Trade issue in new league - drama ensues (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

He made a nice leaguewide post stating that while he stands by collusion being the proper metric and he generally wants to allow owners to act as they choose without review, he recognizes the trade is lopsided and will include his first.

Huh. That's generous and fair, but a bad precedent, IMO. I'm a supporter of hard-and-fast rules rather than ex post facto gestures in the name of justice. I still don't think there should have been that kind of organized and disgruntled uproar about it even with the lopsidedness of it.

But hey, your league. If people are happy, then I guess that's all you can ask.

 

[Zow]

He made a nice leaguewide post stating that while he stands by collusion being the proper metric and he generally wants to allow owners to act as they choose without review, he recognizes the trade is lopsided and will include his first.

Huh. That's generous and fair, but a bad precedent, IMO. I'm a supporter of hard-and-fast rules rather than ex post facto gestures in the name of justice. I still don't think there should have been that kind of organized and disgruntled uproar about it even with the lopsidedness of it.

But hey, your league. If people are happy, then I guess that's all you can ask.

Yeah, most of us are now just gruntled so that's a good thing. Also, if/when the weak owner realizes this league isn't for him and possibly quits this year, the added first rounder makes his team more enticing to take over. Though, with two years prepaid deal he probably hangs on at least the two and botches his draft.

I'm not so sure I agree with the precedent. I think this truly is a sui generis situation where it was the first trade in the league ever, it happened so close to the auction, it was soooo lopsided, and it involved the commissioner who solely created the bylaw where collusion is the only trade review metric in his sole purvey.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Wow, actually a bit surprised he gave in, but I'm sure the guilt was weighing on him. I guess he figured it's still a good trade and the league gets to move on this way.

Not great precedent, but probably better than the alternative. It's only a matter of time before a trade goes down that's bad, but doesn't rise to this level. The commish needs to make it clear that this was a "one and only" and that the league isn't going to be in the business of awarding compensatory draft picks whenever an uneven trade goes through. The main thing is that the entire league needs equitable access to everyone else that's in the league moving forward.

Some other thoughts:

1) After what sounds like a contentious start to the league, I think it would be high level comedy if the commish and newb send a trade through next week to bring Kareem Hunt home at the expense of both '24 1st round draft picks.

2) If the league ever uncovers the fact that this mysterious friend new to fantasy football was in fact a fake burner team that the commish set up to fatten his roster, please bump this thread.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Good for that commissioner in my opinion.

Interest in leagues naturally deteriorates for many players over time, it's definitely for the best that this one didn't start in a way that fueled immediate disinterest.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Well in the old days we’d walk over to the commissioners house, knock on the door, and punch him right in the nose in front of his wife and kids.

- FF forearms circa 2003

 

[BobbyLayne]

Well, here's hopefully the last chapter in this saga. Another owner (not me, honestly) asked the commissioner to resolve this by giving the other owner his next year's first and the commissioner agreed. He made a nice leaguewide post stating that while he stands by collusion being the proper metric and he generally wants to allow owners to act as they choose without review, he recognizes the trade is lopsided and will include his first. For the other owner's benefit, he explained how this makes sense for a dynasty trade where it makes some sense to trade young blue chippers for "win now" guys and some future draft capital. The league pretty much unanimously agreed that it was a nice compromise and we can all move on.

The vote as to whether to grant my request for an immediate change to the trade review to put in some review process lost 5-7.

This seems like a better solution than violence, well done.

 

[ChiefD]

I've skimmed through this thread and may have missed it, but has @Zow posted the rosters of both teams before the trade?

To me that's a pretty relevant piece on how the trade is analyzed.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I've skimmed through this thread and may have missed it, but has @Zow posted the rosters of both teams before the trade?

To me that's a pretty relevant piece on how the trade is analyzed.

My main takeaway was that a newb team traded three players that ate up (something like) 70% of his startup auction budget for three players that ate up (something like) 40% of the commish's startup budget.

Regardless of how the draft played out and what bargains were unearthed at positions of strength, that shouldn't happen one week removed from the draft where nothing substantial happened to the main pieces involved. Self destructive trade made by a player that's clearly new to fantasy.

 

[Zow]

I've skimmed through this thread and may have missed it, but has @Zow posted the rosters of both teams before the trade?

