So don't play with weak owners. Play against challenging where you'll be happy to get the best deal you can and win on your merits.Tsunami wrote:Vetoing one trade isn't the ultimate solution, I advocated both veto & replace. But if you don't want to go that far, you can veto & educate. When someone makes a bad trade in one of my leagues, first I yell at them publicly so they know they did it and are ashamed of themselves, and then I point them towards a dynasty rankings site so they know how to not do it again. This critical advice is not always appreciated but I don't play to make friends or to match wits with morons.TommyL31 wrote: Agreed that owners should get the most value they can for their assets but I still don't get why the solution is veto the trade. That is a problem with that owner that needs to be addressed. You can have a 'warning' process if you want but if the mechanism is just to overturn that deal what's to stop the same owner from making more terrible trades?
I feel like all you're encouraging by vetoing is pointing out to the rest of the league who the dumb owner is. At that point you're just encouraging people to take advantage of him...but not so much that it gets vetoed. 1 strike warning when a guy makes an atrocious trade? Ok, fine. But if he does it again, that is 100% an owner problem.
Here's a random question. How many of you have had a trade you made vetoed because the league thought you were getting fleeced in the deal?
One of my (free) dynasty leagues replaced an owner this past season, and the new owner offered me something I thought was ridiculous (Alshon Jeffery + Alex Smith for Torrey Smith + Andy Dalton). I told them I will do it but they could probably do better. They proceeded to trade Jeffery+Smith to the commish for Kendall Wright + Nick Foles, which pissed me off a bit. And when they gave away Forte later in the season to the same owner I called them out publicly for the bad trades.
But what else was I supposed to do? It's no fun for me to be given all the great players and win without a challenge, and it's no fun for me to lose because someone else is given all the great players. I want to win on the merits of building a team, not because I took advantage of weak owners most effectively. And I want everyone else to play that way too. If I wanted to just win easily I'd trade with computer teams on Madden or something. (The owner in question ended up doing pretty well and barely losing to me in the finals, so one bad trade doesn't mean the person is useless. We were probably all bad at this at some point.)
To be clear where I fall in relation to 'kicking people out of leagues' is not something that I believe should happen almost ever. I am all in the camp that we've all made bad deals and we learn from them. Taking your lumps and setting your franchise back for a year is a perfectly fine mechanism to learn that you made a bad deal so you don't need to veto trades. IF someone is continually making bad trades and so bad that people are crying for it to be overturned because of 'league balance' then I just ask them if that owner should be kicked out of the league. You either trust owners to run their own teams and make 'good' and 'bad' moves as they see fit or you don't.
