So a trade in our 14 team league was put to a vote, and majority vetoed the trade, and the owner is upset it got vetoed, Some owners put their 2 cents making really good points, and I wanted to get some outside perspective. Used google, found this site, and plan to stay a while and contribute. I'll include a quick read, and a long read to save some trouble for convenience.
The Trade: -Drew Brees & Ricky Williams 14th place. for -Larry Fitzgerald & Danny Woodhead 4th place.
League: 14 team, standard scoring, $100 FAAB, 1qb,2rb,2wr,flex,te,k,def.
Now if trades look legit, the commish will just send em through ASAP, but when questionable trades arise, he'll put them to a vote. (He has a lot of power in this sense, but we just have to trust him that he'll make fair decisions) This is one such instance, he texts everyone in the league and anyone who voted came back 8-2, 2 not responding, against. Here's a post from the commish about said trade, edited for relevancy on topic:
"I got home from work. It looked a little crazy and I said I'm not gonna overreact. My initial reaction was man this trade is ridiculous. I can't let this go through without saying anything. I slept on it, and I still feel the same way.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I know there's no collusion going on. It's just not a fair deal at face value, nor prospective value. If we were the voters for a different league this particular deal would for sure get vetoed.
At face value, to me, it just seems so lopsided. Top 3 QB and Top 30 RB for Top 25 (at best) RB and Top 20 (at best) WR. And I come to find out that I'm not the only one."
Now the 4th trade owner replies in turn, to defend the trade, here is his case:
"Let me ask this question, if this trade came up before the season started, would it have been just as "controversial"? I imagine it wouldn't. When vetoing this trade, this is essentially what you're doing:
1. You're preventing a 1-6 team from doing whatever he wants to switch it up to get a W
2. You're preventing a team from trading expendable players to better contend against the league
I understand you want this league to be "fair," but exactly how is it fair to us for the rest of the league to tell us this trade is NOT fair? I feel it's the managers themselves that determine what's fair to them or not. NOBODY knows how each player will perform each week. In this trade, we're both at risk. I'm giving up players who might seem "expendable" now, but how do i know they won't blow up later in the season, and vice versa. If this trade will be vetoed, i wanna know why from each person that vetoes, just so i see it your way. As much as i, too, would like to believe people didn't vote just to cockblock, i think that's what's happening. I understand the fear of collusion, but this trade isn't so one-sided. FFL is about taking risks sometimes, like drafting carson palmer hella early. We don't stop that because we respect that manager for placing that much value in him. If we don't stop a move like that, why stop a move like this?"
At reading this, I think it's still just a plain ol' bad trade, veto, let's move on, but the next owner, not involved in trade, just brings up some solid points for the trade which makes me rethink my position, and come here to this forum for advice and thoughts on the topic.
"I think a trade should only be vetoed if there's collusion or if someone is purposely trying to tank, which neither is the case here.
Congrats to anyone that gets the better end of a deal. It doesn't have to be my trade either. We should all try to get an edge on a trade as long as its mutually accepted. Some people will be on a short end of a trade, but sometimes people are desperate to make a changes and those margins will be created.
The problems always comes in the middle of the season when a playoff contender gets the better end of a trade with a bottom team and the rest of the playoff contenders WILL ALWAYS protest the trade, whether its last year, this year, next year, my team, your team or someone else's team. Bottom teams will get desperate to make any kind of change and someone will try to capitalize it. Its gonna happen every year. Maybe we should make the deadline on week 4 to avoid this problem.
I know, because I offer a lot of trades, that its harder to negotiate a deal with a top team and a lot easier to negotiate a deal with a bottom team and the bottom teams are always more desperate to make a deal. The top teams will always have leverage but should they be responsible for giving up more than the other team is asking for?
To me, managers should be rewarded for actively seeking trades and trying to negotiate a trade that's in their favor for as much as they can (*as long as there's no collusion or money involved).
People aren't penalized for trying to reach for a sleeper in a draft or making it rain for a waiver pick up, and so why should someone be penalized for trying to get an edge on a trade (too bad for the other guy)?
Maybe our trading system is flawed.I just think that asking other managers if a trade should be vetoed is just a slippery slope. Of course they don't want another playoff contender getting an edge on a trade!
But since the rest of the league thinks 14th is trading Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown. Let's ask 14th place for his rational"
And these are SOME of the posts, but the most relevant. The last place owner has yet to reply. I know it's a long read about someone elses league, but we, just like the rest of the world, take fantasy football seriously, and I would appreciate any outside perspective on the topic of vetoing a trade like that. To anyone that replies or reads, seriously, thanks for listening.
