When is a trade okay to veto? (1 Viewer)

[PantherPower]

Team A gives: Witten, Breaston, FWP

Team B gives: Fargas, Sproles, Wade

Maybe its just me, but how does Team A benefit from this trade in a redraft league? I ask because this is very big money league, and the team with Witten/Breaston is in last place. Why would that team move Witten and Breaston for that deal? How does that help his team get better?

Is it me or is this not a very lopsided deal?

Sorry, I really hate being "that guy" when it comes to trades, but this one, I just can't see it. Is it me?

 

[SouthJersey]

keeper or redraft?

 

[PantherPower]

redraft

 

[jonrolly]

Witten has really underperformed and Sproles is a top 15 RB in all of my leagues. Fargas has also put together back-to-back decent games. Im assuming the guy has nothing as far as RB's go?

 

[MIMN]

How can anyone say without knowing the rosters and scoring?

 

[PantherPower]

Team A does have weak RBs, Barber, LJ, Smith, Kolby Smith, but how does that make this okay? His team was in last place, so he moves a very solid TE and WR for Fargas?? And he didn't exactly have great WR depth to move Breaston. His core is now-

Aiken, Burton, Cotchery, Crabtree, Holt, Morgan, Wade, Washington. I don't see 3 WRs better than Breaston there either.

 

[fatness]

Sorry, I really hate being "that guy" when it comes to trades, but this one, I just can't see it. Is it me?

Yes.

 

[jonrolly]

Team A does have weak RBs, Barber, LJ, Smith, Kolby Smith, but how does that make this okay? His team was in last place, so he moves a very solid TE and WR for Fargas?? And he didn't exactly have great WR depth to move Breaston. His core is now-Aiken, Burton, Cotchery, Crabtree, Holt, Morgan, Wade, Washington. I don't see 3 WRs better than Breaston there either.

Tough to call Witten a very solid TE this year. The guys grouped with him in terms of scoring are Watson, Heap, etc. And Breaston is a WR3 with 4 TD's in his last 21 games. Sproles is arguably the most valuable player in the deal and he fills a position of need.

 

[MIMN]

You haven't given the scoring so I have to assume that your league is similar to most. It isn't exactly like Breaston and Witten are all world this year. Runningbacks tend to still dominate scoring and the guy had very little. This gives him 2 RBs to mix into his lineup. He needs them.

Take a look at FBG 200 forward and you will see Witten and Breaston right around most of the other receivers on his team. Even if you don't like it at least it presents a reasonable arguement for predicted value.

Ask yourself this, if you had Breaston and Witten all of a sudden would you start posting "CHAMPIONSHIP!" on your league board? No, you wouldn't.

In my opinion, this is not worth your time worrying about nor creating a league-wide fight over.

 

[ratbast]

This trade should never be vetoed in any format.

 

[stugnut]

Unless it's Randy Moss for David Boston, don't worry about it.

 

[topjimmy]

personally I think trades should only be veto'd if there is proof of collusion, otherwise everyone's interpretation of a players value is different

 

[jerseydevil20]

personally I think trades should only be veto'd if there is proof of collusion, otherwise everyone's interpretation of a players value is different

I agree. When someone makes a "bonehead pick" at the draft would you force a repick so that the following slots didn't benefit? Witten is supposed to be an elite TE but thus far has not been. Nothing wrong with the trade.

 

[certificate]

I guess he's a sproles fan. No way that should be vetoed.

 

[Jimmy James]

I think this is one of those league culture things. These days, I only play in leagues where I am reasonably sure nobody would stoop to collusion when it comes to football. If a trade is made, it goes through. We trust one another.

I play a roto basketball format where trades are voted down a fair amount of the time by the other owners for reasons that aren't even necessarily collusion-related. I have even seen it be a tactical type of thing where owners don't want to see a fundamentally flawed team improve in a category they are hopeless in or don't want to see a team move some dead weight at one statistic that the team has covered. It's actually kind of fun that way, I suppose. Of course, if somebody is in that sort of league, there would be no need to ask whether or not the trade was okay.

