Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: Vetoes

[Roy H.]

First, about the veto procedure. When I implemented a change from Commissioner Veto to League Vote this season, I did so for a variety of reasons, chief of which was expedience. Over the past several years, this league has become more and more of a challenge for me to manage: policing inactivity, finding replacement GMs, running the rookie draft, tracking trades in the offseason, etc. While I agree that KWhit's suggestion has its merits, I'm simply not interested in having to poll the league via email for every single trade that's agreed upon between GMs, especially given the increased volume of trading. I'd much rather let the Yahoo! system do that for me.

However, as Roy points out, the Yahoo! league vote procedure works differently from our original policy (requiring only 1/3 of the league to veto, rather than our policy of 1/2). I didn't foresee this policy change, and it should have been discussed more fully before implementation, as we usually do with all rule changes. Given this, I am not sure how to move forward.

Perhaps appoint an Assistant Commish, and ask him to handle vetoes and other administrative issues, etc.?  I'll nominate GC, if he's up for it.

[hpantazo]

First, about the veto procedure. When I implemented a change from Commissioner Veto to League Vote this season, I did so for a variety of reasons, chief of which was expedience. Over the past several years, this league has become more and more of a challenge for me to manage: policing inactivity, finding replacement GMs, running the rookie draft, tracking trades in the offseason, etc. While I agree that KWhit's suggestion has its merits, I'm simply not interested in having to poll the league via email for every single trade that's agreed upon between GMs, especially given the increased volume of trading. I'd much rather let the Yahoo! system do that for me.

However, as Roy points out, the Yahoo! league vote procedure works differently from our original policy (requiring only 1/3 of the league to veto, rather than our policy of 1/2). I didn't foresee this policy change, and it should have been discussed more fully before implementation, as we usually do with all rule changes. Given this, I am not sure how to move forward.

Perhaps appoint an Assistant Commish, and ask him to handle vetoes and other administrative issues, etc.?  I'll nominate GC, if he's up for it.

An assistant commish is a good idea, if someone wants to volunteer for it. I think this is also a good time to solidify the 50% needed for veto policy and to clarify if a veto should be for a perceived unfair trade or for collusion only. I vote that a veto should be for all unfair trades, if deemed heavily unfair by 50% or more of the GMs. In this sense, Roy and Edgar, if they chose so, can re-submit the deal, and if 50% of the league votes to veto it or not, that's the decision we all live with.

If in the worst case, there is no one who wants to be assistant commish, we have to understand Lucky's workload and go with what's reasonable for him and the league. In either case, we should have a clearly defined veto policy. If all we can handle is what yahoo provides, then so be it. Thank you Lucky for running great leagues, it must take a lot of your time and it should be fun for you and us, not a point of anxiety for anyone, the purpose of the league is to have fun, right?

[Lucky17]

GC has already been helping me out as an unofficial assistant commissioner. Without him, I'm not sure where we'd be as a league right now.

Also, just to be clear, I cannot tweak the Yahoo! settings for League Vote. It's veto by 1/3 of the league, or by the Commissioner.

[Roy H.]

Also, just to be clear, I cannot tweak the Yahoo! settings for League Vote. It's veto by 1/3 of the league, or by the Commissioner.

It sounds like the only way we can remain consistent to the rule that's been in place since the inception is through Commissioner veto.  Do people agree with that?

Is there anybody who wants 33% of the league deciding the fate of trades?

[Kwhit10]

I think it should be put back to commish veto power.  And instead of Lucky polling the entire league each time a trade is anounced.  I think it should then be the responsibility of an owner(s) to message Lucky where they wish to cast a veto vote towards a particular trade.  And if Lucky happens to get the 10 votes needed to so be it. 

I mean this way it's up to the owners to be proactive instead of Lucky having to go around and ask everyone.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I've got mixed feelings on this.

As I said before, I didn't support the veto.

