Veto Issue - looking for opinions

[lifeform]

I am the commish of a 14-team Yahoo league.

I have never vetoed a trade before, but I have a situation where I think it might be the right move.

A Tiki Barber for Dennis Northcutt trade has been made. Unless my evaluation is way off, Tiki (with 269 total yds & a TD this year) is a nice RB2, while Northcutt (with just 19 total yards receiving this year) is a borderline waiver wire guy.

The team getting Tiki could use the RB help. The team getting Northcutt is in a roster squeeze -- all but two of his WRs are on a week 3 bye, and has no players he wants to drop.

I strongly suspect that they plan to trade the same players back (or have some other follow-up arrangement) after Week 3.

I have written (but not yet sent) an email telling them that I suspect collusion, and am inclined to veto.

Am I being unreasonable? Any opinions on this are welcome.

[Tree_Sloths]

It doesn't sound like you have much of a case. I'd let it go for now unless someone protests it. If they trade back later, kick them out.

[lifeform]

It doesn't sound like you have much of a case. I'd let it go for now unless someone protests it. If they trade back later, kick them out.

Kicking two teams out of the league would greatly disrupt what is, all in all, a good competitive league where the owners engage in fair play. I'd only do that as a last resort, if there were some horribly blatant fraudulent behavior going on.

I'm thinking I'd much rather do some preventative maintenance right now.

[matmat]

well. ask them their intentions.

if they don't give you a good reason for making this trade, veto it.

if they tell you that they plan to follow it up with another trade, equally unballanced in the other direction then:
1) if it involves the same players (namely barber and northcutt) : veto it
2) if it is some other set of players, let it run...

[Plindsey88]

Simple solution... Tell them they can make the trade, but if they attempt to trade the players back or use the wire to achieve the same result, you will block it...

[Vlad the Impaler_ffc]

Exactly. IMO, Barber for Northcut favors Barber, but it is not so terrible that it should be vetoed. If they try to "trade back", that is strong evidence of collussion, and you should veto the trade back.

[Big Pimpin']

you got it plins!!!
all you do is block any trade between the 2 that involve those players that were already traded.
but i don't think you can veto the trade right now unless they tell you that they are in collusion.

[lifeform]

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

I have vetoed the trade, emailed both owners with an explanation, and posted a message on the league's front page clarifying that trades which involve privately agreed-upon contingencies (like trade-backs) are not permitted.

The guy trading in order to "borrow" Northcutt for his other WRs bye week isn't happy about it, but he would've been less happy if I would've let the trade go & vetoed when he tried to trade him back for Tiki.

[Tree_Sloths]

It doesn't sound like you have much of a case. I'd let it go for now unless someone protests it. If they trade back later, kick them out.

Kicking two teams out of the league would greatly disrupt what is, all in all, a good competitive league where the owners engage in fair play. I'd only do that as a last resort, if there were some horribly blatant fraudulent behavior going on.

I'm thinking I'd much rather do some preventative maintenance right now.

On second thought, banning them might be a bit extreme. I'd go with what someone else said and ask for their rationale behind the trade. If their stories hold up, warn them that trading back at a later date would be collusion.

[BrutallyHuge]

I would kick these chumps out of the league.

They're probably going to continue to scheme and try to collude. Next thing you know they'll churn rosters, then waiver back players, then hack your computer, then elect one of them commissioner, then ruin your league for good.