What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

HYPOCRITE - I just VETOED my first trade ever (1 Viewer)

Rick James

Rick James

Footballguy
Whenever the "should I veto?" threads pop-up, I typically say no. Let the people trade who they want to trade. Well I'm going back on that today. I logged in to an RTSports league and saw this trade that required review:

Team A sends:

Devery Henderson

Malcom Floyd

DeAngelo Williams

Pierre Garcon

LeGarrette Blount

Mikel Leshoure

In return for that talented bunch, Team A will receive:

Reggie Wayne

Wes Welker

Willis McGahee

Chris Johnson

For the guys who say never veto, what would it take for you to veto a trade? Would you veto this as I did?

Just curious.

 
I would need some context, but at first glance stick with never veto. It definitely matters if it's a dynasty and how many guys you can start given that it's 6 for 4 and a considerable age difference.

Not very balanced IMO, but within the relm of possibility that team B is trying to improve his team through this.

 
I concur. Trading six players for four is way unfair. That's like two more players which gives that team a definite advantage over the rest of the league.

Good veto.

 
As for what it would take... probably just subjectively me believing that the person is trying to help the person he's trading with on purpose at the expense of his own team. You can also tell a lot by the quantity and positions. A weak RB3 and a WR3 traded for Aaron Rodgers looks better to me than Jake Locker for Aaron Rodgers.

 
'cheese said:
I would need some context, but at first glance stick with never veto. It definitely matters if it's a dynasty and how many guys you can start given that it's 6 for 4 and a considerable age difference.

Not very balanced IMO, but within the relm of possibility that team B is trying to improve his team through this.
Click to expand...
No dynasty implications here as this is a redraft league. I really feel this is akin to just giving away players. Mikel Leshoure is basically the only player on Team A's list who isn't droppable at this point.
 
Blount and Deangelo are two names circulating in trade rumors. Maybe Team B thinks he's getting ahead of the curve-DWill on GB for instance, could equate into a lot of ff points down the stretch.

 
Dumb trade for sure. Still wouldn't veto it. Best to let others manage their teams and you manage yours.

The main question to ask isn't if it's one-sided or stupid. But is it confirmed collusion? If you can't prove that, then stay out of it and let the deal be.

 
Smells fishy for sure. Not knowing the details or the parties involved, feels like something else is being exchanged along with players ($$$, or something equivalent)

 
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd veto it. A trade like that will throw off the balance of a league. If I was playing in that league and the commish did not veto it, I would not be playing again.

 
'schooner44 said:
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.
Click to expand...
I agree with your assessment and the way you've managed your league over the last 20 years, but I'd be pissed if I was the guy back then who really wanted that case of beer. :hot:
 
Break it out versus position, WR's first:

Devery Henderson

Malcom Floyd

Pierre Garcon

3 WR's 86 targets 54 rec 886 yards 3 TD's 1 player not returning until week 12

Reggie Wayne

Wes Welker

2 WR's 175 targets 114 rec 1,493 yards 4 TD's 1 Bye left

Now the RB's:

DeAngelo Williams

LeGarrette Blount

Mikel Leshoure

3 RB's 170 rush 631 yards 5 TD's 34 targets 25 rec 156 yards 0 TD's 1 player not even a starter

Willis McGahee

Chris Johnson

2 RB's 254 rush 1,149 yards 6 TD's 48 targets 39 rec 294 yards 0 TD's 1 Bye left

I have looked at this trade from several different angles and I honestly can't see any reason why team B would do it. He's trading starting quality players for bench quantity, and some of the bench quantity belongs on the waiver wire to be honest. Trying to screw the league or collusion is the only way I can fathom player B clicking the "accept trade" button.

 
'schooner44 said:
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
'cstu said:
'schooner44 said:
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
What kind of beer? :banned:
 
Ever since I got my first two trades vetoed this year, I veto everything that I see...whatever. No-trade leagues aren't much fun.

