Is this veto worthy (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

This is an auction league. Scoring format is PPR. 14 Teams, 20 player rosters. Starting lineups 1-QB, 2-RBs, 3-WRs. 1_Flex (R,W,T).. D, K.

The commissioner says the total auction price of the players is out of balance to one side. I can accept that explanation even tho I do not agree with it. My question would be at what point can we ignore the auction prices of players and rather use their actual production. 

If both sides think the trade helps them the auction values aremeaningless.

 

[Amused to Death]

If the commish vetoed based on salaries,  then it should be in the rules.  If not addressed in the rules then trade should stand.  Otherwise the commish is implementing his own opinion of what the cap should be.  Can't add that rule in the middle of the season. 

 

[Gally]

This is an auction league. Scoring format is PPR. 14 Teams, 20 player rosters. Starting lineups 1-QB, 2-RBs, 3-WRs. 1_Flex (R,W,T).. D, K.

The commissioner says the total auction price of the players is out of balance to one side. I can accept that explanation even tho I do not agree with it. My question would be at what point can we ignore the auction prices of players and rather use their actual production. 

The minute the auction ends.  Auction prices and round drafted are meaningless in trades once the season has started.  Players outperform/under perform all the time to their draft number.  That is meaningless once the draft concludes and should never be used in a trade evaluation in season (by in season, I mean right after the draft is over).

 

[Gally]

I know vetoing is not a perfect practice, nor is it even "good".  But trust me, all these "experts" that proclaim how (no trade should be vetoed, and if its very bad kick them out of the league next season) are shortsighted.

 I posted about this the other night in another thread, I will try and copy it here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think "vetoing trades" is a better alternative than not having any safeguards in place. I have heard it time and time again in podcasts. "You shouldn't have that ability, we are all grown men, if they cant trade fairly then kick them out of the league for next year". But they are all so blind to the fact that it can screw your league up THIS YEAR.

Suppose one guy makes this trade this year....... Team A -  Gronk,  Pat Mahomes,  Antonio Brown and Alvin Kamara, for Team B's - Jimmy Graham, Marcus Mariota, Laquon Treadwell, and Marlon Mack.  This is far too heavily stacked into Team Bs favor.

Do you think that trade is even remotely close?  The "experts" would all allow that to fly through in a non-veto league, even though its almost obviously collusion especially if it were blatantly filling Team B's only weak spots. I am in no way saying using a trade veto system is perfect and without issues, but having essentially no safeguard in place is WORSE .  Suppose you let that go in a non veto league, how does that bear out for the non offending teams? I will tell you how, it stacks one team unfairly and ruins the league. (I could make this ironclad, if I used an example of say one team trades Todd Gurley for another teams third string Ito Smith.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also note at the time I wrote this, Marlon Mack and Marcus Mariota were injured.  I know some can argue that others see future upside far differently than others. But the point is, sometimes these trades the "experts" say should always go through, are so unfair that they heavily sway the outcome of a league, even if not blatant collusion.  Most often its one owner taking advantage of another less knowledgeable owner.

 What they all don't take into account, is it often ruins the integrity of a league for the entire season, and ruins weaker owners' enjoyment. Often to such an extent it causes them to stop fantasy altogether. Remember guys, not all ordinary, non-sophistocated fantasy players are in multiple leagues like we are.  Suppose you are in one main league every year, and its all everyone in the neighborhood thinks about and gets geared up for.  Then in week 6 along comes a trade thats so heavily lopsided in someones favor, it makes one team nearly unbeatable, and essentially ruins the league, ruining many casual owners season and fun, thereby driving them from the fantasy community altogether.

 Is this an extreme example?  Sure.     Do I think vetoing trades is a good idea, no I don't.  But regardless of what many people think, having at least SOME type of safeguard in place, beats HAVING NONE IN PLACE WHATSOEVER .

I know you can argue this in the other direction, but I'm convinced having veto power is better than having no control whatsoever.