But I also don't find this early precedent that Roy has dug up very compelling. We changed to commissioner veto the next season, with no objection, and back and forth twice more since with no complaint. Lucky has made other rules changes that weren't put to a vote, or even to discussion. And given that the "majority vote" hasn't ever been reiterated that I can recall? Predates, what?, half of our current managers, and exists only on what I would've thought was a lost thread, I wouldn't agree that deferring to the Yahoo default it as Roy has described it "arbitrary."

There's also precedent for managers giving ground to keep the peace, I'm thinking most obviously of Lucky renouncing his rights to Nenad Krsitc. It's my impression that however this is resolved the league stands to lose a couple of managers on either side of the issue.

And in that spirit, I wonder if Roy and Edgar would you be willing to change some of the details of the trade to balance out the talent disparity with the understanding that it would then be rubber stamped?

Since this is (EDIT - probably) my last hurrah, take my advice with a grain of salt. I'll gladly go along to get along - including a second vote.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I think it should be put back to commish veto power.

Lucky can correct me if I'm wrong, but he may just be too generous to remind everybody, as I recall we first went to a league vote because he no longer wanted sole responsibility for vetoing trades.

[Kwhit10]

I think it should be put back to commish veto power.

Lucky can correct me if I'm wrong, but he may just be too generous to remind everybody, as I recall we first went to a league vote because he no longer wanted sole responsibility for vetoing trades.

Which is only a way of getting around the yahoo 1/3 owner majority veto.  He just holds onto the "veto button" and uses it if he gets 10 emails/pms/messages from the owners requesting it to be vetoed.

[hpantazo]

I think it should be put back to commish veto power.

Lucky can correct me if I'm wrong, but he may just be too generous to remind everybody, as I recall we first went to a league vote because he no longer wanted sole responsibility for vetoing trades.

Which is only a way of getting around the yahoo 1/3 owner majority veto.  He just holds onto the "veto button" and uses it if he gets 10 emails/pms/messages from the owners requesting it to be vetoed.

sounds like a very fair arrangement, and also keeps the veto votes relatively anonymous if only Lucky sees them, as they should be.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Anyway, thanks to Roy for allowing me to revisit my original draft.

Round 1 (20) Pau Gasol
Round 2 (10) Baron Davis
Round 3 (11) Lamarcus Aldridge
Round 5 (2) Corey Maggette
Round 5 (20) Jameer Nelson
Round 6 (1) Nene Hilario
Round 7 (2) Jamal Tinsley
Round 7 (20) Ronnie Brewer
Round 8 (11) Rodney Stuckey
Round 10 (1) Quentin Richardson
Round 10 (10) Reggie Evans
Round 10 (19) Marquis Daniels
Round 13 (10) Jason Smith
Round 14 (1) Brandon Bass
Round 14 (11) Boki Nachbar
Round 15 (20) Dan Gadzuric

Four years on all but four are still on rosters. Not too shabby.

Also gives me the opportunity to give him more grief over those compensatory picks...

[barefacedmonk]

* YEE MEN

[barefacedmonk]

**YES MEN


Ah, can't fix the typos on the phone.

[Lucky17]

Combining a few comments/suggestions: submit a revised trade offer to the league for review, with the understanding that 10 votes against results in veto?

[yall hate]

what was the trade involving Blake and I?

[Roy H.]

what was the trade involving Blake and I?

It was the controversy regarding whether the next year's draft picks could be traded.

You dealt your #1 pick in the 2008 draft, along with your 14th and 16th pick in the original draft for blake's 7th, 10th, 12th, and 14th picks in that original draft.

It turned out to be:

YH trades:  ?, ?, 2008 #1 pick
Blake trades:  Troy Murphy, Brendan Haywood, Renaldo Balkman, Patrick O'Bryant

Four years later, it's amazing to think that Troy Murphy and Brendan Haywood almost blew up the league.  Also, looking back, it's crazy that Lebron slipped to 4th in that draft (and that only IP had the foresight to move up to get him).  What were we all thinking back in '07?