Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I assume he’s involved in the trade and commish vetoed it, which is pretty crazy.
SCT said:
Agree 100%. Those that use the weak argument you shouldn't veto unless collusion has to know collusion can't be proven. You can't allow leagues to be ruined by trades such as the hypothetical one you mentioned. Having said that, you cannot veto trades just because one side wins the trade over the other, even somewhat lopsided. However, if someone were to trade Team A - Gronk, Pat Mahomes, Antonio Brown and Alvin Kamara, for Team B's - Jimmy Graham, Marcus Mariota, Laquon Treadwell, and Marlon Mack, then yes, the commish has to protect the integrity of the league in this case.
If you're going to have a mechanism to protect the integrity of the league, you also need one to protect it from whatever that mechanism is because in the real world, the latter will be tested much more often than the former...
Perhaps not but the commissioner should contact both sides in a wildly lopsided trade and get the rationale for how the trade is making their team better. If they don't have a good answer then you have a pretty good idea that there is either collusion or tanking going on and either of those are legitimate reason to veto.
I agree with that. Communication is necessary by the commish to find out the rationale for the trade. Tanking is not a good reason.
In the real world very few trades look like this (seriously hoping none do) so while it's all well and good when a commissioner and/or 10 owners can all nod their heads and say "No way", as soon as you move away from the black and white ends of the trading spectrum, it gets more subjective - usually a lot more - and that's where most trades will actually reside. It's a slippery slope from "crazy trade" to imposing your will on my team.
Not even close to veto worthy. I take side B but can see why Team A would do it.32 Counter Pass said:
You can't look at it that way, otherwise everything goes (even tanking) can ruin a league. The commish has to be good enough to allow lopsided trades, but not allow trades that can cripple a league. I agree with a previous poster about getting rid of bad owners. Also, you can't allow obvious tanking (you know it when you see it)....period. Nothing you can do about subtle tanking (you know it when you see it) Having said that, the trade mentioned in the OP is not veto worthy.
I get that every league is different, but in our case it has worked out much better after getting rid of it. Maybe we were lucky that there weren’t any “crippling” trades. There were just way too many instances where a trade was vetoed because it was “obviously lopsided” that turned out not to be. Granted, there were a few cases where injury to a player was what made the veto look foolish, but there were others that would have ended up being fine trades for both sides that were vetoed because people think they can predict the future.
Team A has a QB on bye and is playing Team B who Team C needs to lose. Team C trades his stud qb to team A on loan for a week and then gets him back after team A used him to beat team B. It’s proven when the guy is returned.
The one time I nixed a deal in the league I commissioned was
First, there is no collusion. There was no prior discussion with the other owner. Conceptually, I agree there should be some safe guards to prevent tanking and so forth. My issue with the commish vetoing the trade seems arbitrary at best. The team getting Cam just lost Jimmy G so they were motivated to get a decent option.
No veto for this trade but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be for all trades. League integrity is at stake in the most extreme scenario of a veto. As far as opinion driven, that's why leagues need a competent commish. Your league is only as good as your commish's ability to run a good league and that sometimes means making hard decisions.
Can you give us a little more background now that the thread has been underway for a while. Why is the commissioner claiming this trade needs to be vetoed?32 Counter Pass said:
No hard salary cap? Normally in an auction teams need to stay under a hard cap even in trades.
