Vetoed trades should only occur as a result of collision and unaminous votes should be required to veto trade
I agreed to a trade with an owner yesterday where I gave up Bregman/Junis for Suarez in a $500 Yahoo Pro league where I need HR/RBI.Today I get an email from Yahoo saying my trade has been vetoed with no explanation. There is a lot of money at stake in this leagues and there should be some accountability on Yahoo's part to provide valid reasoning for vetoing a reasonable trade unless collusion is involved.
Too often in trading these days vetoes are used for the simple reason of not wanting to see other teams potentially improving b/c your team is not involved in the process. I would suggest that requiring unanimous votes be required to veto a trade as it's not fair for a couple owners to complain while the majority of league has no problem with it and then have to pay the consequences for it.
Lamont Stanton commented
Currently, team managers in pay leagues are not allowed to vote on trades. All trades are only reviewable by Yahoo if a team manager protests a trade. However, Yahoo will not stop poor/unfair trades in pay leagues, so they always go through, which severely impacts fair play and competitive balance in leagues where money prizes are on the line. Team managers are able to perpetuate fraud by trading top players to help someone win the league with no questions asked. To insure fairness, either actively manage the league with a commissioner from Yahoo, or allow teams vote on trades, thereby regulating fair player in an open and transparent environment. Please share your thoughts on this idea, because Yahoo has shown no interest in monitoring pay leagues. Thank you.
Maxwell Harlan commented
I agree. The same thing happened to me today. Unfortunately for me, the deadline has passed so I'm screwed. And yahoo says all decisions (made by jealous crybaby owners in my league) are final. It's so easy to find 4 jerks in one 12-team league who have nothing better to do than veto fair trades.