What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

This trade of mine was vetoed-- can I get your thoughts?? (1 Viewer)

packer_junkie

Footballguy
I am 2-2, trading a 1-3 team.

12 teams. Start 2 RB 3WR 1Flex 7 bench spots. 2 IR SPOTS

Waivers are THIN

I gave my Gerald Everett & Corey Davis to receive his George Kittle and Aaron Rodgers.

Seems pretty fair to me, especially since his QB1 is Mahomes. Basically selling TE 45 Kittle for Everett & Davis, who have both been much better and startable through 4 weeks.
 

Shrek

Having a great season
Dumb veto. 99% of trades should go through. This was probably vetoed based on name power and not actual performance. I would appeal to the league. If it isn't allowed to go through, there's a million other FF leagues out there for next year.
 

Gally

Footballguy
I didn't even look at the trade and would say no veto. Now looking at the trade it is even worse than I could have ever imagined. That is about as bad a veto as I have ever seen. I cannot even fathom a reason to veto this trade. This is like hundreds of trades that happen in every league every year. Amazing.

Veto is only for collusion. Veto is only for collusion. Veto is only for collusion.....keep saying that until your commish gets it. He is flat out wrong on this one.
 

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
I am 2-2, trading a 1-3 team.

12 teams. Start 2 RB 3WR 1Flex 7 bench spots. 2 IR SPOTS

Waivers are THIN

I gave my Gerald Everett & Corey Davis to receive his George Kittle and Aaron Rodgers.

Seems pretty fair to me, especially since his QB1 is Mahomes. Basically selling TE 45 Kittle for Everett & Davis, who have both been much better and startable through 4 weeks.
Whoever vetoed that deserves a bad paper cut while eating lemon slices.
 

Birdie048

Footballguy
I am 2-2, trading a 1-3 team.

12 teams. Start 2 RB 3WR 1Flex 7 bench spots. 2 IR SPOTS

Waivers are THIN

I gave my Gerald Everett & Corey Davis to receive his George Kittle and Aaron Rodgers.

Seems pretty fair to me, especially since his QB1 is Mahomes. Basically selling TE 45 Kittle for Everett & Davis, who have both been much better and startable through 4 weeks.
Redraft or Dynasty should have some impact, but still not veto worthy by any stretch of the wild imagination unless they don't want both teams to get better!

Rodgers is of little value to him having Mahomes. Kittle is having a slow start and the SF offense is struggling. Both Everett & C Davis are exceeding projections so far.
Sell High and Buy Low met and made a deal. Why veto? Maybe they are offended they did not get a chance to acquire Rodgers or Kittle?
 

Zow

Footballguy
I assume this is not a superflex? Assuming my assumption is correct, this is pretty bad. Do you have 5 enemies in the league or something?
 

Zow

Footballguy
Redraft league

Not a commish veto.

5 owners (Standard ESPN) voted to veto it.
This is why there should be no league wide votes on trades. Many owners look at the trade as to how it affects their team and will vote based on that rather than the actual merits of the trade. League votes are horrible. They should be banned.
Agreed. I've had little to no issues in leagues where there is a "trade committee" or even just a commish reviewing (with a designated 1A owner and 1B owner should the commish be involved in the trade - with the 1B owner being the third review option is commish is trading with 1A).

All prior issues have always come up with league votes because everybody is voting in his own interests.
 

habsfan

Footballguy
Leagues with trade voting are like those competitive cooking shows where someone comes along and takes your whisk and gives you a stapler...
 

Rubi

Footballguy
Trade should have been allowed to stand. Seems like grudges,personalities,likes,dislikes influenced the vote. I commished in a league where all trades were considered accepted unless an owner had a reason it should not be,he would have to present his case to the commish and make a valid and reasonable objection. Maybe your league should consider a commish.
 

Dizzy

Footballguy

This trade of mine was vetoed-- can I get your thoughts??​


Two thoughts... 1) play in a league that doesn't veto trades, and 2) don't waste time asking others about your league rules.

To that latter point... maybe you are perceived as a crook that cannot be trusted, and any move you make is going to get shot down. Maybe nobody trusts anybody in your league. Maybe you win too often and others are jealous of your success - thus always think that you're up to something. Maybe your commissioner is a knucklehead and vetoes everything. Maybe this, maybe that...