To me that's a pretty relevant piece on how the trade is analyzed.

My main takeaway was that a newb team traded three players that ate up (something like) 70% of his startup auction budget for three players that ate up (something like) 40% of the commish's startup budget.

Regardless of how the draft played out and what bargains were unearthed at positions of strength, that shouldn't happen one week removed from the draft where nothing substantial happened to the main pieces involved. Self destructive trade made by a player that's clearly new to fantasy.

This is accurately described. Also, the trade occurred less than 48 hrs. after the auction (of a brand new league where some of us know each other but only the commissioner knew the newb), so the players truly had quantifiable values making the newb's offer entirely nonsensical. The nonsense was compounded by the fact that the newb's explanation was that he wanted players from the same team because, astoundingly, that meant he got double points. So, respectfully, the roster makeups don't seem entirely relevant here. As to their makeup though, and this is probably what bothered me so much, the commissioner's roster was weak at QB and WR and the trade gave him two cornerstones at those positions essentially vaulting him to the clear best and most rounded roster (which really shouldn't occur after what seemed like a "good" auction). Given that the commissioner is a very good commissioner and owner, this appeared to give him an immediate disproportionate boost to his team so quickly. As a result, several of us other owners immediately felt disadvantaged even though the trade wasn't outside the rules and felt compelled to speak up.

 

[ChiefD]

I've skimmed through this thread and may have missed it, but has @Zow posted the rosters of both teams before the trade?

To me that's a pretty relevant piece on how the trade is analyzed.

My main takeaway was that a newb team traded three players that ate up (something like) 70% of his startup auction budget for three players that ate up (something like) 40% of the commish's startup budget.

Regardless of how the draft played out and what bargains were unearthed at positions of strength, that shouldn't happen one week removed from the draft where nothing substantial happened to the main pieces involved. Self destructive trade made by a player that's clearly new to fantasy.

This is accurately described. Also, the trade occurred less than 48 hrs. after the auction (of a brand new league where some of us know each other but only the commissioner knew the newb), so the players truly had quantifiable values making the newb's offer entirely nonsensical. The nonsense was compounded by the fact that the newb's explanation was that he wanted players from the same team because, astoundingly, that meant he got double points. So, respectfully, the roster makeups don't seem entirely relevant here. As to their makeup though, and this is probably what bothered me so much, the commissioner's roster was weak at QB and WR and the trade gave him two cornerstones at those positions essentially vaulting him to the clear best and most rounded roster (which really shouldn't occur after what seemed like a "good" auction). Given that the commissioner is a very good commissioner and owner, this appeared to give him an immediate disproportionate boost to his team so quickly. As a result, several of us other owners immediately felt disadvantaged even though the trade wasn't outside the rules and felt compelled to speak up.

I mean, I get all that, but to me overall rosters do matter. Everyone takes a look at their team after every draft and can see the flaws right away. But the whole roster makeup comes into play here. That's just how I see it and if everyone here has given you the validation you need that the trade was unbalanced then that's cool. I get the argument.

But to the newbie who made that trade, FOR HIM maybe it makes sense.

The crux of this is the commissioner got to him before anyone else. I call that smart fantasy football management. Because if it wasn't him, it should have been someone else.

 

[Zow]

I've skimmed through this thread and may have missed it, but has @Zow posted the rosters of both teams before the trade?

To me that's a pretty relevant piece on how the trade is analyzed.

My main takeaway was that a newb team traded three players that ate up (something like) 70% of his startup auction budget for three players that ate up (something like) 40% of the commish's startup budget.

Regardless of how the draft played out and what bargains were unearthed at positions of strength, that shouldn't happen one week removed from the draft where nothing substantial happened to the main pieces involved. Self destructive trade made by a player that's clearly new to fantasy.

