What is the standard for vetoing a trade?

[Tsunami]

I find it very ironic that "I'm a libertatian" guy is also the guy arguing strongly in favor of trade vetos to protect bad owners from themselves and the league from unfair advantages. That's a rare Venn diagram.

Fantasy football is a zero sum game where everyone has the same goal. It's not at all about protecting someone from themselves, but a bad trade directly hurts my team's chances of winning. It's not relevant to economics or politics. There's no right or wrong way to live your life, but there is in fantasy.

[clarion contrarion]

sounds pretty bassakwards so in real life anything goes but in fake football your code of rigidity is unwavering- lmao that is why I outgrew libertarians in my early 20s . Perhaps you will be so lucky liberty as defined by our constitution and founding fathers has been so bastardized that were the founding fathers to come back and see what their stunning visionary work has produced they would undo what they did , apologize and go fishing .

[snaps06]

Tsunami...

Dude, you're searching for something that doesn't exist. It is literally impossible to find even two people who have the same values as each other. You may be able to be close, but your valuations would never be exactly the same. I could read 100 experts' rankings and disagree with every one of them, and so would you.

Also, if a good team makes a good trade to make his good team a great team, then it is now an unfair trade? It sounds like you just get upset when someone makes a better trade than you and a team becomes better than or pulls away from yours.

BTW I believe the trade you used as an example was Edelman, 2 late firsts, and a 2nd for Brown, right? It looks to me like one team has done a fantastic job of acquiring several expendable assets to trade for a bonafide stud in order to go for the win, while giving another team the chance to rebuild. Isn't that literally what dynasty fantasy football is about?

Lastly, here are some recent players that would have fallen into that late-1st (or worse!) category (depending on league settings, obviously they would be different in a superflex): David Johnson, Jordan Howard, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Stefon Diggs, Allen Robinson, Devonta Freeman, Davante Adams. That's just a FEW of the players that consistently fell to double-digits in rookie drafts at times since 2014. You literally have no idea how this is all going to pan out, so who are you to judge what is and isn't fair?

[Generic Username]

Fantasy football is a zero sum game where everyone has the same goal. It's not at all about protecting someone from themselves, but a bad trade directly hurts my team's chances of winning. It's not relevant to economics or politics. There's no right or wrong way to live your life, but there is in fantasy.

I think this is either a limited or incorrect application of zero-sum game theory: the goal of every team may be the same, but the valuation of game pieces/assets differs greatly from team to team, thereby making the exactness of zero-sum impossible. From a limited scope, meaning just the 2 trade partners, trades probably could fall within the definition of zero-sum, but I don't think you can effectively/properly extrapolate that out to league wide application. Someone used a gambling reference in an earlier post, I think the inherent risk and variance of fantasy football equally nullifies zero-sum theory

[Tsunami]

Tsunami...

Dude, you're searching for something that doesn't exist. It is literally impossible to find even two people who have the same values as each other. You may be able to be close, but your valuations would never be exactly the same. I could read 100 experts' rankings and disagree with every one of them, and so would you.

Also, if a good team makes a good trade to make his good team a great team, then it is now an unfair trade? It sounds like you just get upset when someone makes a better trade than you and a team becomes better than or pulls away from yours.

BTW I believe the trade you used as an example was Edelman, 2 late firsts, and a 2nd for Brown, right? It looks to me like one team has done a fantastic job of acquiring several expendable assets to trade for a bonafide stud in order to go for the win, while giving another team the chance to rebuild. Isn't that literally what dynasty fantasy football is about?

Lastly, here are some recent players that would have fallen into that late-1st (or worse!) category (depending on league settings, obviously they would be different in a superflex): David Johnson, Jordan Howard, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Stefon Diggs, Allen Robinson, Devonta Freeman, Davante Adams. That's just a FEW of the players that consistently fell to double-digits in rookie drafts at times since 2014. You literally have no idea how this is all going to pan out, so who are you to judge what is and isn't fair?

Again you make it into a black and white issue where it has to be either exact or meaningless. You can read 100 expert's rankings and they might all be different but none of them are going to have Edelman higher than Antonio Brown. At some point there is a consensus on value. If my league was the only 16 people in the world playing fantasy football then it would be hard to say what exactly these players are worth, but that is not the case.

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

The owner who made this trade said in chat that Edelman is worth more than Amari Cooper or Keenan Allen. Would you want him in your league? We didn't veto it, I was just giving an example of the kind of trade that ruins leagues, and why, and how, like the OP asked. This particular league was ruined years ago so I didn't protest.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

The owner who made this trade said in chat that Edelman is worth more than Amari Cooper or Keenan Allen. Would you want him in your league? We didn't veto it, I was just giving an example of the kind of trade that ruins leagues, and why, and how, like the OP asked. This particular league was ruined years ago so I didn't protest.