 Like its the lesser of two evils.

 (and for kicks, the trade posted in the OP isn't even remotely veto-able)

 TZM

A good commish monitors all transactions and in the case of an trade like this he should inquire to both teams to have them justify their thoughts on why they agreed to this trade.  This is part of the process to decide if collusion is happening.  It cannot necessarily be proven but a competent commish should be able to tell by the responses if both owners are comfortable with their reasons for making this trade.  This is an extreme example that would be very hard to justify the lesser side but both parties should have the opportunity to plead their case.

Then the commish can decide to overturn the trade if necessary for league integrity. 

Never should there be a trade committee or have all owners vote on trades.  There are too many instances of owners looking how a trade affects them or that they want player A or whatever.  The commish should be entrusted with this alone and if you cannot trust your commish then you should get one that you can trust. 

 

[TZMarkie]

 Thanks for everyone who chimed in, about my original post.

I know not everyone is going to agree with me, but thats OK.  The fact is, there should be AT LEAST  some safeguard  in place, to help keep leagues from being totally ruined in season. I realize league veto voting isn't a perfect scenario , but I stand by my earlier comments.  Some type of league protection is better than none.

I also want to go further. Though I didn't specify it earlier, I believe like @Hot Sauce Guy  and others said, vetoing trades should be a very rare occurrence.

To be completely honest, I too have only seen one trade vetoed in my 10 or so odd years, many as commish in these leagues that I can recall.  I will describe the only scenario and how we handled it.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 10 teamer , standard start 3WRs.  Nothing else is really that important except, with one week before the start of the season, we only had 8 "locked in league members" . This in itself is unusual as we typically have more players than we have league slots.

Anyway, we were scrambling that particular year. I reached out to a friend that we casually knew, and I saw him around town 1-2 times a month at best. So although I knew this guy, I didn't actually "KNOW HIM". This will be key later. Let's call him " Strong Owner A".

I just happened to see this guy Strong Owner A at a social event the week prior to kick off, and I mentioned to him we had 2 openings. He immediately took one seat, and basically said "I think I  can fill the other slot, let me call you tomorrow".

The next day rolls around and he says "I have it sold, send me the invite to XXX email address". He in fact drove to see me that day to give me $$$ for the other spot.  Let's call that last spot guy  "Owner B". Be aware not a single person in the league knew "Owner B", only Strong Owner A, who got him into the league.

Long story short,  the trade deadline approaches, and Strong Owner A (who I only casually knew) had a very strong team, a shoo-in for the playoffs at 10-1 (or thereabouts) and likely the favorite to win the league. His only mild weakness was running back. Two days before the trade deadline, Owner B offers a trade to Strong Owner A. Owner B was clearly out of it with a record of like 2-9 or something along those lines. He promptly offers "Strong Owner A" 2 top 15 running backs, one of which was like a top 3 guy in scoring for the year.  In return he was asking for a low end bench type WR5, and an injured RB who wasn't even cleared to play the following week.  Immediately the warning bells went off.

Why would a guy clearly out of it, offer 2 top 15 RBs, to a stacked team for virtually nothing?  And furthermore who is this guy, and how could I get in touch with him.

I alerted a few of the league members to examine the trade, and all volunteered immediately it should be vetoed.

BUT - I still wasn't done. I waited.

The following day the trade was vetoed, and "Strong Owner A" threw a complete fit like a child. Calling and texting several of us every name in the book. So I get him on the phone and  asked him who this Owner B guy was. He started stammering and dancing around the subject, and he never could tell me point blank who this owner was.  So I went one step further, and reached out to this (now Shady owner B) in email. I WAS STILL WILLING TO REVERSE THE TRADE  if he could explain to me why he thought this trade was fair, even though the other league members didn't want to hear that.

It turns out that "Shady Owner B" had exactly no history of fantasy on that particular platform. No one in the league knew him at all, other than "Strong owner A" .  When I reached out to him in email, I never did get a response.  "Strong Owner A" wouldn't give me a phone number to even text this guy no one knew.

