How many votes should it take to veto a trade?

[chrisetc21]

I think it's clear the rules need to be tightened up and be more specific but it doesn't matter to me what the rules are as long as we follow them.  I tend to side on the ability of managers to trade as they wish unless it's just so utterly lopsided as was the case with the Reds/Red Sox trade and even in that case I merely posted my objection without a veto.

The Reds manager has continued to go on an incoherent rant including statements that are flat out untrue.  First, nobody in the five team trade vetoed the Reds trade.  Second, the Reds are the only team currently trying to veto multiple trades.  Third, charges of collusion to block his trades when the Pirates, Phillies, and Red Sox are all brand new owners who never vetoed his trade are so preposterous that I can't believe he seriously said that.  Fourth, the Reds have thrown out the standard that such and such trade would never happen in real MLB when in fact Jose Fernandez, by himself, would never be traded for Aroldis Chapman, Yonder Alonso, and that bag of hammers the Reds were trying to send to the Red Sox.  His claims have no merit even by the most liberal of standards.

[yahoolando]

We are going to role with the 70% vote for now with 4 vote minimum.  I would like to see a 10 vote minimum in the future as I discussed with JR but we will get there in time.

Good discussion.

I will have to adjust the rules.

[yahoolando]

Adjusted Constitution to show 70% vote

 

[chrisetc21]

So a trade still passes if there are no vetoes after 48 hours?  If there is a veto within 48 hours then a 70% vote is needed to pass?  I'd still like there to be a minimum 2 or 3 vetoes.  In fact I think a majority is the best way to go, if two vetoes then three yes votes to pass.  I don't think one owner should be allowed to derail a trade by himself.

[yahoolando]

So a trade still passes if there are no vetoes after 48 hours?  If there is a veto within 48 hours then a 70% vote is needed to pass?  I'd still like there to be a minimum 2 or 3 vetoes.  In fact I think a majority is the best way to go, if two vetoes then three yes votes to pass.  I don't think one owner should be allowed to derail a trade by himself.

3 to 2 vote there is no way that passes.  It would stay on the board for more discussion.  You want activity then vote.

For 2 vetoes within 48 hours I would need to see at least 5 approvals to pass, not that difficult in a 30 team league.

Granted the veto needs to come with a reason just like a trade does.  No decent reason then no veto.  No decent reason then no trade.

Yes there is some subjectivity but when you have certain GMs just vetoing for the sake of it that is why we have a commish.

[limeygreen]

Am new to the league so still to fully experience the process working. However if we are revisiting the rules, then I agree with the proposed idea of moving to the need for at least two, rather than one, initial vetoes. 

Requiring just one seems to much of a hostage to fortune, and two would, hopefully, make the process more effective and consistent.

[chrisetc21]

Am new to the league so still to fully experience the process working. However if we are revisiting the rules, then I agree with the proposed idea of moving to the need for at least two, rather than one, initial vetoes. 

Requiring just one seems to much of a hostage to fortune, and two would, hopefully, make the process more effective and consistent.

You are a voice of reason and a fine gentleman.   

[haseloff]

Holy crap. Common sense is prevailing. You people are awesome!