I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, and it's not your job to examine every single trade under a microscope to decide upon "whether the competitive balance of the league is kept intact." When Adrian Peterson gets traded to another team for a kicker, then you have reason to suspect funny business. Anything short of that, the trade should go through!
Here's a funny passage from Mark St. Amant of Rotoworld on the topic:
I hate three things in fantasy football right now: When commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe Caesar-Crassus-Pompey triumvirate is running amok in one of my leagues, drunk on sweet power nectar, wantonly vetoing trades and sacrificing virgins. Their explanation? "We're protecting the competitive integrity of the league." Huh? A commish should only veto a trade if it's collusion. Period. Last place owner trades AP & Andre Johnson to first place owner/longtime roommate/best man/brother-in-law for Fred Lane & Rae Carruth? Collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Not collusion. You might prefer one side of the deal vs. the other, or be angry that your offer for Calvin was shot down, but there are simply are too many variables involved -- Ronnie's 8 TDs vs. inconsistency; T.O.'s rebound potential vs. meltdown potential; Calvin's athleticism vs. QB worries; LenDale's TDs vs. RBBC with Johnson -- to veto.
Look, commissioners, as dashing as you might look in a fake general's uniform with Fisher Price war medals on it, you're not a dictator. You don't veto unless it's a blatant attempt to defraud/cheat the league. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to the trade negotiations: owners have to live with their decisions, and that includes buyer's/seller's remorse. And the only time you should wield commish power is if an absentee owner is, say, still starting Tom Brady each week. So back off, Kim Jong-il. No one wants to see your freakishly massive forehead and Harry Carey glasses 'round these parts anymore.
Now this is a necessary public service if I have ever seen one! We are about to start a weekly segment on the podcast just to rag on the foolish Commish's Corner post of the week
The Lung wrote:I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, and it's not your job to examine every single trade under a microscope to decide upon "whether the competitive balance of the league is kept intact." When Adrian Peterson gets traded to another team for a kicker, then you have reason to suspect funny business. Anything short of that, the trade should go through!
Here's a funny passage from Mark St. Amant of Rotoworld on the topic:
I hate three things in fantasy football right now: When commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe Caesar-Crassus-Pompey triumvirate is running amok in one of my leagues, drunk on sweet power nectar, wantonly vetoing trades and sacrificing virgins. Their explanation? "We're protecting the competitive integrity of the league." Huh? A commish should only veto a trade if it's collusion. Period. Last place owner trades AP & Andre Johnson to first place owner/longtime roommate/best man/brother-in-law for Fred Lane & Rae Carruth? Collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Not collusion. You might prefer one side of the deal vs. the other, or be angry that your offer for Calvin was shot down, but there are simply are too many variables involved -- Ronnie's 8 TDs vs. inconsistency; T.O.'s rebound potential vs. meltdown potential; Calvin's athleticism vs. QB worries; LenDale's TDs vs. RBBC with Johnson -- to veto.
Look, commissioners, as dashing as you might look in a fake general's uniform with Fisher Price war medals on it, you're not a dictator. You don't veto unless it's a blatant attempt to defraud/cheat the league. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to the trade negotiations: owners have to live with their decisions, and that includes buyer's/seller's remorse. And the only time you should wield commish power is if an absentee owner is, say, still starting Tom Brady each week. So back off, Kim Jong-il. No one wants to see your freakishly massive forehead and Harry Carey glasses 'round these parts anymore.
Awesome post Lung. From now on I'm just going to post a link to this thread in every "should I veto?" thread.
Now we just need a "WHIR" explanation & "how to post a link" explanation stickied in the Beginners forum.
Nice post. Just curious... Does anyone out there have their league set up for trades to go through automatically or still have commish review it "just in case."? I'd like to set mine to go through automatically but is that a bad idea?
NEVER is a pretty big word, but the scoreboard I've been maintaining the last 4 years* for veto posts in the Commissioner's Corner forum seem to support a value that is statistically indistinguishable from NEVER:
The Lung wrote:I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved.
Well, that's the rub, though, ain't it. Even ignoring the problem of people who are semi-awake colluders so have enough sense to do a trade that is something just better than Adrian Peterson for a kicker, say..... Adrian Peterson for Tim Hightower or Adrian Peterson for Peyton Hillis, you still have the problem of deciding exactly where you define "obviously lopsided". You really don't solve the problem, you just push it off into forcing a solution of something else.
The best Veto or not discussion I've seen in three or so years at the Cafe was over at the Light Side this spring here. The gist of it came down to the below.
Basically, I would put out again (maybe refine a little) an idea that noseeum and I agreed upon last week. And that's that one of the last places to look for the appropriateness of a veto is the players traded. The factors to consider, in order of importance, are... 1) Do you know everyone? If it's an anonymous public league, skip to the end. 2) Are these all guys who are trying? Even between friends/relatives, you can get the guy who does the league because he's asked but will give up halfway through and decide that he's going to trade away all his roster to get all players whose last name start with C or some nonsense because it amuses him. 3) Are all these guys you trust, particularly the two involved in the trade? I've seen threads of people talking about how trades were done between father/teenage son or between roommates/best friends and after the tempest in the teapot it came out that actually, yah, one of them was trying to help the other out.
If the answers to all those 3 questions are yes, then stop. The trade is fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at Longoria for Pujols in my league because all the guys are grown men and we don't have any shenanigans. It would be more embarrassing to them to be thought of as a dirty dealer than it would be to finish in the cellar. The only real close case I could think of if all 3 of those answers are yes is if you have a true newbie who really doesn't know anything and is getting ridiculously fleeced, but even then I don't think a veto is as appropriate as busting the balls of the fleecer and trying to shame him into giving the newbie a decent deal. If not, then lesson learned.
If the answer to those questions are no, then you start probing if there's something else going on. The problem with stating by fiat, "No veto except for collusion" is that you set up this essentially unprovable standard. Fantasy sports are a game that some people take seriously and some don't. There aren't millions of dollars riding on it and in many cases there isn't a single dime. So it's very possible for people (who don't fit the 3 criteria above) to be influenced by something outside of pure player values to make it worthwhile to them. And without any real power of investigation, all you have is the word of the people who you think could be cheating. All you have are the value of the players traded, placed into the context of the league scoring, setup, rosters, etc. And so then you're forced to rely upon the value of the players traded to decide if this is something legitimate or something else.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