1. It doesn't matter if you believe Antonio Brown is worth 3 1sts if no one in the league is willing to pay that price. If you're selling a used car, it doesn't matter if blue book value is $2,000 if the best offer you've gotten in months is $1,500 and you want to sell. You might in theory have gotten more, but if you're happy with $1,500, it doesn't make sense for there to be a law for the local car dealership to stop you from selling.

2. What if someone said last year Michael Crabtree > Tyrelle Pryor? Based on player valuation at the time, it would be kind of crazy. What if this year someone traded Amari Cooper for Larry Fitzgerald because they couldn't get a better offer? If they win the league with Fitzgerald as their WR3, then the trade is fair because who cares what Cooper is "worth".

3. I can see you believe what you believe, and that's fine. Unfortunately, I 100% disagree, but I've laid out my argument as well as I can, so to each their own. No offense to you, but I would rather have an owner that makes trades in my league (even if I think it's a somewhat bad trade) than an owner like you that vetoes just because they disagree on the value of a player.

[Cult of Dionysus]

For those who favor trade vetoes, could you articulate a standard by which trades should be evaluated?

[snaps06]

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. "You can't grade trades in hindsight and say it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better" is the part I disagree with. So you're saying that, for example, prior to the 2016 draft I hypothetically sold Antonio Brown for two high 1sts and drafted Laquon Treadwell and Corey Coleman, I'd be better off than if I'd sold Brown for two mid-to-late 1sts and ended up drafting Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard? In that case, hindsight DOES matter. Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard is pretty decent value for Antonio Brown.

[Tsunami]

1. It doesn't matter if you believe Antonio Brown is worth 3 1sts if no one in the league is willing to pay that price. If you're selling a used car, it doesn't matter if blue book value is $2,000 if the best offer you've gotten in months is $1,500 and you want to sell. You might in theory have gotten more, but if you're happy with $1,500, it doesn't make sense for there to be a law for the local car dealership to stop you from selling.

The only way to know if no one is willing to pay that price is if you shop him around. If you do that then you got the best value, so it's not a bad trade for the league that you're in. I'm not against that. You're assuming people know what they are doing, I'm against players who don't know what they are doing. And again, a real life car sale has nothing to do with it, because there's no "win" in life. Fantasy football is a zero sum game, if my neighbor gives his car away in real life it doesn't hurt me, but in a fantasy league it does.

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. "You can't grade trades in hindsight and say it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better" is the part I disagree with. So you're saying that, for example, prior to the 2016 draft I hypothetically sold Antonio Brown for two high 1sts and drafted Laquon Treadwell and Corey Coleman, I'd be better off than if I'd sold Brown for two mid-to-late 1sts and ended up drafting Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard? In that case, hindsight DOES matter. Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard is pretty decent value for Antonio Brown.

Two early firsts is always better than two late 1sts. You could have drafted Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard with them. You could have traded down to late 1sts and drafted them and gotten an additional pick. Who you select with the picks has no relevance to the value of the trade at the time it was done.

[clarion contrarion]

Being an awful drafter is or could be as harmful to a team or league as bad trades ;do we then infer that you will veto draft picks ? should I have vetoed every pick in leagues where I waited calmly while people snapped up doctson and treadwell while I walked down the hill and drafted thomas ? should I kick everyone out of my leagues that drafted bishop sankey early or montee ball where does the oversight stop .

You have made dozens of posts re enforcing your right to veto across a few threads with very few takers as to that being the right way to compete. Either all the other vetomongers are shy or you are mostly on an island. Damned shame you were not in one of my leagues few years back when I traded DHOP , ertz & a future 1st for megatron & asj and a following year 2nd - One dude whined and was shouted down as I run two 100% no veto leagues. Nearly every league I am in is no veto but it is standard fare for the league to rip apart stupid trades publicly. Do trades happen that I think are moronic ? sure all the time but every day in traffic people drive like complete jackasses and that does affect me but I don't fire up an hood mounted M60 and flame them .

We handle things a bit more adult in my leagues , we don't throw ourselves to the floor and start kicking our feet when someone pulls off a good deal , it seemed I had won the megatron deal but he retired after that season and ASJ has only know found himself it seems . That trade was lopsided but only as a mirror image of what the " do gooder " really thought - He was jealous (the root of all vetoes by the by) that the reigning champ had added megatron ,while I doubled with a repeat megatron was of little help NUK was as good that year better the next than mega and then mega was gone . Asj was so bad he got cut by the bucs and me and the dude used the 1:3 on melvin gordon and the next year I ended up with smallwood in the mid to late 2nd .

long winded post to say Dhop ertz & gordon for megatron ASJ and smallwood would have gotten vetoed to protect the poor soul that ended up with a boatload because someone was jealous . Now I sit and wonder dreamily what if only some jealous do gooder could have saved the league and helped turn my repeat champion into a 3 or 4 time champion juggernaut .