This seemed to me to be almost obvious roster dumping and collusion, and I doubted that "Owner B" was even a real person to begin with.

FINAL OUTCOME -  The trade was vetoed. I was not completely sure it was collusion, but all things around this scenario screamed roster dumping.  It certainly seemed to be the case, and when questioned on it,  I was never even given a person to contact or text. It seemed like "Owner B" wasn't a real person at all, and was likely " Strong Owner A" managing two teams....but again, this was only a guess.

But I also realized, that "Strong Owner A" had essentially done nothing wrong the entire season, and after going back over the waiver wire moves I judged that he just picked up and dropped guys in a fair manner, or close. I didn't see anything overly unusual about his adds/drops.  (I realize this can be argued in the other direction, thats unnecessary)

I made the decision to let him finish the season with the roster he had. No more trades, or "attempted trades". But he could still make adds and drops as appropriate.

 He ultimately WON THE LEAGUE and his share of the significant prize pool.

All owners agreed he shouldn't be invited back the following year, and he not only wasn't he invited back, but we think he moved as he was never seen nor heard from again.

 All things in this situation screamed it was a blatant attempt at roster dumping from a team that was out of it, to a team hat was already a big favorite to win the league, or had already locked up a spot in the playoffs.

I don't know if I handled this one incident as well as I should have, but at the time most everyone agreed it was about as fair as they could expect. (though several recommended banishing him from the league right then and there, and  opening his players into free agents) I didn't think that was the right thing to do, giving the guys at the top of the waiver wire free shots at top 3 guys.

I think this was an extreme case, and its the only case I can remember where it seemed to be almost certain collusion in our leagues. I do know of 1-2 extremely shady trades, by an owner that several guys didn't trust, but it never came out that there was any wrongdoing we could prove. (Ultimately we nixed him from the league as well)

 We really haven't had any major issues since.

 TZM

 

[TZMarkie]

A good commish monitors all transactions and in the case of an trade like this he should inquire to both teams to have them justify their thoughts on why they agreed to this trade.  This is part of the process to decide if collusion is happening.  It cannot necessarily be proven but a competent commish should be able to tell by the responses if both owners are comfortable with their reasons for making this trade.  This is an extreme example that would be very hard to justify the lesser side but both parties should have the opportunity to plead their case.

Then the commish can decide to overturn the trade if necessary for league integrity. 

I agree with the above Gally.

 I happened to be writing out a response, when you posted.  You can see how I handled one specific incident, when it occurred in the post above.

 TZM

 

[fantasycurse42]

Okay, I’ve analyzed the OP, made some calls, and used my mobile draft dominator app as well. 

While the results imply collusion, they aren’t conclusive. My proprietary formula needs a few more things:

- Need to see the roster of Team A

- Need to see the roster of Team B

- Need to know their records

- Need to know entrance fee

- Need to see the commissioners roster

Other info that might be useful:

- League history

- Every rooster in the league

- Does either team own Le’Veon Bell

- Rooster size

- Are there IR spots

 

[Animals]

I am typically a no veto guy, but would love some opinions please......

Team A:  Goff, Michel, and KC defense

Team B:. Gronk, Ajayi, and Philly defense

What do you all think?

4pt passing TDs. .5pt PPR.  Very deep rosters of 24 players.

 

[habsfan]

I am typically a no veto guy, but would love some opinions please......

Team A:  Goff, Michel, and KC defense

Team B:. Gronk, Ajayi, and Philly defense

What do you all think?

4pt passing TDs. .5pt PPR.  Very deep rosters of 24 players.

No. This isn't even brushing up against egregious.

 

[TZMarkie]

I am typically a no veto guy, but would love some opinions please......

Team A:  Goff, Michel, and KC defense

Team B:. Gronk, Ajayi, and Philly defense

What do you all think?