 

[two_dollars]

OP is hung up on name recognition. or draft position.. or something.

Sproles is the best player in that deal.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Vetoing trades is the worst idea for a rulebook.

If the trade is not collusion then it is all good. Unfair trades are not legislated.

If someone is mad that a trade is unfair, it is usually due to bitterness.

 

[SSOG]

Vetoing trades is the worst idea for a rulebook.If the trade is not collusion then it is all good. Unfair trades are not legislated.

Yes and no. My league has a "sportsmanship" rule that basically states that all owners must be making a good-faith effort to improve their team. Even if a trade isn't collusion, sometimes once an owner is out of it they'll basically just dump off their players and destroy the competitive balance of the league. Even if it's not collusion, an ADP-for-Fargas trade would (and should!) get shot down in a heartbeat because it represents poor sportsmanship. If the guy getting Fargas really wants to make that trade, he's welcome to state his case before the rest of the league explaining how, exactly, he feels as if he's improving his team.That's always a good test whenever you're tempted to veto a trade for collusion. Ask both owners why they're making the trade, and how they feel like it helps their team. If they can defend the trade from their team's perspective (regardless of how ludicrous you might think that defense is), then the trade stands.

 

[Knobs]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

 

[socrates]

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with the deal. You are attempting to substitute your player valuation for their's. Witten has underperformed; FWP has been demoted; Breaston's value depends in part on Boldin's health; Sproles has LT to contend with; Fargas plays for the Raiders and may eventually give way to McFadden again; and Wade is a fringe fantasy player with roughly similar stats to Breaston. Perhaps Team A is rolling the dice that Fargas will perform or Sproles will supplant LT (or continue to perform well despite LT's return). Perhaps Team B is counting on Witten returning to his typical production or a Mendenhall injury opening the door to FWP. My point is, these are their teams to manage. Let them, and stop worrying about whether they are managing their teams as you would. This in no way stinks of collusion or poor sportsmanship. Stop micromanaging.

 

[jonm8]

Team A gives: Witten, Breaston, FWP

Team B gives: Fargas, Sproles, Wade

Maybe its just me, but how does Team A benefit from this trade in a redraft league? I ask because this is very big money league, and the team with Witten/Breaston is in last place. Why would that team move Witten and Breaston for that deal? How does that help his team get better?

Is it me or is this not a very lopsided deal?

Sorry, I really hate being "that guy" when it comes to trades, but this one, I just can't see it. Is it me?

I see no problem with that trade. Legitimate starters going each direction.

 

[CMU37484]

Team A gives: Witten, Breaston, FWP

Team B gives: Fargas, Sproles, Wade

Maybe its just me, but how does Team A benefit from this trade in a redraft league? I ask because this is very big money league, and the team with Witten/Breaston is in last place. Why would that team move Witten and Breaston for that deal? How does that help his team get better?

Is it me or is this not a very lopsided deal?

Sorry, I really hate being "that guy" when it comes to trades, but this one, I just can't see it. Is it me?

Yes, it is just you.You're only being "that guy" because you don't like the trade at all, not because you think it's collusion.

When do YOU think it's appropriate to see a trade get vetoed??? If the answer is "when I don't like the deal" you have a big problem.

This is an underperforming tight end, a #3 WR, and a reserve RB for two running backs that produce like starters for their teams and a WR that gets at least 3-4 catches per game. What's the big issue again?

 

[PantherPower]

Fair enough, its just me. But to clarify, Sproles is NOT top 15 in this leagues scoring (no points for special teams TDs) and I just think McFadden gets his job back when he returns, thus making this trade even worse for team A. If I'm in last place, I don't see how that trade helps my team make a run. And if I was trying to get a better RB, I'm pretty sure I'd contact the entire league, and let them know "Witten and Breaston on the block for a RB." I'd be expecting a better RB than Sproles too.