This is accurately described. Also, the trade occurred less than 48 hrs. after the auction (of a brand new league where some of us know each other but only the commissioner knew the newb), so the players truly had quantifiable values making the newb's offer entirely nonsensical. The nonsense was compounded by the fact that the newb's explanation was that he wanted players from the same team because, astoundingly, that meant he got double points. So, respectfully, the roster makeups don't seem entirely relevant here. As to their makeup though, and this is probably what bothered me so much, the commissioner's roster was weak at QB and WR and the trade gave him two cornerstones at those positions essentially vaulting him to the clear best and most rounded roster (which really shouldn't occur after what seemed like a "good" auction). Given that the commissioner is a very good commissioner and owner, this appeared to give him an immediate disproportionate boost to his team so quickly. As a result, several of us other owners immediately felt disadvantaged even though the trade wasn't outside the rules and felt compelled to speak up.

I mean, I get all that, but to me overall rosters do matter. Everyone takes a look at their team after every draft and can see the flaws right away. But the whole roster makeup comes into play here. That's just how I see it and if everyone here has given you the validation you need that the trade was unbalanced then that's cool. I get the argument.

But to the newbie who made that trade, FOR HIM maybe it makes sense.

The crux of this is the commissioner got to him before anyone else. I call that smart fantasy football management. Because if it wasn't him, it should have been someone else.

The commissioner didn't get to him. The newb offered the trade to the commissioner. Basically, the commissioner got lucky that this guy make an absolutely stupid offer to him that immediately impacts the competitive balance of the league.

I could post their rosters I suppose but, honestly, for sake of this discussion please take my word for it that the trade makes no objective sense for the newb. As to the bold, the "sense" it made to the newb was to stack players on the same team for "double points." So, yeah, for the newb it made sense to him due to his horribly flawed logic and naivete.

ETA: It's about as dumb as somebody trading away a $100 dollar bill because he wanted a $50 bill in his wallet to match his other $50 bills.

 

[Gally]

The nonsense was compounded by the fact that the newb's explanation was that he wanted players from the same team because, astoundingly, that meant he got double points.

Did he actually think a TD for someone was worth 12 pts instead of 6 pts regardless how it occurred just because he had multiple players on the same team or did he mean the stack gave him 12 pts (all TD's worth 6 pts) when his QB threw to his RB/WR? Fairly big distinction in understanding

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I mean, I get all that, but to me overall rosters do matter. Everyone takes a look at their team after every draft and can see the flaws right away. But the whole roster makeup comes into play here. That's just how I see it and if everyone here has given you the validation you need that the trade was unbalanced then that's cool. I get the argument.

But to the newbie who made that trade, FOR HIM maybe it makes sense.

The crux of this is the commissioner got to him before anyone else. I call that smart fantasy football management. Because if it wasn't him, it should have been someone else.

Even if I'm not the commissioner of this league... and we're trying to put this dynasty startup together and we need to find an owner for the last spot. If I'm so bold as to say, don't worry guys I got a guy that's interested, knowing that this guy is brand new to fantasy, I'm making darn sure to give this person a quick tutorial and cautioning them against jumping into any trades that are going to throw off the competitive balance of the league from the jump. Even if I'm not involved in the trade and this guy makes a $0.60 on the dollar trade 48 hours after the draft, I understand that I'm public enemy #1 in this league.

Now, if I am the commissioner and I'm the one giving this friend his baptism by fire 48 hours after the draft, that's pretty rough even if I'm not the one that initiated it. I think the fact that he caved as easy as he did on the 1st rounder tells you he was definitely feeling some guilt.

 

[song]

Given that the commissioner is a very good commissioner

He's not. A good commissioner's prime responsibility is to best serve the league, not himself.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

One of our weaker owners wanted to do something that was the redraft equivalent in a snake draft. He sacrificed most of his FAAB to get the 1.1 spot in the snake and drafted CMC.

We get to the end of the draft and we're all sitting around reviewing our rosters and talking trade. This guy now wants to trade CMC (consensus 1.1) for something like DeHop and Aaron Rodgers in a 1QB league. It maybe wasn't DeHop, but it was a clear 3rd round type talent in redraft for that season. I think Rodgers was the QB and went in the 9th round or thereabouts. We're rightfully screaming at this guy that if he needed Rodgers that badly, why didn't he just draft him in the 7th/8th/9th round. If you liked DeHop that much, why didn't you just take him at the 3.1?

