A Modest Proposal

By Lloyd Kraus

It’s been a busy off-season, but a relatively quiet one until a trade involving myself, Mike and Peter came down the pipes. There was opposition from the usual suspects and once again, a veto was put forward and seconded. And if the vetoers had actually tried instead of finger-banging one another in Vegas, the trade probably would have been vetoed because they only needed 2 more votes.

Gentleman, this is fucked up. Our system is broken and for too long we’ve sat idly by blaming the dysfunction on the website we use. In the following post, I humbly propose a cure for our ailing trade procedure.

First, let’s dismiss an extreme option. There are some leagues that have lasseiz faire, no- trade-veto policy; any deal made is not debatable and automatically goes through. This works for a redraft league, in that a “bad” trade has no true long-term consequences. After the season is over, all the players are released back into the pool, and although there may be some bitterness from that season, the overall league well does not stay poisoned. In contrast, because our league has 3 keepers and a glorious tradition of year round trades, it is much more complex than a simple league, and consequently, a bad trade can have negative effects that can last for years, not just one season. For this reason, and the general distrust some of us have for certain managers, I think a trade veto is a necessary evil in our league.

However, I think we can (and have) all agree that 4 is way too small a number to veto a trade. Everything else decided in this league is done by a majority and there is no reason for trades to be different. I think a safe number is six, in that you take the two traders out of the equation which leaves 10 managers, and six is a majority of those remaining managers. Or you could say every manager gets a vote and tie goes to the vetoers. And if you wanted at tie to go to the traders, you could even make the majority seven. Either way, six or seven is much more palatable than four, and it provides greater freedom in trades while still reserving a kill switch those trades that shock the conscience.

The only real question is how to implement this new system. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that changing websites is not possible. We have that discussion every year and Yahoo always ends up being our best option. Let’s also assume that there is no way to change the votes needed to veto a trade, that is, it is still four. Based on this likely scenario, we could either have a mass e-mail chain for every vote, or we could have a receiver who each person in the league sends their vote to after a veto vote has been called. The latter option is much simpler and avoids that e-mail clusterfuck that starts fun but then turns out bitchier than the alumni listserve.

It makes sense for that receiver to be the Commish because we already do the same kind of thing when we send him our keeper picks. Granted, there has been a demand for vote “anonymity,” that is, that Yahoo allows people to vote against a trade without anyone knowing who voted against the trade or why they voted that way. However, Brian would be sworn to the same secrecy that he is for the keeper deadline, and you wouldn’t have to send him anything besides an e-mail that said “yes” or “no”. Or you could just make up a fake name like Ben did and send it to him that way. And at the end of the day, are we really such big of poons that we can’t at least tell someone to their face that you’re voting against their trade?

So that is my modest proposal gents. A 6 vote majority with a receiver, Brian being the most obvious choice, to act as trustee for the votes. If ya’ll agree with me, we should put a vote together and get this stupid rule changed. And yes this was long, but I wrote this while procrastinating on a paper and watching the tournament so fuck you.