 

[cobalt_27]

This trade should never be vetoed in any format.

 

[flranger]

Team A gives: Witten, Breaston, FWP

Team B gives: Fargas, Sproles, Wade

Maybe its just me, but how does Team A benefit from this trade in a redraft league? I ask because this is very big money league, and the team with Witten/Breaston is in last place. Why would that team move Witten and Breaston for that deal? How does that help his team get better?

Is it me or is this not a very lopsided deal?

Sorry, I really hate being "that guy" when it comes to trades, but this one, I just can't see it. Is it me?

You really are being "that guy" and doesn't look like you hate being that. It's you.I honestly think that Team A got the better end of the deal, and that's without looking at rosters. Here is guessing Team A probably picked up Heath Milller or Celek off waivers earlier in the year and now he has good TE depth and can trade Witten.

The only way this deal is lopsided is if it was a kick return league, even then it's not much of one and team A would easily win.

 

[cobalt_27]

Fair enough, its just me. But to clarify, Sproles is NOT top 15 in this leagues scoring (no points for special teams TDs) and I just think McFadden gets his job back when he returns, thus making this trade even worse for team A. If I'm in last place, I don't see how that trade helps my team make a run. And if I was trying to get a better RB, I'm pretty sure I'd contact the entire league, and let them know "Witten and Breaston on the block for a RB." I'd be expecting a better RB than Sproles too.

As a commish, you can NEVER function or make decisions on the premise, "well, I would never do that." You have to let your owners have some breathing room to make bad decisions. Collusion and disruption of competitive balance should be the only two criteria you use to veto a trade. Just because a trade appears to favor one owner over another does not mean competitive balance has been disrupted. It just means that an owner possibly got a better deal than the other guy. Happens all the time.

 

[pollardsvision]

This trade should never be vetoed in any format.

Trades should rarely be vetoed. In cases where a trade should be vetoed, it'd have to involve owners who shouldn't be in the league anyway (for either complete incompetence or collusion). I'd rather just kick an owner out than have to go around vetoing his trades.This trade, in particular, is certainly not vetoable. A TE and a decent WR for 2 RBs that could conceivably help a fantasy team? I wouldn't be excited about the RBs, so I don't see it as a good trade, but someone wouldn't have to be completely incompetent or colluding to make the deal (assuming they are desparate at RB).

 

[thatguy]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

Beautifully put, Hoss. And I'll add: Good luck trying to prove collusion unless one or both parties admit it.

 

[thatguy]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

In a competitive league with intelligent owners, there's no way that trade is made based on stupidity alone.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

In a competitive league with intelligent owners, there's no way that trade is made based on stupidity alone.

So, you're implying collusion, right? Would that be sufficient to overrule it? Would you need further proof? Would one of them have to admit it?

 

[Not Sure]

I am really glad you aren't the commissioner of any of my leagues.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

In a competitive league with intelligent owners, there's no way that trade is made based on stupidity alone.

So are you going to make that assumption without proof just so you can call it collusion instead of stupidity? This is why reasons for vetos has to go beyond the "collusion" take on it, and is especially important in dynasty leagues because of the long term ramifications

 

[the spanker]

 

[Sanboy]

dumb post

 

[Knobs]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

I would not veto it. However, if that owner did dumb things like that often I would not welcome them back. I'd also kick myself that I didn't make an equally lowball offer.ETA - I would question both owners. If the idiot's reasoning appeared to be fishy I would veto it. If it seemed he was simply an idiot, I would let it stand. Yes, it makes one team that much stronger but so what? Teams aren't always fair - not everyone is going to have an equal team.

 

[Colts Win]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

I would not veto it. However, if that owner did dumb things like that often I would not welcome them back. I'd also kick myself that I didn't make an equally lowball offer.ETA - I would question both owners. If the idiot's reasoning appeared to be fishy I would veto it. If it seemed he was simply an idiot, I would let it stand. Yes, it makes one team that much stronger but so what? Teams aren't always fair - not everyone is going to have an equal team.