The trade above sucks and should be vetoed. One team has quit and is giving away players

 
'Rick James said:
For the guys who say never veto, what would it take for you to veto a trade? Would you veto this as I did?Just curious.
Click to expand...
I do not play in leagues where you vote to veto so it does not matter. If people are cheating then kick them out. If an owner is just an idiot that has no idea how to trade then what are you doing in that league in the first place? It has been my experience that from the instant you draw a veto line it starts to move. People look at the next trade a little closer. It becomes a continuing issue. Just this year I saw a guy trade V. Davis for Witten straight up after week 3. At the time Davis had around 170 yard and 4 TDs vs Witten with 76 yards and no TDs. Some people not in the trade got miffed because it was a terrible a trade for the guy getting Witten. Some even got angry. Since then Witten has more than doubled the production of Davis. If they are cheaters kick them out. If not manage your own team and get over it.But yea, that is a terrible trade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Wadsworth said:
If they are cheaters kick them out. If not manage your own team and get over it.But yea, that is a terrible trade.
Click to expand...
This summarizes my thoughts. A veto without owner ejection sends a mixed message.I am in the group that will always fight to eliminate commissioner trade review. It is
 
I agree that collusion is not the only reason to overturn transactions. I saw a guy once get pissed off and cut all of his players as he rage-quit. I saw another guy deliberately trade good players to another team for basically nothing to help that other team beat his main competition. I've seen leagues dissolve due to a commish's rash action... but I've also seen leagues dissolve due to a commish's inaction. I think moments where commish intervention are necessary are exceedingly rare, and commish action should only be used as a last resort, but there are times when it must be exercised to preserve the integrity of the league.

 
'schooner44 said:
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.
Click to expand...
You had clear evidence of collusion in the Moore for a kicker trade?
 
Need to know details. Record of both teams. Relationship between the owners. Trading history in the league. How old is the league? Type of league (casual or serious)?

IF I was commish, I'd ask both owners to reasonably tell me why they think this is a good deal in their own words. If Owner B could justify it, I'd let it go. IF they gave me a "Come on man, don't be a ####, be a dude" line, Veto.

 
'Mr. Soup Nazi said:
I concur. Trading six players for four is way unfair. That's like two more players which gives that team a definite advantage over the rest of the league.Good veto.
Click to expand...
So a three for one is way unfair then I guess. I just traded, today, Rivers, Mendy and Dwyer for Peyton.No vetos, I needed a better option at QB and he needs a healthy RB.
 
Leagues with owners of varying skill and/or experience may need a veto to prevent unbalanced trades from damaging the integrity of the league. Teenagers in a mostly adult league can also make a veto possible. In leagues that do not have owner "discrepancies" vetoes should be exceedingly rare.

 
Its so obviously one-sided its just sad. That said, I would not veto it as trades should not be voted on.

Instead you (if commish) should congratulate the two owners on a deal so bad it will keep them from being invited to the league next year. If your not commish, I would tell the commish that they should not be invited next year and if he disagrees then you don't return next season.

I don't like to burn time/money with idiots and this situation looks like just that.

 
'Wrigley said:
'schooner44 said:
Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.
Click to expand...
You had clear evidence of collusion in the Moore for a kicker trade?
Click to expand...
Seems clear to me.
 
I don't like that trade, but it doesn't seem as clearly awful as others are suggesting.

Re. the WRs, there's reason to be afraid that Welker will lose targets once Hernandez returns, and Garcon looked good when he was on the field. So, while Welker/Wayne -> Henderson/Floyd/Garcon is pretty clearly a downgrade, I don't think it's necessarily a huge one.

Re. the RBs, DWill and Blount are both rumored to be on the trading block. If either got on the Packers, he could end up being the one of the players in the trade. Combine that with CJ's upcoming schedule, and I think a case could be made that LeShoure/DWill/Blount has higher upside than McGahee/CJ.

Again, I don't think it's a good trade, but I don't think it's obviously collusion.

 
'Raiderfan32904 said:
Dumb trade for sure. Still wouldn't veto it. Best to let others manage their teams and you manage yours. The main question to ask isn't if it's one-sided or stupid. But is it confirmed collusion? If you can't prove that, then stay out of it and let the deal be.
Click to expand...
its almost impossible to confirm collusion unless you commies are wiretapping phones. this is about as close to collusion as you can get, w/o concrete evidence.
 
'Raiderfan32904 said:
Dumb trade for sure. Still wouldn't veto it. Best to let others manage their teams and you manage yours.

The main question to ask isn't if it's one-sided or stupid. But is it confirmed collusion? If you can't prove that, then stay out of it and let the deal be.
Click to expand...
If the deal goes through, there's no reason to manage my team.
 
The people who say never veto, must be in leagues with only upstanding owners.

It's not always a case of collusion or stupidity. Some owners thing it's funny to trade away studs for garbage once they realize they don't have a contender. Some owners are just jagoffs who try to upset the league and/or commish by giving away studs for bench guys in trade, or by dropping all their good players. I have dealt with both in my years as commish, and those are the only times I ever had to reverse anything.