4pt passing TDs. .5pt PPR.  Very deep rosters of 24 players.

Not a veto.  The defenses are basically throw ins, but thats understandable in a very deep bench league.

The wildcard here is Sony Michel.

Some of us are kicking ourselves for not getting him everywhere.  Check out his week 16 matchup vs the Bills in championship week. He might be THE BACK TO OWN going forward, that you can still get at a decent price.

I tried to get him 2 weeks ago on the cheap, and was told "I'm not dealing him until I see his usage".   I should have upped my offer. (which was surprising, snice the guy was a Cook owner, and I offered him Murray)

 TZM

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

I am typically a no veto guy, but would love some opinions please......

Team A:  Goff, Michel, and KC defense

Team B:. Gronk, Ajayi, and Philly defense

What do you all think?

4pt passing TDs. .5pt PPR.  Very deep rosters of 24 players.

As an outsider to the league, the trade is fine.

Unless you have proof of collusion, no reason to veto.

 

[jeaton6]

 No to vetos but this is a horrible trade. It’s either Hunt or Diggs for free.

 

[DJackson10]

I don't get it ... which side is considered the landslide "must be collusion" winner?

My fist guess would be Hunt / Diggs .... but a look at the scoring and Hunt is #21 RB, just one place above Alex Collins and several spots below James White and Austin Ekeler. I assume that may change but you never know.

Diggs is good but sharing targets with Thelin. Had a 4 for 17 yards game this week.

So the Cam side isn't awful imo.

In my 2nd year of a keeper league I was involved in a trade involving Jordy Nelson and others ( I was on the recieving end of Jordy as I was pairing him with Aaron Rodgers). The owner who I traded wth happened to be my co manager of a fantasy baseball league (I had a co manager to help me get a team in order and was in over my head with the league but the other owners voted to allow for help for me). Since then I didn't need any help with the baseball team and can hold my own in football. Either way because the guy was my co manager in baseball and I traded with him we both got included and accused of collusion. The Commissioner and Co Commissioner and one other player were quick to defend both of us. I pointed out my side of why I wanted the trade and eventually the trade was allowed to go through in two different transactions. I think I also ended up with Steven Ridley pre sucking btw. 

The issue here was people were upset with the owner I traded with for making a trade in the offseason no one noticed that went through that was very one sided. However he was by far and away a very active owner. 

 

[barackdhouse]

The imbalance of a trade must be so dramatic that it screams gross incompetence or collusion. That the integrity of the league is at stake.

People get fired up over the perceived imbalance in trades, and it is just so damn common that hindsight makes fools of us. 

Last year we vetoed a trade through a leaguewide vote. There are 96 teams. It's a consortium of 8 individual and independent 12 team leagues. The playoff teams all combine into one giant points runoff. Anyway.

Midseason, dude trades Blount for Dez and a 3rd. Dez owner had to throw in a 3rd to get Blount! People were seriously pissed off all around. Went for league wide vote and barely passed majority to be vetoed. 

Fast forward to today. Should that have been vetoed? Hell no. Dez is out of work and even if he comes back and is relevant the trade still looks reasonable. But people were pissed. 

Note, I'm not crazy about the policy of a league wide vote in most leagues - I'd prefer a solid commish make the call. With 96 teams, of which there are 72 owners, because it is ok to have multiple teams in separate divisions, it may be too large a burden to place on the commish. The bylaws are pretty solid. Nobody really complained that the trade got vetoed in the end because at least due process won the day, and the natives got to weigh in.

 

[SameSongNDance]

trade sucks 

 

[Ted Stickles]

Had this go down in my main 14-team league ...

Team A:

Mahomes

Jared Cook

DeVante Parker

Team B:

Rodgers

Tyreke

Kelce

Acquiring owner was 3-0, was said to be infatuated with Mahomes, and didn't like the outlook of a gimpy Rodgers.

