trading - league votes vs. commish reviews

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:10 pm

I was wondering which one some of you preferred. I ask this because i have a couple leagues i commish, one uses league votes on trades rule and the other uses commish reviews trades rule. The one that uses league vote has a 2 day waiting period while members vote and the other has no waiting period, the trade just need to be ok'ed by the commish and it goes through at least that is how i understand the commish settings on yahoo for time for members to protest trades(zero) and trades reviewed by(commish).

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:38 pm

id prefer league vote

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:02 pm

I'm in leagues with both and have no real preference.
Our 20 team league started out with Commish and ended up changing to league vote after some issues.
Kinda driven by the group of owners.

Roto Guru Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 2026 Location: CA

Commish vote...too many teams decline all trades when it majority vote just to decline. Let it be decided by one person but only if the trade is really unbalanced or looks like collusion

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:13 pm

I prefer having a 3 or 4 person Transaction Approval Board on top of 1 or 2 commishes ... it has to be oked by 2/3 ro 3/4 members, or both commishes. (In the league I am in, the commishes have seeperated TAB's decisions from theirs so to cause less confusion. This works best IMO because you can elect the members to TAB based on who you think is the right fit.

Granted we go through a message board off site for all league doings, Yahoo is just used for points ... here is the link to TAB rules for those who are interested

http://thmmter.conforums3.com/index.cgi?board=tab&action=display&num=1139423789

If you want further details I would be happy to elaborate to the extent I can.

If the TAB is not an option for your league, I prefer commish chooses (as long as he shows he can be trusted to make right decisions)

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:37 pm

thanks guys, i personally like the league vote idea as it is more democratic just as long as you have good members who know what they are doing and know a good trade from a bad one, besides even if a trade does go thru (due to members being absent and there vote is automatically cast as a yes vote) and isn't right the commish can revert it back if enough members protest it.

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:44 am

In the Money League's that I Comish at Yahoo, I've instituted a 5 Posted Votes for Veto Policy.

Each Owner has 3 Days (The Trade's Pending Period) to Post his Vote to Veto, which must include an attached justification. We don't judge the merits of the justifications, (Unless they're just blatantly ridiculous.) but we do want to know why one has Voted to Veto a particular Trade.

Having enabled "Commissioner" control of Trades when I established the League, I can then Veto the Trade immediately upon discovering the 5th Vote. (Which requires that I check the League daily when a Trade is Pending.)

This has worked well within my group for the last two years. We've not Vetoed even one Trade since it's inception, though we came close once with 4 Votes.

It has eliminated any "stealth" Vote concerns or any suspicions of collusionary backbiting that may occur when Owners are required to Vote with Protests to the Comish, via E-Mail.

Everything is out in the open and plain for all to see.... just as it should be... especially when you're playing for MONEY! Smile

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:57 am

The beginning of last year
beltran for d. willis -vetoed
Oliver Perez for johny peralta vetoed I can go on and on the yankees don't ask the red sox if a deal is okay.
A good commish should handle this.. I won't play in any mother may I leagues. Who's to say they can predict the future and know more about a good trade than the next guy

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:53 am

We tried a veto voting method a few years ago but it didn't work because the votes were not public... so evrything got vetoed because there was no accountability. I think league votes to veto a trade work but the votes have to be made public so the owners are accountable for their action.

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:59 am

it seems it comes down to the league,if you have a solid set of owners then a league vote works fine,if you have a bunch of yahoo's in your league it wont matter which way the league is set up

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:05 am

flakattack wrote:

Commish vote...too many teams decline all trades when it majority vote just to decline. Let it be decided by one person but only if the trade is really unbalanced or looks like collusion

I agree. It seems like often owners decline trades because they dont want their competition to improve. Basically it is easier for one person to look at a trade objectively, than for 12 people.

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:09 am

jose wrote:

We tried a veto voting method a few years ago but it didn't work because the votes were not public... so evrything got vetoed because there was no accountability. I think league votes to veto a trade work but the votes have to be made public so the owners are accountable for their action.

This is also a great point. Many times the person leading the league will get picked on and none of his trades will go through because people can anonymously veto.

minor league rover Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 23

Thanks for bringing this up--my 10 year old keeper money league is reviewing its trade rules (and a few others) during this offseason as a result of what became a 'trade-a-thon' for last year's title and included

We've used a league vote system for the past few years with only one trade vetoed. The votes have to be posted on the message board of the league. After last season's problem (Team A made a 'retaliatory' trade with Team B after Team C turned him down--unfortunately that retaliatory trade was a bit skewd/unfair and cost Team C the championship) the league wants to curb the trade-for-the-flag that has been increasing the last couple of seasons. That retaliatory trade was almost vetoed, but not enough owners voted.

Previously it took 6 of 8 votes from teams not involved in the trade (10 team league) to veto a trade. It looks like what we will try will be a 'call for vote' by one or two owners that will then require teams to vote yes or no on a trade. I'm not sure whether it will work or not, but it can't hurt to try. As I am one of the most active traders in the league (and most successful owners) there is little chance that the league would have me with control over trades.

Roto Guru Joined: Feb 02, 2005 Posts: 614

Actually, Im planning on using a combination of the two in the league Im starting. in a 10 team league (Sportsline) Im going to take advantage of the owner veto option but oversee it with a Commish final ruling if needed. Basically it would take care of the unbalanced trades in the owner veto part but still allow me, as commish to look at them and see if it is a case of "team envy"

Basically in the case where they need to be overruled, have both owners involved write me in detail why the trade should go through and make my decision off of that