Problem is in dynasty people will just walk away. And you end up discounting or giving free seasons to get someone to take over a mess of a team. Thats bad for the whole league.But I think the trade OP asked about is fine.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

When collusive. If someone had traded MSW for TO in week 1 would you veto that? How about now (maybe in the opposite direction)

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Two situations, only:

1) if it's collusive; or

2) if it violates a league rule (e.g. a "borrowing" trade, etc.)

 

[Genester]

When is a trade okay to veto?

The answer to your question is "When your league rules call for it".

 

[Crusaderfan]

Two situations, only:1) if it's collusive; or2) if it violates a league rule (e.g. a "borrowing" trade, etc.)

 

[senor peso 2006]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

In a competitive league with intelligent owners, there's no way that trade is made based on stupidity alone.

So are you going to make that assumption without proof just so you can call it collusion instead of stupidity? This is why reasons for vetos has to go beyond the "collusion" take on it, and is especially important in dynasty leagues because of the long term ramifications

The colusion only crowd needs to rethink that point. There has to be a legimate reason for the deal. Stupidity at times can be that reason, but if a deal is so blatantly bad, then yes kill it.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Two situations, only:1) if it's collusive; or2) if it violates a league rule (e.g. a "borrowing" trade, etc.)

Agreed. Of course, that includes if the league has a rule against ridiculously lopsided trades that upset the competitive balance of the league even if no collusion is involved.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Folks pay an entry fee at the beginning of the year for the privilege of managing their own teams as they see fit.

/topic

 

[fsufan]

You shouldn't veto a deal because someone was stupid. And it doesn't even appear there was any stupidity in this one. You could easily argue either side is getting the better end of that deal.

What if it was Calvin Johnson for Pierre Garcon in a dynasty league? That one surely should be vetoed, and let's say it's because of stupidity. Also, whenever I see posts that say a trade should never be vetoed unless there is collusion I laugh, because trades like the one I mentioned cannot be tolerated, not if you care about league integrity.

In a competitive league with intelligent owners, there's no way that trade is made based on stupidity alone.

So are you going to make that assumption without proof just so you can call it collusion instead of stupidity? This is why reasons for vetos has to go beyond the "collusion" take on it, and is especially important in dynasty leagues because of the long term ramifications

dynasty and redraft trading is night and day

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Two situations, only:1) if it's collusive; or2) if it violates a league rule (e.g. a "borrowing" trade, etc.)

Agreed. Of course, that includes if the league has a rule against ridiculously lopsided trades that upset the competitive balance of the league even if no collusion is involved.

Way too subjective, and you need to allow people to trade if they believe it benefits their team. If you think an owner is bad enough to imbalance the league, then that's an owner problem and not a trade problem. Get rid of the owner.

 

[fsufan]

Folks pay an entry fee at the beginning of the year for the privilege of managing their own teams as they see fit./topic

end of thread

 

[Moonlight_Graham]

Two situations, only:1) if it's collusive; or2) if it violates a league rule (e.g. a "borrowing" trade, etc.)

Agreed. Of course, that includes if the league has a rule against ridiculously lopsided trades that upset the competitive balance of the league even if no collusion is involved.

Way too subjective, and you need to allow people to trade if they believe it benefits their team. If you think an owner is bad enough to imbalance the league, then that's an owner problem and not a trade problem. Get rid of the owner.

The trouble with that logic is that you don't always know that an owner is an idiot, and by the time you find out this little tidbit of information their team is ruined. Then as commish I have to go out and try to find a replacement owner for this bad team because I either kicked them out of the league (as you suggest), or they quit because they finally realize they ruined their team and don't want to fix it.

 

[Moonlight_Graham]

Folks pay an entry fee at the beginning of the year for the privilege of managing their own teams as they see fit./topic

end of thread

Not really, not for dynasty leagues it isn't.