The OPs trade is very lopsided, and would definitely upset the competitive balance of the league. Looks shady to me, and I'd expect every owner to be pissed if not overturned.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Resident A said:
The people who say never veto, must be in leagues with only upstanding owners.It's not always a case of collusion or stupidity. Some owners thing it's funny to trade away studs for garbage once they realize they don't have a contender. Some owners are just jagoffs who try to upset the league and/or commish by giving away studs for bench guys in trade, or by dropping all their good players. I have dealt with both in my years as commish, and those are the only times I ever had to reverse anything.The OPs trade is very lopsided, and would definitely upset the competitive balance of the league. Looks shady to me, and I'd expect every owner to be pissed if not overturned.
Click to expand...
Every trade that goes through always has at least 1 veto. Never more than 2. Some people veto everything just because, but I've never seen a trade not go through. The trade I posted above...has SEVEN vetoes. lol.
 
Ask both owners to explain why they believe the trade makes their team better, including why they think the trade was the best deal they could strike for the players involved.

If the first owner doesn't give you an explanation that you think a reasonable person could believe, then veto it. And I mean "reasonable". Not "smart", "wise", or necessarily "experienced". It's ok for someone to use bad judgment.

And if you think he's being dishonest and making up a reason, then you've got enough to judge it as collusion. If it's honest incompetence/being talked into it by a smooth talker, I imagine you'll probably be able to tell from his answer.

 
'cracKer said:
Ever since I got my first two trades vetoed this year, I veto everything that I see...whatever.
Click to expand...
Another reason that well run leagues don't have vetos. Does the NFL allow franchises to veto trades made by team's opponents?

How many execs in the front office's around the league got a chuckle when the Raiders traded away a 1st and a 2nd to land Carson Palmer? Imagine if some of them would have vetoed it just because they had some personal grudge against Al Davis.

Get the veto thing out of your leagues, commishes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VETO it.

Generally against veto rules, but in general I play in high quality dynasty leagues with high quality oponents. Sometimes work level redraft leagues need veto rules just to maintain some shred of integrity. this appears to be one of those cases.

HORRIBLE redraft trade. Not even remotely justifiable. Two top 10 WR's, a top 10 RB, and an RB2 going for an RB3, a WR3 and a few more deeper backup and waiver level players. Smells real bad.

 
The league should not vote on trades, the commissioner should. Owners will look out for their own interests. A commissioner needs to act in an unbias manner, if the commissioner is not unbias then the league needs one who is.

The commissioner should investigate:

- consider the how lopsided the trade is

- call each owner, discuss the trade

- consider the relationship of the 2 owners

- consider each team's record

- consider whether is reasonable to believe the trade helps each team

If you can find evidence of collusion then veto. Usually, there is no evidence of collusion. In this case, you have to compile all the info and make a ruling. In this case, based on the players exchanged I would step in and veto even if I did not have any evidence to support collusion. The lopsided nature of this trade is evidence of collusion.

 
Most of these trade happen in CBS, ESPN, YAHOO, etc. public leagues that do not have a commish. The league can vote on any trade they want, and the final verdict is made by some guy who works for the Fantasy company providing the "service". They are often free leagues and if they're not, then the site takes most of the money. In other words, they are not "normal" leagues, where people actually know each other. There is no reasoning with guys in leagues like that. Hopefully the OP learns from this not to get into public leagues. You can find leagues right here on this site, where you can form relationships with your fellow owners and crap like that doesn't take place.

 
Are you the commish? If so, I'd talk to the owners to make sure it's not collusion. That trade is bizarre.

If your just another owner, I'd express my concern and let the commish handle it. I wouldn't actually do anything or express my concerns to the entire league.

That's beyond a bad trade. It looks fishy. You got 4 starting quality players going for a bunch of fringe guys and one injured starting caliber player.

Dynasty would make a difference. In that case, I'm not a fan still, but I wouldn't interfere there.

 
i ran across something like this actually in a pay site.forgot which one a few years back.it was a 12 team league.there were 8 vetos agaisnt it.but the trade went threw due to the total points that the 6 crap players added up to the same points as the 4 players.we e-mailed site about this to state collusion.they said they have skilled trained people looking over trades and the point totals added about the same.yea ####### 6 players had same amount of points as 4 players.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
2017 NFL Offseason Predictions
Replies
38
Views
2K
travdogg
T
T
My Predictions for the 2016 draft and free agency
Replies
26
Views
2K
cdwood
cdwood
R
Just finished drafting in a guppy league
Replies
49
Views
3K
gethugefast1
gethugefast1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top