Veto Debate?

[hoos89]

In that league, only 5 vetoes are needed.
It was vetoed in under two hours. I asked for some reasoning as to why it was vetoed but no one had anything to say. 3 people said it was fair but no one would say why they thought it was veto worthy

I don't think I've ever heard of a league where a minority of owners could veto a trade. 5 isn't even a majority of disinterested owners in a 12 team league. I'd be furious if I were you and I'd be out of that league if I couldn't get the rule changed ASAP.

[myerswv]

Its 5 because the two teams involved dont vote and neither does the commish. At least that is how i understand it.
Its a fun league of an orphan project i took over last year so i dont want to leave. I just wanted to see if i was way off for being annoyed/aggravated that it would be vetoed. Sometimes you can't see clearly when youre involved in the situation and im glad that wasnt the case here

[mzkp54]

This trade definitely is not veto-worthy (if any are). That's pretty crazy to me that so few owners are required to veto, and can do it for any trade. Not a league I'd be in.

[jonf86]

Agree with everyone else. 20 out of 21 people didn't choose the veto option for this poll, which means it's more than fair. Everyone has their opinions, but just because a player might prefer one side (and it seems more seem to like the Gordon and high draft picks side) does not mean it's veto worthy.

[saw061600]

For fun so wouldn't automatically leave the league. I would absolutely share the link to this thread on your league home page to show what others think of the veto.

[myerswv]

For fun so wouldn't automatically leave the league. I would absolutely share the link to this thread on your league home page to show what others think of the veto.

I probably will do that. We already started the draft and pick 1.2 has been made so its in the past now but exposing the league to a wider view would probably be beneficial

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I think it's an overpay for Johnson, but this trade could look very differently if he has a 2014 Le'Veon Bell-type season this year. It's definitely not veto-worthy.

[Coogan Football]

Vetoes should ONLY happen when collusion takes place, this does not look like that at all.


The trade could go either way, that minority of your leaguemates seriously need to grow up.

[FKC]

I can't stand the veto, no place for it in dynasty leagues

I completely agree. 99.99% of the time Vetoing=Whining. Usually someone is jealous they aren't one of the trade partners. I've only ever seen 1 trade that needed vetoed and it was obvious collusion.

[Alex116]

Am I the dumb one here? Because I'm not sure which side those who veto'd think got the better end of the deal and who was getting shafted??? It's THAT even in my mind!

Fun or not, that would have me bailing if no explanation was given. This is the opposite of a collision type veto. In this case, those who voted to veto are the ones colluding!

[TomBobAnderson]

Shouldn't have been vetoed but honestly those stupid owners did you a favor. You were trading the 1.2 away right? You would have lost the trade

[myerswv]

Shouldn't have been vetoed but honestly those stupid owners did you a favor. You were trading the 1.2 away right? You would have lost the trade

No, i worded it that way on purpose so there wouldn't be any bias in the post. I received the Gordon, 1.2 side. My orphan is still at least one more year away and is lacking depth so i needed more pieces that could possibly help to make a push to contend in 2017 or 2018 depending on this draft and next years (i have 3 1sts next year). The other owner needed a star RB and really likes a couple players in the 2.1 range this year so we were both very happy about the trade for our respective teams.

[FiremanEd]

There should without question be a requirement for anyone who votes a veto to explain the position and why it is believed to be collusion. If they aren't then they are just snakes in the grass looking out for themselves.

This isn't collusion, though I can see many liking the draft pick side of the house (1.2+2017 1st). It's tough to argue Melvin=DJ at this time, though they obviously have Melvin's value much higher than many to feel it is collusion.

Truthfully, if rationale isn't provided and people are going to so easily veto a deal, I would leave rather than waste time in a league where other people try to run your and others teams. Not the way it is intended to be.

The only extra variable to account for is whether you took over this orphan through a connection to a buddy, and this buddy is the one you're trading with here? That would be a potential reason they are driving that way, even though I don't think veto is justified.

[bonscott]

When I can't really figure out which side I like more then I think it's a fair deal.

In any case, there should never be any veto's. Owners will always veto just because they perceive a rival getting stronger or they do it out of spite or they veto because someone vetoed their trade a few weeks ago. It's almost never on the actual merit of the trade in question.
This one is a prime example since there isn't anything close to wrong with this trade.

[langnp]

That league is ridiculous. I'd be out and demand a refund for this season if you've already paid. There is NO reason for veto under any circumstance other than confirmed collusion. Hate, hate, hate veto...especially with league votes. Take your time, energy and money elsewhere.