Having any voting or rejection of trades based on anything but collusion is stupid. First off in any competitive league no one is going to make a total bonehead trades. All voting on trades does is allow owners who are mad they didn't make a deal or are afraid of another team the chance to vote it down. And if someone does make a bonehead move that's how they learn from the ribbing and jabs others will take at them.That said my two money leagues. 12 team league same core group for 13 years, this year we had 2 trades (deadline start of week 10 games):Jason Campbell/Kevin Curtis for Matt Cassel/Issac BruceBernard Berrian/Ben Watson for David Patten/Greg Olsen10 team league that's been around 2 years, 7 trades this year.Biggest two:Warner/Benson/Panthers D for Campbell/Bush/Packers DCutler/LJ for Schaub/GrahamI screwed the pooch on the Cutler deal, but I was desperate at RB with Grant not playing well, Sammy Morris hurt and LJ inactive. Schaub promptly got hurt a game later and then Graham goes down.We have only had a couple trade attempts, all shot down. We are looking at changing the rules for this. Allowing voting on trades is killing any chance at one happening. I think we will probably put it into a scenario where if the objection threshold is met, that the principles of the trade can state their case then the commissioners can vote on it from there.
Vetoes are the worst thing ever for fantasy sports. I am in a 12 man keeper league that has been going for about 8 years. In past years we had the ability to vote on trades, and every single trade would get vetoed (most owners resoning for doing so was "it makes team A too good, and team B gets screwed, etc, etc). Last year I was involved in such a case where I traded Addai before the draft for maroney and holt. The league decided I was getting too much, so I had to throw in a draft pick (second) which the other owner got Romo with (boy, addai and romo for maroney and holt, veto worked real well there).This year we voted to remove the veto and there have been about a dozen GOOD trades. I don't understand why leagues use vetoes in cases that obviously aren't collusion. If an owner makes a bone head move it should be up to them to do so, not a committee of 10 other owners. Besides, if someone is getting totally ripped off in your league, maybe they shouldn't be in that particular league. Just myInteresting test case .... All of you guys who claim to offer these great trades but can never consummate a deal should start a league together. Then you can have an ongoing thread updating us on all the deals that get done.Please make sure that you give the other owners veto ability, then the shark pool can be completely filled with 'Should I veto this trade?' threads.
I certainly disagree about a redraft league being less likely to see trading......we see about 2-3 trades almost every week. My league is a 12 team local league, competitive redraft. Pretty high scoring PPR league with 2 flex positions in addition to 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR's, 1 TE. We can stockpile at any position with reserves with a roster size of 17.There have been 20 total trades this year, anything from swapping handcuffs to a blockbuster like M. Lynch, R. Wayne, D. Driver, T. Gonzo FOR R. Moss, TJ Housh, D. Bowe and Gates. I've personally been involved in 8 trades this year and I'm a lock for the playoffs and leading my league in points scored. I admit this year has likely been my best year as a coach/GM though as my drafted team doesn;t look all that good but if healthy my current team looks rock solid to me.My Week 1 lineup was Brady, M. Turner, MJD, C. Chambers, D. Driver, D. Jackson, Z. Miller (Marshall was drafted but on suspension obviously)Week 12 Lineup if everyone healthy would be..... Romo, S. Jackson, L. Johnson, B. Marshall, R. Moss, E. Royal, O. Daniels (Only Marshall was drafted, everyone else on this team acquired via trade)I've come to realize that if a league is a redraft there are hardly ever trades. If it is dynasty there a quite a bit. I've played in all kinds of leagues. Ones with friends and family, ones with total strangers, ones with some of both, ect. This simply always seems the way it turns out.In my redrafts there are rarely 10 or more trades per year, no matter how may teams there seem to be.In my dynasties there are at least 15 trades every year.
Completely agree. This league had an issue before I joined where a couple teams had a collusion trade between a playoff bound team and a bottom dweller. Their solution was to allow voting on trades to avoid this. However as you might suspect the voting turned into a "screw that, why would I want to see another team improve, I object" scenario. This will be visited by the commissioner(s) in the offseason for a remedy. This league has a lot of quirks that I would like to see changed, including draft format (we do a waterfall 1-12, 2-12-1, 3-12-2, etc. for some reason that has never been explained to me.) Hopefully now that I am a co-commish I can have some decent influence.Having any voting or rejection of trades based on anything but collusion is stupid. First off in any competitive league no one is going to make a total bonehead trades. All voting on trades does is allow owners who are mad they didn't make a deal or are afraid of another team the chance to vote it down. And if someone does make a bonehead move that's how they learn from the ribbing and jabs others will take at them.We have only had a couple trade attempts, all shot down. We are looking at changing the rules for this. Allowing voting on trades is killing any chance at one happening. I think we will probably put it into a scenario where if the objection threshold is met, that the principles of the trade can state their case then the commissioners can vote on it from there.