The answer of course, was that this guy was drunk as a skunk. It really just takes one fool to ruin the experience for everyone else that wants a competitive league. Our re-draft league does a 1-day review period where owners are able to present counter-offers and everyone involved in the trade is free to back out before the review period ends. I can appreciate that a lot of people will hate this format and I'm not interested in debating its merits vs every non-collusion trade goes through instantly, which works for some leagues. Unfortunately I consider it a necessary evil in this home league where we don't want to kick out longtime high school friends, but also don't want the weaker owners marring the experience for everyone else interested in a competitive league. It has saved us from a fair number of awful trades over the years. There are also some where the guy getting ripped off doubles down and insists on going through with the original. In this case, it's at least of some consolation to be able to rub far superior counter-offers in their face when the trade plays out as expected.

 

[Zow]

Given that the commissioner is a very good commissioner

He's not. A good commissioner's prime responsibility is to best serve the league, not himself.

I honestly think he just didn't know what to do. I do appreciate him hearing us out and making it more palatable by giving the guy a first rounder.

 

[Zow]

The nonsense was compounded by the fact that the newb's explanation was that he wanted players from the same team because, astoundingly, that meant he got double points.

Did he actually think a TD for someone was worth 12 pts instead of 6 pts regardless how it occurred just because he had multiple players on the same team or did he mean the stack gave him 12 pts (all TD's worth 6 pts) when his QB threw to his RB/WR? Fairly big distinction in understanding

I honestly don't know. I don't know the guy at all so didn't feel comfortable challenging him and, frankly, either way is just moronic.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

the commissioner got lucky that this guy make an absolutely stupid offer to him that immediately impacts the competitive balance of the league.

Once again, not really. It's a bad trade. I've seen far worse and the league goes on. It does not affect the competitive balance of the league - in fact, once again, Chubb, Metcalf and Smith could easily outscore Hunt, Chase and Lawrence over the next season and even in 2024.

Your bitterness is making you a bit wacky on this deal. Bad trades happen all the time.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

newb was to stack players on the same team for "double points."

I think we all know what he actually means (I mean we've all heard of "stacking") - although it's obviously not the boon he thinks it is.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

(who happens to be the commissioner) just had the clear best roster fall into his lap.

I think you’re making way too much of this.

Things change quickly in the NFL and for this season, at least, it’s very possible that Chubb, Geno and DK outperform Chase, Lawrence and Hunt considerably.

Geno at 31 isn’t all that old for a QB, Chubb has 2-3 years left and DK isn’t that far behind Chase.

This was a very bad dynasty trade but it’s not league altering. I’ve seen far worse trades go through. It’s not like Chase and Lawrence were traded for magic beans.

I asked for a leaguewide vote on instilling a trade review process and it lost already.

Wow. Kudos to your league members for voting down such a terrible idea.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

the commissioner got lucky that this guy make an absolutely stupid offer to him that immediately impacts the competitive balance of the league.

Once again, not really. It's a bad trade. I've seen far worse and the league goes on. It does not affect the competitive balance of the league - in fact, once again, Chubb, Metcalf and Smith could easily outscore Hunt, Chase and Lawrence over the next season and even in 2024.

Your bitterness is making you a bit wacky on this deal. Bad trades happen all the time.

Of course it affects the competitive balance. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.

Edit to add: how material is the impact? That’s the real question. But of course it has some impact — it’s a terrible dynasty trade

 

[Dr. Octopus]

the commissioner got lucky that this guy make an absolutely stupid offer to him that immediately impacts the competitive balance of the league.

Once again, not really. It's a bad trade. I've seen far worse and the league goes on. It does not affect the competitive balance of the league - in fact, once again, Chubb, Metcalf and Smith could easily outscore Hunt, Chase and Lawrence over the next season and even in 2024.

Your bitterness is making you a bit wacky on this deal. Bad trades happen all the time.

Of course it affects the competitive balance. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.

I'm not pretending.

 

[Zow]

the commissioner got lucky that this guy make an absolutely stupid offer to him that immediately impacts the competitive balance of the league.

Once again, not really. It's a bad trade. I've seen far worse and the league goes on. It does not affect the competitive balance of the league - in fact, once again, Chubb, Metcalf and Smith could easily outscore Hunt, Chase and Lawrence over the next season and even in 2024.

Your bitterness is making you a bit wacky on this deal. Bad trades happen all the time.