Point is, there could be a lot of contributing factors that we are not privy to behind the decision to veto. It's a league rule in a league that you joined. Live with it or look for more suitable options.
 

eighsse2

Footballguy
Everything I was already thinking has already been strewn out throughout this thread. That's a trash veto. Veto is not about whether you like the trade or not, it's about whether it's bogus or not. If you don't have real reason to believe that something truly shady is going on, let it be. I could see maybe in a really extreme case where a dynasty vet is taking advantage of a dynasty noob, (I'm talking extreme, like "Hey man, your Cooper Kupp is getting old ... Probably won't last much longer. I'll give you my Wan'Dale Robinson and Alec Pierce for him. Way more tread left on their tires!") But even then ... It's kind of each person's responsibility to know something about what they're doing if they're going to join a dynasty league.

If I were a commissioner, I would not have a league vote veto, but if I had to, I would want it to require either unanimous or maybe unanimous-minus-one. Meaning 10 or 9 votes required in a 12 team league.
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Shouldn't be vetoed unless clear collusion. You were basically buying low and other team is desperate for a win so needs productivity now. Bad veto IMO.
This phrase is the most untrue phrase on the subject. Collusion 999,999 times out of a million cannot be proven. I too believe most trades should go through, but there are those times when someone does something like this in a dynasty league. Trade Jonathan Taylor and Patrick Mahomes for Jeff Wilson and Tom Brady. Then yes. I believe that should be vetoed. As for the trade in this thread, no veto should occur, even though I think it's a bad trade.
 

Gally

Footballguy
This phrase is the most untrue phrase on the subject. Collusion 999,999 times out of a million cannot be proven.
Just because it is difficult to prove doesn't mean the phrase is untrue.

As for your example, if Mahomes and Taylor are hurt and the guy trading them away is going for a title and is willing to risk his future to do so then why not allow it? If everyone is aware of what they are doing and are willing to do it everyone should be adults about it. My point is there are situations that can lead to weird moves in dynasty leagues. Let people manage how they want. Nobody knows what will happen. (it doesn't mean I would like the trade if I was in that league and would probably ***** about it but let owners manage. They paid their money).
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
This phrase is the most untrue phrase on the subject. Collusion 999,999 times out of a million cannot be proven.
Just because it is difficult to prove doesn't mean the phrase is untrue.

As for your example, if Mahomes and Taylor are hurt and the guy trading them away is going for a title and is willing to risk his future to do so then why not allow it? If everyone is aware of what they are doing and are willing to do it everyone should be adults about it. My point is there are situations that can lead to weird moves in dynasty leagues. Let people manage how they want. Nobody knows what will happen. (it doesn't mean I would like the trade if I was in that league and would probably ***** about it but let owners manage. They paid their money).
I disagree with you regarding my example of a dynasty trade. If redraft and players are hurt, then OK, but league integrity shouldn't allow trading Taylor and Mahomes for Brady and Jeff Wilson in dynasty. Or at least vote on it. I know I wouldn't want to be in a league that allows a trade like this to give that kind of an advantage to one team. League integrity is a real thing. Just because you've paid your money doesn't mean you can ruin a league all by yourself. All I'm saying is that I'm for letting almost all trades go through, but in dynasty, which is all I play, one owner can make a league ruining trade.
 