It is my team to decide and if someone else trades with an owner they probably have their own reasons maybe they don't like me maybe the better offer I make makes my team stronger and that is bad for the league as a whole so it is a better move if one is trying to accept a deal to make his team stronger vs the league as opposed to just stronger in general. If I have $5000 to buy the neighbors car and that car needs a muffler and and someone from across town has $4250 to buy the neighbors car and the neighbor is tired of hearing his car drive around without the muffler perhaps he sells it to the guy across town because he is tired of hearing the damned car.

I did it for the strength of the league is the whiner's motto easily translated into I am jealous .

You think you know .....but you just don't know !

[Goirish374]

For those who favor trade vetoes, could you articulate a standard by which trades should be evaluated?

The standard is what it always is in these discussions: the random whimsical standard of the vetoer.

The entire argument rests on the heuristic that:
1) i am a reasonable owner
2) i don’t agree with that valuation
3) therefore other owners don’t agree with that valuation

After all, you’re a reasonable owner...aren’t you?

Beyond the obvious fallacy, it omits the critical elements that:
1) “reasonability” is not the goal of either the trader or the tradee, only of third parties viewing the trade (the reasonability between the two parties involved is defined and inherent in the acceptance or rejection of the trade offer).
2) any trade is an acceptance of risk in exchange for the possibility of gain. The quantification of both the risk and the gain are—and necessarily ought to be—wildly subjective. Consensus on this point is wildly elusive and, further, is not only the purview but in fact the express responsibillity of the two owners involved in undertaking that risk.

[snaps06]

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. "You can't grade trades in hindsight and say it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better" is the part I disagree with. So you're saying that, for example, prior to the 2016 draft I hypothetically sold Antonio Brown for two high 1sts and drafted Laquon Treadwell and Corey Coleman, I'd be better off than if I'd sold Brown for two mid-to-late 1sts and ended up drafting Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard? In that case, hindsight DOES matter. Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard is pretty decent value for Antonio Brown.

Two early firsts is always better than two late 1sts. You could have drafted Michael Thomas and Jordan Howard with them. You could have traded down to late 1sts and drafted them and gotten an additional pick. Who you select with the picks has no relevance to the value of the trade at the time it was done.

I agree two early firsts is better than two late firsts, but when trading, it may be difficult to find an owner willing to trade exactly what you want so you settle for something else a tad lower, especially if an you're dead-set on selling a player. It all depends on the market, and it's NOT the responsibility of an owner selling to contact every single owner in the league to find out the entire market. Most of the time a team openly states in a chat or forum they are selling xxxxxx player(s) and are open to offers. If you fail to make an offer and a player is undersold, in that instance, there can be no objection to the trade saying "Ugh, I'd have given so much more for player xxxxxxxx. What were they thinking?"

Other than that, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, and see where you are coming from with your argument, but I thoroughly disagree with it. I doubt there is a single league in existence that epitomizes the ideals you are looking for in a league. There will always be people with different valuations and strategies. Rarely will a trade be perfectly even. There will be perceived winners and perceived losers. I can only think of a couple trades that, at the time, were viewed almost perfectly even. And almost no matter what the trade is, I think vetoes are completely unnecessary and destroy the integrity of a league the second they are used unless in cases of proven collusion. It's not my or your job to police and control other owner's teams. It's called fantasy football for a reason - you can build whatever team you want. Let fantasy football be fantasy football.

[Tsunami]

For those who favor trade vetoes, could you articulate a standard by which trades should be evaluated?

The standard is what it always is in these discussions: the random whimsical standard of the vetoer.

The entire argument rests on the heuristic that:
1) i am a reasonable owner
2) i don’t agree with that valuation
3) therefore other owners don’t agree with that valuation

Blahblahblah I don't understand any of your points so I"ll make a stupid straw man which proves me right in my own mind blahblahblah.

A quantifiable standard for when and when not to veto is possible using some sort of trade calc I suppose, but that would not be any more popular, nor would it be as helpful as simply using good judgement, something you can't seem to understand. How does the audience at the NFL draft know when to boo when a team picks DHB 7th overall? He could have been good, how did they know it was a bad pick? In the NFL when you screw up that badly you lose your job. In fantasy football you should lose your team. But since the replacement has no ties to the previous owner the trade should be reversed so they don't start out in a hole. And if you think they are capable of learning and let them keep their team, they still shouldn't be able to ruin the league during that learning process.

Being an awful drafter is or could be as harmful to a team or league as bad trades ;do we then infer that you will veto draft picks ? should I have vetoed every pick in leagues where I waited calmly while people snapped up doctson and treadwell while I walked down the hill and drafted thomas ? should I kick everyone out of my leagues that drafted bishop sankey early or montee ball where does the oversight stop .