I'm being blunt on here. I was much more tactful and kind when raising the issue (collectively, with 5 other owners) with the league and the commissioner himself.

ETA: If you truly think this doesn't impact the competitive balance of the league, do you have any openings in your leagues that I could take?

 

[Zow]

(who happens to be the commissioner) just had the clear best roster fall into his lap.

I think you’re making way too much of this.

Things change quickly in the NFL and for this season, at least, it’s very possible that Chubb, Geno and DK outperform Chase, Lawrence and Hunt considerably.

Geno at 31 isn’t all that old for a QB, Chubb has 2-3 years left and DK isn’t that far behind Chase.

This was a very bad dynasty trade but it’s not league altering. I’ve seen far worse trades go through. It’s not like Chase and Lawrence were traded for magic beans.

I asked for a leaguewide vote on instilling a trade review process and it lost already.

Wow. Kudos to your league members for voting down such a terrible idea.

Terrible? Every dynasty league I've been in has had a trade review process (generally for collusion and competitive balance) and it's always been totally fine.

Why is a trade review process a terrible thing?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

ETA: If you truly think this doesn't impact the competitive balance of the league, do you have any openings in your leagues that I could take?

Sorry, I don't like playing with whiners.

And of course it makes SOME impact - every trade does - but this will not destroy the league and we've all seen plenty of "terrible trades" that don't look so terrible down the road. I think some people are overlooking the serious upgrade of going from Kareem Hunt to Nick Chubb. Geno and Metcalf only need to stay close to Trevor and Chase for this deal to look not so terrible and that's hardly far fetched.

And not every dynasty player looks 10 years down the road - I've read many posts on this board from people that only look at 2 or 3 year windows - in that context this deal looks much better.

 

[Gally]

Why is a trade review process a terrible thing?

Having a trade review process isn't by itself a terrible thing. Involving every owner in the league to have a vote for trade approval is a terrible thing. Every league I have ever been in that has a trade committee of the majority (or all) of the league members has been a $hit show. Too many people can't separate the impact on their team from the actual trade itself so reasonable trades get voted down because it negatively affects a few owners so they vote it down.

All trades need a review process but that should fall on the commissioner. You have entrusted the commissioner to have the best interests of a league in mind when deciding rules, trades, disagreements, etc so let him do his job. There can be some grey area in situations like yours because the commish is involved in the trade and in that case it is helpful to have a co-commish that is also trusted to rule in the best interest of the league to be a balance for situations where the commish is directly involved. But that should be the extend of a trade review process. Having a review process that can be instituted for this type of situation is also another approach that can be benefificial for special cases that need a total league decision. But that wouldn't be for every trade made. Just controversial situations that couldn't be handled by a co-commish if needed.

But league wide trade reviews are terrible and never work. I have never seen it work properly in the 40-ish years I have been playing/commishing when the entire league gets a vote in trades.

 

[Zow]

Why is a trade review process a terrible thing?

Having a trade review process isn't by itself a terrible thing. Involving every owner in the league to have a vote for trade approval is a terrible thing. Every league I have ever been in that has a trade committee of the majority (or all) of the league members has been a $hit show. Too many people can't separate the impact on their team from the actual trade itself so reasonable trades get voted down because it negatively affects a few owners so they vote it down.

All trades need a review process but that should fall on the commissioner. You have entrusted the commissioner to have the best interests of a league in mind when deciding rules, trades, disagreements, etc so let him do his job. There can be some grey area in situations like yours because the commish is involved in the trade and in that case it is helpful to have a co-commish that is also trusted to rule in the best interest of the league to be a balance for situations where the commish is directly involved. But that should be the extend of a trade review process. Having a review process that can be instituted for this type of situation is also another approach that can be benefificial for special cases that need a total league decision. But that wouldn't be for every trade made. Just controversial situations that couldn't be handled by a co-commish if needed.

But league wide trade reviews are terrible and never work. I have never seen it work properly in the 40-ish years I have been playing/commishing when the entire league gets a vote in trades.

I pitched for a trade committee of four owner. Maybe my experience is the abnormal one, but it's worked in my main dynasty league - and I'm not even part of the committee. Now, it's probably worked because all 12 owners are good, active, and trade responsibility.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I think the OP pretty clearly layed out some considerations that were definitely relevant compared to evaluating the trade in a vacuum. I don't see the need to needlessly antagonize a footballguys poster for presenting a case study of a league startup that offers some valuable lessons. Most should be able to empathize with the OP's plight even if they would've handled it differently.