Gally

Footballguy
I disagree with you regarding my example of a dynasty trade. If redraft and players are hurt, then OK, but league integrity shouldn't allow trading Taylor and Mahomes for Brady and Jeff Wilson in dynasty. Or at least vote on it. I know I wouldn't want to be in a league that allows a trade like this to give that kind of an advantage to one team. League integrity is a real thing.
Why does two aware owners doing what they think is best for their team a question of league integrity? As long as they are doing it because they believe that is the best thing for their team then they should be allowed to do it. Denying it leads to a slippery slope that eventually leads to the trade in the OP being disallowed. All of this is a crapshoot and for fun. Let adults manage their teams how they see fit. That's why they paid their money. The only way this is an integrity issue is if the two owners are colluding to get this done.
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Edit
I disagree with you regarding my example of a dynasty trade. If redraft and players are hurt, then OK, but league integrity shouldn't allow trading Taylor and Mahomes for Brady and Jeff Wilson in dynasty. Or at least vote on it. I know I wouldn't want to be in a league that allows a trade like this to give that kind of an advantage to one team. League integrity is a real thing.
Why does two aware owners doing what they think is best for their team a question of league integrity? As long as they are doing it because they believe that is the best thing for their team then they should be allowed to do it. Denying it leads to a slippery slope that eventually leads to the trade in the OP being disallowed. All of this is a crapshoot and for fun. Let adults manage their teams how they see fit. That's why they paid their money. The only way this is an integrity issue is if the two owners are colluding to get this done.
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the dynasty trade example I gave. Nothing more to say I guess.
 

BobbyLayne

Footballguy
League votes are horrible.
I do not get why any league would allow it. Seriously it's complete BS to work out a deal and then have the other members not allow it because it makes their competition better. It's illogical.

💯

This is such a basic tenet of FF and we see this discussion initiated dozens of times every year.

Don’t play in leagues which give Veto power to the members. They will vote in their own best interests. If somebody makes their trade team better through a trade, people will vote to Veto. It discourages trading.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with lopsided trades when both sides make themselves better. If I’ve got more startable WRs than I need, my trading partner has a surplus of RB, and one of us is in love with a specific player, there’s a chance one of us will overpay. Who cares? If we can both justify why it made our team better then everyone else can **** off.

IDK what people found objectionable about the OP trade, but all trades should be allowed to go through absent evidence of collusion. A month ago I could have traded Allen Robinson for James Robinson and nobody would have blinked. Truth is we have no certainty about who is going to win a trade.

I don’t try to “win trades”; I try to make deals that help both sides.

I’ve played in leagues with league vote Veto and it’s never been a good thing. Ever. Don’t play in those leagues.
 
Last edited:

dipandglide

Footballguy
Dumb veto. 99% of trades should go through. This was probably vetoed based on name power and not actual performance. I would appeal to the league. If it isn't allowed to go through, there's a million other FF leagues out there for next year.
The only take needed. Get it reversed or get a refund and find another league
 

jobarules

Footballguy
People lose their minds when WW pickups get traded for name brand players. There is nothing wrong with this trade.
 

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the dynasty trade example I gave. Nothing more to say I guess.
Do you veto a lot of trades in dynasty?
I can't remember the last time I brought one up for veto. Probably only once in one league out of 3 in about 17 years. What about you?

I have never vetoed a trade in any of the 4 leagues where I am a commissioner and I've seen many I personally thought were horrible. I don't believe it's my place to do so unless there's something "fishy" going on. Like pornography, you'll know it when you see it.

I go back to my fantasy baseball league days (a long time ago) where I needed a closer badly. At the time I had some previously light hitting SS that had 18 HRs before the All-Star break and offered him to another team for a mediocre closer because I needed saves, and it was accepted. The commissioner vetoed it because he thought he knew more than everyone else. In his opinion, I was the one getting ripped off so he had to over-turn the trade to "protect league integrity". I was furious and told him I knew what I was doing and was happy with the deal. I even said something like "I bet [the SS] would have less than 5 HRs in the second half of the season and I'd be happy with as many saves as I got from the Closer" - and it turned out that SS hit 3 more HRs the rest of the way. I quit that league of course.

Commissioners should know their role and let owners think for themselves - anything else is the real danger to "league integrity".
 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I am 2-2, trading a 1-3 team.

12 teams. Start 2 RB 3WR 1Flex 7 bench spots. 2 IR SPOTS

Waivers are THIN

I gave my Gerald Everett & Corey Davis to receive his George Kittle and Aaron Rodgers.

Seems pretty fair to me, especially since his QB1 is Mahomes. Basically selling TE 45 Kittle for Everett & Davis, who have both been much better and startable through 4 weeks.
Seems like a pretty fair deal to me. production wise, Kittle has been a zero this year. if anyone has a problem with this trade, it’s because of namebrand value.