A bad drafter doesn't help only one team. A bad trader helps only one team. I don't really want either one in my league, but a bad drafter is only hurting themselves while a bad trader is hurting me too, by helping a random competitor.

[Samhain34]

I'm currently in one "Dynasty" league in which trades can be vetoed. It's year three and I've been doing pretty well despite injuries. Here's a two of my vetoed trades.
Last year: I was getting killed at WR and tried to swap Ajayi for DeVante Parker and was told that I was giving away the farm (I was the Ajayi owner). My idiot commish (He's a friend, but has the soul of a redraft player). Puts the trade on the message board leading with "I think this trade should be vetoed. The SAME commish this year week two trades me Diggs for Ajayi; calls it a great deal.

A few weeks later I try to trade CMC and S. Shepard (I'm pretty loaded at WR and we have shallow benches) for Corey Davis. Same thing; entire league goes crazy that I'm giving away the farm. I post links to dynasty trade calculators that show it's slightly in favor of the other owner, but my WRs are Alshon/Keenan/Kelvin/Diggs and Shepard won't near my lineup. They veto it. I somehow get CMC for Davis straight up through. People in the league call Corey Davis a WR 4/5 while CMC, after two decent weeks, was "a star".

My idiot commish then trades Ajayi away for Wentz (1QB) and, needing a running back, immediately sends Thielen for...wait for it....

Adrian Peterson.
In a supposed Dynasty league.

This is a league that let me walk away in the draft with Kamara in the second (draft is late Ausust, so the secret was out) and D. Foreman in the third. The only reason I'm not gone already is I'm friends with most of them and am starting a true dynasty league next season, so I don't want to walk off in a huff. But I will tell you this after being vetoed a few times:
I hate this league. Hate it. Being told how I can run my team by people who cannot understand dynasty valuations is miserable and I'm throwing my money away. If people want to trade, let them.

One more valuation story: When this league started three years ago I had the 1.02. Since it was dynasty I figured I'd take set it and forget it QB Andrew Luck, getting Mariota in the 8th as my backup. You already know how that's worked out. Luck has been constantly injured and Mariota is missing time every year with him. "Taking care of my QB position" has led me to starting (over the years) Josh McCown, Smokin' Jay, Big Ben (in away games), Jacoby Brissett, Brian Hoyer, Trevor Siemian, et. al. THAT is why people need to be allowed to make their own deals. Again, I'm leaving a fun league with friends over the rage at being told how I can run my team, and by extension, spend my money.

Anybody who supports vetoing trades (save collusion) can go soak their head.

[Orenthal Shames]

Tsunami...

Dude, you're searching for something that doesn't exist. It is literally impossible to find even two people who have the same values as each other. You may be able to be close, but your valuations would never be exactly the same. I could read 100 experts' rankings and disagree with every one of them, and so would you.

Also, if a good team makes a good trade to make his good team a great team, then it is now an unfair trade? It sounds like you just get upset when someone makes a better trade than you and a team becomes better than or pulls away from yours.

BTW I believe the trade you used as an example was Edelman, 2 late firsts, and a 2nd for Brown, right? It looks to me like one team has done a fantastic job of acquiring several expendable assets to trade for a bonafide stud in order to go for the win, while giving another team the chance to rebuild. Isn't that literally what dynasty fantasy football is about?

Lastly, here are some recent players that would have fallen into that late-1st (or worse!) category (depending on league settings, obviously they would be different in a superflex): David Johnson, Jordan Howard, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Stefon Diggs, Allen Robinson, Devonta Freeman, Davante Adams. That's just a FEW of the players that consistently fell to double-digits in rookie drafts at times since 2014. You literally have no idea how this is all going to pan out, so who are you to judge what is and isn't fair?

Again you make it into a black and white issue where it has to be either exact or meaningless. You can read 100 expert's rankings and they might all be different but none of them are going to have Edelman higher than Antonio Brown. At some point there is a consensus on value. If my league was the only 16 people in the world playing fantasy football then it would be hard to say what exactly these players are worth, but that is not the case.

And again, it doesn't matter if the late 1st could possibly become a stud, because getting two 1sts when you could get three 1sts is always a loss. You can't grade trades in hindsight and say that it turned out good, because if he had made a fair deal it would have turned out better. That's the criteria, not whether one player gets hit by a bus. Some things you can't predict, but trade values are still quantifiable within reason.

The owner who made this trade said in chat that Edelman is worth more than Amari Cooper or Keenan Allen. Would you want him in your league? We didn't veto it, I was just giving an example of the kind of trade that ruins leagues, and why, and how, like the OP asked. This particular league was ruined years ago so I didn't protest.

Why are you still playing in a "ruined" league and worse yet, whining about "unfair" things that happen in it?