sezu 0 Posted September 6, 2006 Ok, there's a trade on the board in my league. A.Gates for M.Bell plus two middlin' IDPs. In my mind this is highway robbery, and the guy getting Gates is infamous for preying on the least educated among us. (full disclosure - It was me last season.) There's plenty of decent IDPs left as FAs. So the question is, should I vote this down? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Denmar 0 Posted September 6, 2006 Ok, there's a trade on the board in my league. A.Gates for M.Bell plus two middlin' IDPs. In my mind this is highway robbery, and the guy getting Gates is infamous for preying on the least educated among us. (full disclosure - It was me last season.) There's plenty of decent IDPs left as FAs. So the question is, should I vote this down? Vetoes are not intended to be used to police trades to ensure only ones you like are passed, they are there to prevent cheating, or in rare circumstances protect the innocent. In my leagues there are only 2 circumstances which will result in a veto: 1. I can prove collusion (note, this is nearly impossible) 2. I am protecting a first year player from a veteran..I give rookies help in my leagues. Even here, I will first talk to the rookie about my concerns and if he still wishes to go through with it, he can. A good example of why I run things this way: Last year, before I switched to commish only veto in one league, there was a trade up around week 3: Bledsoe + Jets D/ST for Culpepper + Bears D/ST This created a fiery cataclysm of bitching and whining amongst the owners and got vetoed because, supposedly, the person trading for Culpepper + Bears was at a huge advantage. Now, that wasn't the case, was it? Bottom line, don't abuse veto power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sezu 0 Posted September 6, 2006 Thanks for the reply Denmar. I'm reluctantly inclined to agree with you. I did send a note to the current Gates owner pointing out what I think is wrong with the trade, but I doubt he'll get it before it goes through. Could also be that I'm still a little chafed about getting taken last season, so I think that reason alone is enough to let it be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreddieMercury 0 Posted September 6, 2006 I agree with the points above -- you can't assume a stupid trade means that people are cheating. The best policy is usually to allow trades to go through, unless you have clear evidence of colluding or some other type of cheating is going on. Also, I used to have a rule that you can't trade with teams that have been mathematically eliminated from the postseason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
