

Now I'm not gonna get into logistics over wether or not a commish should make a rule without voting on it, that is another subject. But what it sounds like is the commish made a rule telling everyone that owner was off limits to trade with until his situation could be resolved. I'm not agreeing with this tactic, but if that was what I was told, and then someone made a deal with said owner, I would vote to veto it too. Honestly I'd argue it shouldn't be vetoed, but just nullified since it contradicted a rule. It sounds to me like the issue isn't the trade itself, but that you made the deal with an owner that had been "trade blocked"

I never received notification of trade block, I would have disagreed with it. But yea, I disclosed this in post. I've been told by an owner that they'll veto anything this owner trades unless they would have made a trade...

[ArrylT]

If a league falls apart because of a couple of bad trades, then that league wasnt likely meant to last. Forcing people to adhere to one means of dynasty valuation is likely to lead to stagnation imo. I also feel it could lead to resentment, bias & harms growth as an owner.

I truly would like to see concrete examples of a league that got ruined by a horrible trade - my definition of ruined is the league collapsed within a year. People talk about as if this happens all the time - but while we see a lot of "is this trade vetoable" threads I have yet to see a deluge of "this trade killed my league because it didnt get vetoed" threads.

Owners that throw in the towel for a league because an owner isnt up to their version of snuff are likely more of a threat to a leagues health than the owner itself. Owners can improve their skills, or be replaced. Owners that bully their way into getting what they want (by using vetoes) are a bigger threat imho any day. You're more likely to see more turnover for a league that has a bad commissioner or owners frustrated by their inability to alter their roster due to vetoes, than a league die because owner A made a few bad trades that might not be bad trades a year from now.

I completely get owners being concerned about their leagues longevity, but using a veto isnt the answer. Educating or replacing the owner is a better solution. If a trade is totally awful (like Antonio Brown for a 3rd) then the Commissioner can step in, reverse the trade & replace the owner who did that on grounds of collusion or inability to be a dynasty owner. But if an owners trades need to be constantly vetoed because other owners disgree with them then that will cause more harm long term than replacing the owner.

Two years ago in a league this trade went down

Jamison Crowder
Orleans Darkwa
2016 2nd round pick
2016 4th round pick
2017 4th round pick

for

Todd Gurley
2016 5th round pick

right in the midst of Gurleys 2015 season. There was a huge uproar - but there is no vetoes in this league. In the end the owner who gave away Gurley is still in the league and is continuing to get better. The league hasnt suffered as a result. And lo and behold the value difference between Crowder and Gurley today is a lot less than it was then. I'd be surprised if many owners would blink at a trade of Gurley for Crowder & picks - I'm not saying tis a great trade - just that it wouldnt cause any worry.

[cazzie33]

It's a bad trade and if his team is most likely the worst then the 3rd/ 21st overall pick is closer to actual value. But Anderson has legit chance to be Jets #1 , a team that should be passing a lot playing from behind

[skip]

I truly would like to see concrete examples of a league that got ruined by a horrible trade - my definition of ruined is the league collapsed within a year. People talk about as if this happens all the time - but while we see a lot of "is this trade vetoable" threads I have yet to see a deluge of "this trade killed my league because it didnt get vetoed" threads.

There was a long thread that took place here on the forum a few years ago that occurred in a DLF league. I'm not going to go thru all the details save to say that there was league sentiment that two owners had made an excessive number of trades between them over a couple of seasons. It came to a head with one trade viewed as very lopsided. The thread here became extremely volatile to a point it was locked and ultimately deleted. Half the owners left the league and the DLF forum entirely, myself included. That's as much detail as I will give but the trade killed the league. I do not believe in vetos but the circumstances could have easily fallen under the subject of collusion.

[ArrylT]

I truly would like to see concrete examples of a league that got ruined by a horrible trade - my definition of ruined is the league collapsed within a year. People talk about as if this happens all the time - but while we see a lot of "is this trade vetoable" threads I have yet to see a deluge of "this trade killed my league because it didnt get vetoed" threads.

There was a long thread that took place here on the forum a few years ago that occurred in a DLF league. I'm not going to go thru all the details save to say that there was league sentiment that two owners had made an excessive number of trades between them over a couple of seasons. It came to a head with one trade viewed as very lopsided. The thread here became extremely volatile to a point it was locked and ultimately deleted. Half the owners left the league and the DLF forum entirely, myself included. That's as much detail as I will give but the trade killed the league. I do not believe in vetos but the circumstances could have easily fallen under the subject of collusion.

Sorry to hear that.

[Cult of Dionysus]

You should email this thread and the 43-1 voting results to your idiot leaguemates.

[schiewerma21]

Not a chance. Haha. Dude you clearly haven't seen some of the deals posted on this forum. This is a standard every day trade.

[NanceUSMC]

Vetoes.....

Ruin.....

Leagues....


Only in the most extreme cases should leagues be allowed to step in and tell owners how to run their teams

[onetwothree]

Seems like the issue is not with this deal specifically but a culmination of trades between the 2 same owners. Looks like this is the one that broke camel's back.

I don't know if "veto" is the right word for this situation. Seems more like the league is freezing transactions from 1 owner while they figure out what to do and the owner/OP is just upset he wasn't able to take advantage of 1 more deal. Sounds like this league will be looking for 1 (and maybe 2 owners) shortly...