Be far the worst trade I've ever seen.  :X

 

[meyerj31]

It's a horribly unbalanced trade so I would veto it just for that purpose. Vetos are supposed to keep the league balanced.

Way better for whomever is getting Hunt/diggs.

 

[jeaton6]

Had this go down in my main 14-team league ...

Team A:

Mahomes

Jared Cook

DeVante Parker

Team B:

Rodgers

Tyreke

Kelce

Acquiring owner was 3-0, was said to be infatuated with Mahomes, and didn't like the outlook of a gimpy Rodgers.

Be far the worst trade I've ever seen.  :X

If he’s Infatuated with Mahomes he must love his weapons too. He traded the top 2 away in this deal so I’m not following that logic.

 

[JohnnyU]

It's a horribly unbalanced trade so I would veto it just for that purpose. Vetos are supposed to keep the league balanced.

Way better for whomever is getting Hunt/diggs.

This is incorrect.  Vetos are not supposed to keep the league balanced per se, vetos are supposed to prevent trades that are not only ridiculous in nature, but they serve no purpose for one of the teams.  A good commish knows it when he sees it.   There is nothing wrong with an unbalanced trade..  Owners hope to get the better end of a trade.  Knowing the difference between the two is the key.  Owners getting the short end of the trade is OK if their long term goals are realized.  For example, in a dynasty league someone might trade A J Green to a contending team for 2 future first rd picks that the owner thinks will be top 5 (traded to contending team earlier).  Some may consider this a bad trade, but it's perfectly OK and certainly shouldn't be up for veto.  Or someone might trade Julio Jones for Corey Davis and 2 first round picks (thinks will be top 5).   I wouldn't do it, but it certainly shouldn't be up for veto.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It's a horribly unbalanced trade so I would veto it just for that purpose. Vetos are supposed to keep the league balanced.

Way better for whomever is getting Hunt/diggs.

No, they are not.

 

[Gally]

It's a horribly unbalanced trade so I would veto it just for that purpose. Vetos are supposed to keep the league balanced.

Way better for whomever is getting Hunt/diggs.

There are many times lopsided trades actually help both teams.  If you look solely at the players involved with the trade you may think one side wins by a mile.  However, when then looking at how each team is improved you see that even though team A gave up more than he got it actually helped his overall team moving forward.  For example, You may have 4 studly WR's but can only start 3 and have a huge hole at RB2.  You give up a top 12ish WR to get a top 24ish RB.  On the surface the trade makes no sense until you see how it allows a team to better his starting lineup. 

Balanced trades are not necessary.  Trades that make each owner happy because they are trying to improve their starting lineup is what should be strived for.  Trade committees tend to look at trades and how it affects them - I have to veto this trade because I am battling Team A and this trade makes them better.  I can't let that happen.  Or I really wanted player B so now that I know that team will trade him I will veto this so I can make a play for him.  Or I vote no on all trades that don't involve me.  Nobody should be making their team better.   Every time I have been in a league with a trade committee there have been owners that vote based on those three examples.  That is why trade committees should not be in existence and there should be no league votes on trades.  Let the commish do their job and if you have chosen a good commish trust he does the right thing. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Vetoing trades is so dumb. None of us know how the season will play out. I remember a couple years ago I made a trade with my best friend and we a few messages from league members about how it was shady and we were colluding. The funny part was one guy said I got too good of a deal that it was unfair. The other league member's complaint was that my friend was robbing me blind. The whiners couldn't even agree who was stealing from who. 

 

[Bossman]

 No to vetos but this is a horrible trade. It’s either Hunt or Diggs for free.

Cam Newton doesn't score points in your league?

What setting you all using over there?

In my league he is ranked 13th overall @ 23 points per game

Why is this still a topic? Should have died about 15 posts ago.

... and did someone really say trade vetos are for league balance?   ... That's just what I need, big brother looking out for me accepting a bad offer.

Pretty sure trade vetos are only to prevent CHEATING ... and unless two people are cheating, let it fly.