******************************************* Cliff Notes ******************************************* --Drew Brees & Ricky Willams (14th place) for --Larry Fitzgerald & Danny Woodhead (4th place) 1. Got vetoed 2. Standard Scoring, 14 team. 3. 4th place owner upset, other owners make good cases both for and against trade, mainly its a bad trade b/c it has little prospective value and/or face value vs. idea all owners should get rewarded for trying to get edge in trade as long as it's done fairly and mutually agreed upon.
My belief is that when there's a pending trade, you evaluate base on the trade itself -- I believe the standings, team rosters, etc. are all nonsense and are just stuff on the side that are irrelevant. Certainly one side wins, but it's not lopsided IMO. It's not like one side is trading away all players on injured reserve or have been putting goose-egg fantasy #s.
With that said, your commish already deemed the matter "case closed" per your league rules. Fantasy life is unfair, too.
14tm. PPR+IDP+return-yds. league QB-Cam RB-Shady,DMartin WR-JulioJ,Colston,VJax TE-Finley K & IDP-[streaming] BN-JStewart,MReece,Britt,Amendola,BMyers,Kaepernick,BryceB
First of all, welcome to the site, this is a great place for info and advice.
I've been a commissioner for 10 years now in multiple leagues, I started with a league of friends that I offered to setup and run. Being new to FF at that point I didn't know any better and all our trades were via league vote. After 4 years of watching trades get cockblocked/sabotaged as these people would use it as a way to prevent other owners from improving their teams, particularly mid season just like this. I too learned the hard way that this is not how it should be. I now run 2 of my own dynasty leagues and approve all trades unless there is collusion to which there never has been yet. I also participate in 2 others that use this same policy.
The commissioner should not be holding trades to a double standard, the trade policy should be one way or another. None of this putting up for league vote if it looks iffy, all he's doing is trying to pass the blame, he knew it would get voted down and that way he doesn't take the heat. That is just one more reason I don't believe in the league vote system, ESPECIALLY in a money league.
Now as for the trade, how is it not fair? I don't understand the logic behind saying this isn't fair. The commish and the rest are obviously basing the player value off past years value of these players and not their current performance value this season. Yet I think the 2 owners involved in the trade are looking at the current value. Brees isn't putting up that great of numbers and quite frankly the 4th place team needs a QB so I don't blame him for taking a chance on Brees, who could get hot. Ricky will be up and down probably, with the continued emergence of Henne and splitting time with Ronnie, Ricky will be a crapshoot week to week. For the other side of it, Fitz could have value if Arizona gets some stability going at QB, it is possible. Woodhead actually has probably the most value of any of the players in this deal at this point, the Pats are stuck with him playing Kevin Faulk's role on 3rd down and passing situations, and he has Sanchez still @ QB who is off his bye week and has been solid, certainly more solid than Brees, Hass or Cutler. So in my honest opinion, the 14th team is getting a better deal right now, the 4th place team is firing a shot in the dark and is taking a risk giving up Fitzgerald if he blows up by taking a big hit to his WR depth and taking a shot on Brees. The 14th team may have got a boost from this as his RB depth is shallow and it gives him the possibility of Fitz getting hot.
Bottom line, there should not be a double standard for trades in any league, and I personally will not play in any league that uses league votes because of the potential of sabotage. Furthermore you CANNOT protect owners from riding the trade short bus, so long as two owners agree to a trade and there is no evidence of collusion a trade should be approved period. Personally, I would not participate in this league under this system after this season unless it changed and the commissioner understood this and went by it. The NFL doesn't approve trades based on whether they think they are fair and we shouldn't either as FF is essentially emulating the NFL for us regular people.
This is the 4th year our league has been running, and we've been using Yahoo.
rather than using Yahoo veto, where anyone can veto a trade in anonymity for both good and bad trades, so this year we decided to pay for Yahoo trade review ( was only like 14 bucks or something, 1 dollar extra per person), but after trying it out, it just took to long for trades to get evaluated, and we weren't even sure a person was reviewing it, couldve been a computer.
So it got turned off.
Now it's been up to the Commish to evaluate trades, in his defense he's been a good with approving trades, this is only the 2nd case in which a trade has been veto'd.
but I can see why the veto system is so flawed, but i feel like having one in place rather than not having anything to regulate trades at all is better at keeping things fair and on the up and up