And regardless, unless it’s collusion, nobody should be towing this.
 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Commissioners should know their role and let owners think for themselves - anything else is the real danger to "league integrity".
Agreed. We had a lopsided deal vetoed in my league in week two. It was definitely not collusion, so I voted to approve… But it was indeed very imbalanced, so it got voted down by 7 of the other 12 league members.

As commissioner, I watched it go down and when one of the teams asked me what I thought about it, I said “I think you two should work out a trade that the league won’t vote down”.

Then those two teams worked out a better, more even trade. These things usually take care of themselves.

On topic, I don’t see any issue with that deal.
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the dynasty trade example I gave. Nothing more to say I guess.
Do you veto a lot of trades in dynasty?
I can't remember the last time I brought one up for veto. Probably only once in one league out of 3 in about 17 years. What about you?

I have never vetoed a trade in any of the 4 leagues where I am a commissioner and I've seen many I personally thought were horrible. I don't believe it's my place to do so unless there's something "fishy" going on. Like pornography, you'll know it when you see it.

I go back to my fantasy baseball league days (a long time ago) where I needed a closer badly. At the time I had some previously light hitting SS that had 18 HRs before the All-Star break and offered him to another team for a mediocre closer because I needed saves, and it was accepted. The commissioner vetoed it because he thought he knew more than everyone else. In his opinion, I was the one getting ripped off so he had to over-turn the trade to "protect league integrity". I was furious and told him I knew what I was doing and was happy with the deal. I even said something like "I bet [the SS] would have less than 5 HRs in the second half of the season and I'd be happy with as many saves as I got from the Closer" - and it turned out that SS hit 3 more HRs the rest of the way. I quit that league of course.

Commissioners should know their role and let owners think for themselves - anything else is the real danger to "league integrity".
So what if someone traded Jonathan Taylor for Jeff Wilson in a dynasty league? Would you be OK with that? Say they did it because Taylor is out this week and he was the only startable RB he had, doing it without regard to the future.
 

eighsse2

Footballguy
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the dynasty trade example I gave. Nothing more to say I guess.
Do you veto a lot of trades in dynasty?
I can't remember the last time I brought one up for veto. Probably only once in one league out of 3 in about 17 years. What about you?

I have never vetoed a trade in any of the 4 leagues where I am a commissioner and I've seen many I personally thought were horrible. I don't believe it's my place to do so unless there's something "fishy" going on. Like pornography, you'll know it when you see it.

I go back to my fantasy baseball league days (a long time ago) where I needed a closer badly. At the time I had some previously light hitting SS that had 18 HRs before the All-Star break and offered him to another team for a mediocre closer because I needed saves, and it was accepted. The commissioner vetoed it because he thought he knew more than everyone else. In his opinion, I was the one getting ripped off so he had to over-turn the trade to "protect league integrity". I was furious and told him I knew what I was doing and was happy with the deal. I even said something like "I bet [the SS] would have less than 5 HRs in the second half of the season and I'd be happy with as many saves as I got from the Closer" - and it turned out that SS hit 3 more HRs the rest of the way. I quit that league of course.

Commissioners should know their role and let owners think for themselves - anything else is the real danger to "league integrity".
So what if someone traded Jonathan Taylor for Jeff Wilson in a dynasty league? Would you be OK with that? Say they did it because Taylor is out this week and he was the only startable RB he had, doing it without regard to the future.
Then he sucks at dynasty football. If I bring $1,000 to poker night with friends and acquaintances, but I've never played poker and have little to no knowledge of poker strategy, and I lose it all to some distant acquaintance because I went all in on the first hand with a pair of 3's, does everybody expect the guy to give me my money back because I'm stupid?

ETA: To be fair, a long term thing like a dynasty league is a different story. But still.
 

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the dynasty trade example I gave. Nothing more to say I guess.
Do you veto a lot of trades in dynasty?
I can't remember the last time I brought one up for veto. Probably only once in one league out of 3 in about 17 years. What about you?

I have never vetoed a trade in any of the 4 leagues where I am a commissioner and I've seen many I personally thought were horrible. I don't believe it's my place to do so unless there's something "fishy" going on. Like pornography, you'll know it when you see it.

