Vetoing trades

[zelldawg26]

Hey guys, I'm the commish of a new league and I recently acquired Zeke for Coleman, an 18 first, and Smallwood. Now I know it's definitely lopsided as hell, (especially after the Coleman injury) but the guy wanted my 1st pick and has a ridiculous stable of RBs. He went after Coleman to help his WR core as well.
Now the 48 hour poll period went by and the trade went through while one guy came out and said he didn't see the poll and wanted to veto. He sent out a mass message on messenger saying he didn't receive an email or anything about the trade...However, I sent out a message to the league in messenger saying trades are being made and you can see them clearly on the MFL site.
I've got 3 vetos previously. But it takes 5 out of 12.
I told him today, find me 5 vetos and if the guy wants Zeke back, we will reinstate the trade like it never happened.
Now, am I being a sucker or should I have said, "You snooze, you lose."??

[Tsunami]

You're not going to get good help here, most people are against any and all vetos as a rule.

A bad trade doesn't have a time limit where it's only bad for two days. If this is something that hurts your league then put up a poll. You as the commish might have to overcompensate if you want to appear fair. What would you do if it was someone else's trade?

Was this before the Coleman injury? If so then hindsight will cause it to look worse than it is, so you can't really have a fair vote after the fact.

[Dr.Graffin]

So Coleman and a 1st for Zeke (as Smallwood is pretty much worthless imo)? Ridiculous, Coogan level type trade, but I guess I'd be happy playing with people who aren't too bright. That aside...

Whatever you decide to do here, be consistent. Or adjust the approval process this time, but clarify the rules for future trades immediately. My guess is most here will say it shouldn't be vetoed as use of the veto is only for collusion, not stupidity.

[Plank]

don't play in Leagues with owner vote vetoes ..

I had a similar deal several years ago when I traded Josh Gordon for the 1.03, which that very week he was suspended. I felt horrible, I did ... but the owner actually contacted me after and said he knew the risks .. its a valuable lesson and buyers remorse can be a thing, but ultimately you did what's best for your team and I wouldn't look back .. as you stated he wanted your first and he got it ..

After this season though I would try to get rid of owner veto .. that's like redraft.

[Phaded]

Vetoes.. *sigh*

[Cameron Giles]

Vetos should only happen if:

1. It's collusion.
2. It's a dramatically lopsided trade of an owner taking advantage of an inexperienced owner.

The Zeke side is clearly ahead in this one, but it's not a crazy deal when you consider Zeke's current off-field and character issues. A bar needs to be established in the league by the commissioner, otherwise it will get messy.

[skip]

Vetos should only happen if:

1. It's collusion.

Edited for correctness.

If an owner didn't see the trade come thru their email then they didn't have their communications set up properly. That's not your responsibility.

[onetwothree]

Where is your 1st projected to be? Seems like other owner betting that your team tanks if Zeke is out 6 games (or faces Denver 8 more times).

I'm usually against vetoes unless for reasons stated above but there's always context to every deal. None are ever in a vacuum.

Complaining owner just upset he didn't make the offer before you. Snooze you lose.

[Avery]

Vetos should only happen if:

1. It's collusion.

Edited for correctness.

If an owner didn't see the trade come thru their email then they didn't have their communications set up properly. That's not your responsibility.

Agree with the edit and since the only reason to veto a trade is collusion, there shouldn't be vote on that as people vote for their own team self interest.

[Orenthal Shames]

Use the search function for the past million veto questions. Collusion or bust.

[scorpion]

Veto if collusion only, but if it gets to the collusion assumption, then ditch the involved owners quickly and ask yourself why it got that far. Damn, I think it was 2014 that a league-mate who was pushing for the ship, but Big Ben and Bell were out, so I offered up Bortles and Robinson in exchange for them both... he accepted - the outcry was unreal, sure I knew I was getting the better long term deal. Note: I've never vetoed a trade, ever, but as LM I acquiesced and reversed the trade... with Bortles and Robinson he would have won that year if people didn't bitch and moan. Since then, if it's not collusion, then whiners can GTFO.

[Coogan Football]

So Coleman and a 1st for Zeke (as Smallwood is pretty much worthless imo)? Ridiculous, Coogan level type trade, but I guess I'd be happy playing with people who aren't too bright. That aside...

Whatever you decide to do here, be consistent. Or adjust the approval process this time, but clarify the rules for future trades immediately. My guess is most here will say it shouldn't be vetoed as use of the veto is only for collusion, not stupidity.

Lol GTFOH

My new league is with 30 other DLF members, good luck there!

[Valhalla]

Blount just got a whopping zero carries. I don't personally like Smallwood, but he's not necessarily worthless. Smallwood can be feasibly argued to have some sleeper value, at minimum. You don't have to agree with it, but the argument is there.

Zeke is a first round startup type of player, but with the off-field issues, I'd say for many owners he's creeping towards the back of the first or early 2nd. Coleman is one of those guys where a lot of people just love him. He's the definition of a metrics phenom. His measurables are very comparable to Beckham's and his college production was also pretty absurd when he was healthy. He's an A+ prospect in some people's eyes. Wasn't he about a 4th round startup this year?
Anyways...summation of the trade as potentially seen by the former Zeke owner:
A top level wr prospect and likely future stud wr + a potentially high first (in another loaded RB class that could be a Guice or something) + a rb prospect in a situation where the lead back seemingly just lost his job ALL for a troubled but talented RB who's situation will likely never be as good as it was in his rookie year (declining OL) meaning his value will never be higher...

I'd still side Zeke but it doesn't seem crazy to me at all pre-Coleman injury. Veto? Please. What's next? I'm waiting for the guy in line behind me to veto my food order because he doesn't like my choice of ham and cheese.

[Dr.Graffin]

So Coleman and a 1st for Zeke (as Smallwood is pretty much worthless imo)? Ridiculous, Coogan level type trade, but I guess I'd be happy playing with people who aren't too bright. That aside...

Whatever you decide to do here, be consistent. Or adjust the approval process this time, but clarify the rules for future trades immediately. My guess is most here will say it shouldn't be vetoed as use of the veto is only for collusion, not stupidity.

Lol GTFOH

My new league is with 30 other DLF members, good luck there!

Sounds like you turned up the difficulty level from Rookie to All-Madden. I'd be interested to see what trades have gone down so far.

[Ray Finkle]

Veto? Please. What's next? I'm waiting for the guy in line behind me to veto my food order because he doesn't like my choice of ham and cheese.

Well, ham and cheese is weak. I have to assume there was something better to be had. 1 vote.