Personally, I'm not lobbying for a change to the trade review setting after the original formation or telling the commish he should kick in a 1st rounder, but it was probably good that someone was willing to go there since it should make for a less overpowered team as a result of gains that demonstrated that the commish wasn't prioritizing the welfare of a new league or his friend's first experience with fantasy football. If the rest of league isn't going to have the same access to this friend then I can understand why the OP might've felt compelled to propose a pivot while the league is still in its infancy. For all they know, this could be an ongoing saga of Eddie Haskel talking the Beav into his latest and greatest trade offering until Jerry Mathers finally decides to orphan his team. Years of experience with the commish says that this probably wouldn't be the case, but the way this first opportunity/dilemma was originally handled wouldn't instill confidence. Glad that the commish was willing to meet the league halfway on the back end. The trade never happens in the first place with a true stud commissioner. The newcomer learns a lesson while still getting the thrill of watching T-Law and Chase play near the top of their postion. Chubb, Geno to DK, and two first rounders in '24 isn't a bad substitute though.

 

[Gally]

For all they know, this could be an ongoing saga of Eddie Haskel talking the Beav into his latest and greatest trade offering until Jerry Mathers finally decides to orphan his team.

I wonder if this reference needs to be updated to a current equivalent to reach more posters are we truly just all old guys and this is the best reference for those here. Hahahahaha

 

[Alex P Keaton]

(who happens to be the commissioner) just had the clear best roster fall into his lap.

I think you’re making way too much of this.

Things change quickly in the NFL and for this season, at least, it’s very possible that Chubb, Geno and DK outperform Chase, Lawrence and Hunt considerably.

Geno at 31 isn’t all that old for a QB, Chubb has 2-3 years left and DK isn’t that far behind Chase.

This was a very bad dynasty trade but it’s not league altering. I’ve seen far worse trades go through. It’s not like Chase and Lawrence were traded for magic beans.

I asked for a leaguewide vote on instilling a trade review process and it lost already.

Wow. Kudos to your league members for voting down such a terrible idea.

Terrible? Every dynasty league I've been in has had a trade review process (generally for collusion and competitive balance) and it's always been totally fine.

Why is a trade review process a terrible thing?

I would never join a league with a trade review process. That sounds like an absolutely recipe for disaster. Choose high quality GMs for your leagues, and then you don’t need to worry about stuff like this. A trade review process sounds like the Politburo.

 

[MTskibum]

@LBH
Yes, I am talking about my brother in law. The first person to be accused of tanking in FF addicts 16 year history and then whined and left the league after 2 years.


This new dynasty league I am doing to be nice to him, he needed me to make 12. He ripped off 3-4 of his friends in trade offers right away.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I would especially do this if the newbie was a friend that I brought into the league. I believe part of brining in new guys to a league it is the commish's job to make sure they understand some of the nuances and perceptions of the league

This

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

This one is going to be a fun follow.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This one is going to be a fun follow.

I mean, no one really cared for a full month until you bumped the topic, so…..

 

[Ray_T]

Team A receives: Nick Chubb, Geno Smith, and DK Metcalf
Team B receives: Trevor Lawrence, J'Marr Chase, and Kareem Hunt

ok I'm not looking at dollars.

but if you think of it this way:

Chubb and chase are both first round picks in most formats. sure I would rather have Chase but its close enough to not worry about overly much
Lawrence may be worth more than Geno, but Geno actually was the better fantasy player last year. once again, depending on how you look at this, its not offensive.
Metcalf is worth more than Hunt who I figure has little more than nominal value as he does not even play on a team at the moment.

while I'd rather have Chase and Lawrence, its close enough that you could argue this deal might be okay if you view Geno as being equal or greater than Lawrnece and from my perspective, this is likely what has happened.

this falls within the realm of perceived values.

I would say there is NO way this should be veto'd unless you can prove collusion. At worst its the defending champ taking advantage of a newish fantasy owner. This is no worse than a lot of other deals I have seen where no veto was applied.