I go back to my fantasy baseball league days (a long time ago) where I needed a closer badly. At the time I had some previously light hitting SS that had 18 HRs before the All-Star break and offered him to another team for a mediocre closer because I needed saves, and it was accepted. The commissioner vetoed it because he thought he knew more than everyone else. In his opinion, I was the one getting ripped off so he had to over-turn the trade to "protect league integrity". I was furious and told him I knew what I was doing and was happy with the deal. I even said something like "I bet [the SS] would have less than 5 HRs in the second half of the season and I'd be happy with as many saves as I got from the Closer" - and it turned out that SS hit 3 more HRs the rest of the way. I quit that league of course.

Commissioners should know their role and let owners think for themselves - anything else is the real danger to "league integrity".
So what if someone traded Jonathan Taylor for Jeff Wilson in a dynasty league? Would you be OK with that? Say they did it because Taylor is out this week and he was the only startable RB he had, doing it without regard to the future.
I’d ask for an explanation and it would be up to how credible I found it. If he gave the explanation you gave above as his reason, and I knew he was a good owner, I’d think it was a terrible deal but he paid his money and it goes through. Now of course when I said I’ve seen terrible deals, none were as dumb as that scenario. No one in my leagues would make that deal, and I’m not on some high horse - I’m sure anyone would say the same about their leagues.

A bad deal goes through. One guy gets slammed on a message board for about four days, and the league moves on.

There have been plenty of trades in the dynasty trade thread that have been bumped a year or two late where everyone slammed one side of it, yet after a year or two it looks much different. I can’t predict the future so deals go through unless I expect shadiness and honestly I’ve never felt that applied to any bad deal that’s happened.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
the funny thing is if the OP dropped Kittle and ARod for better (playing the matchup game at those positions each week), how many would complain? He traded two names for people who are performing better, ARod is the easy one to replace, unless it is an2 QB league. Those 5 were probably upset they didnt get a chance.
 

ShamrockPride

Footballguy
I don't necessarily have a problem with vetoes, but this is honestly not even remotely close to lopsided (if somebody is going to veto based on that factor).

Fine with vetoes, but this is a really really bad one. Like someone above said, this is probably a name-value based veto.
 

DropKick

Footballguy
I am 2-2, trading a 1-3 team.

12 teams. Start 2 RB 3WR 1Flex 7 bench spots. 2 IR SPOTS

Waivers are THIN

I gave my Gerald Everett & Corey Davis to receive his George Kittle and Aaron Rodgers.

Seems pretty fair to me, especially since his QB1 is Mahomes. Basically selling TE 45 Kittle for Everett & Davis, who have both been much better and startable through 4 weeks.

I would veto simply because you called Kittle "TE 45", which is a huge misrepresentation based on his injury. Obviously, you can't be trusted.
 

Truebluey

Footballguy
Our League of 25 years started with no vetoes, then there was some shady activity and we moved to veto by vote (a common approach).
That is actually a horrible system (self-interest has far too much influence), so we moved to the Trade Czar approach - trades were submitted to the most trusted owner in our League, who approved or vetoed.
Since he never vetoed (owners act fairly and in their own interests when they know a sustainable approach is in place), we dropped reviews a number of years ago. All trades go through immediately upon acceptance by the second owner.
The only reservation is that our Trade Czar CAN still review a suspicious trade, but there has been no such situation in the 5+ years.

One big advantage is that a trade can go through immediately, e.g., even right before games start when there is an unexpected Inactive and an owner needs a fast solution.
 

jwsbowler

Footballguy
So what if someone traded Jonathan Taylor for Jeff Wilson in a dynasty league? Would you be OK with that? Say they did it because Taylor is out this week and he was the only startable RB he had, doing it without regard to the future.

If the owner of Taylor made the initial offer in my dynasty league, no problem. If he accepted the trade offer from the other owner of Wilson for Taylor and accepted, no problem. It's that owners option. I have been running a dynasty league for 22 years now, and I have never had owners ask about any trade being vetoed.

So to answer your question, Yes, I am okay with the trade in the dynasty league. If that is the only RB he has in a dynasty league, that his problem. For all the dynasty leagues that I was / am associated with, I have never seen a team with just one startable RB.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top