[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the commish in one of my leasgues, which is a Yahoo league with 12 teams. I made the mistake of going with the ability to veto trades, assuming it wouldn't be a problem. It only takes 4 votes to veto a trade and it seems as if a block of players are just veto'ing every trade because they have good teams.

7 out of 8 trades proposed have been vetoed. Multiple people have written league messages complaining about the vetoes, and even after people started getting pissed the last two trades were vetoed: Dirk for Chris Paul, and Biedrins for Peja. Both trades were trades of need for each team and should have easily gone through.

Whats my play? I can't change the veto system, and I feel like this is ruining the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nice thing about ESPN (at least the pay leagues, not sure about free) is that they handle whether trades go through. You can "protest" any trade you don't think is fair and include your reasoning. ESPN then makes a decision on any trade that is protested. IMO they've always done a good job with their decisions (at least in basketball, don't know about other sports), although one year at the beginning of the season everything that got protested was getting vetoed by ESPN for some reason until they got their [censored] together and then started judging trades normally.

I'm in a Yahoo football league where we have the votes to veto thing, and the same thing has happened where no trades go through. Started because one owner got bitter when his rip off trade got vetoed, and started voting against other trades, but we also have guys who will vote against trades that are legit just because they'd rather they not happen.
I am the commish but I don't intervene other than to explain why I think a trade is fair or unfair, or to suggest how I think vetoing should be used. Next year though I may insist that we do the league somewhere where trade vetoing is not decided by the owner vote.