So Why No Trade Vetoes In Dynasty Leagues?

[turcorox911]

It seems like the general consensus is that there should not be trade vetoes in dynasty leagues. I've played in many redraft leagues where the trade veto, whether held by the Commish or the league members has worked well. So what's the reasoning behind not having a trade veto in Dynasty League formats?

[ArrylT]

Simply put - because values change instantly and differently for each owner in each league. See example of the owner arguing that G. Allison is an overpay for L. Jackson.

I do not have many shares of C. Kupp but recently in one league I am in an owner offered me a late 1st & a 3rd for him & I declined - todays injury news would likely suggest that said owner would not even offer that tomorrow.

So you cannot fairly veto a trade where the valuations change from week to week much less month to month because the "line in the sand" of what is fair & what is not will always be different from 1 day to the next.

That does not mean that owners cannot & do not make bad trades - but (a) you cannot learn & improve as a owner if you are blocked from making what everyone else deems mistakes and (b) a majority of owners telling another owner what they can & cannot do simply does not work for the long term health of a league (imho).

If an owner wants to spend a 1st on Larry Fitzgerald, or gives up D. Johnson for D. Martin & a 2nd - that is their choice. Leagues can always remove owners down the road if the owner makes a complete mess of a team over an extended period.

Trades get vetoed in redraft leagues to ensure that cheating does not occur - because once the season is done it is done. But in dynasty the season never ends (or so it is said).

[Valhalla]

Is this the one people don’t want to feed?

[Forza_Azzurri]

ArryIT put it best.

For me, the only trade I’ve ever had vetoed was in 1999 when I tried to send Kordell Stewart for Isaac Bruce. I was told that was the worst trade ever .... 🤬🤬🤬

[dynastyninja]

Is this the one people don’t want to feed?

It depends. Are we feeding him a sandwich upside-down or right side up?

[hockeyBjj]

Is this the one people don’t want to feed?

No feeding zone

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

[Blueboy]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

I'd say collusion is whenever two owners run into each other. Sounds painful, should definitely be banned.

[Valhalla]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

I'd say collusion is whenever two owners run into each other. Sounds painful, should definitely be banned.

No no no you’re thinking of colision. Collusion implies that they collided hard enough for there to be notable capillary damage and blood accumulation in the surrounding area.

[Blueboy]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

I'd say collusion is whenever two owners run into each other. Sounds painful, should definitely be banned.

No no no you’re thinking of colision. Collusion implies that they collided hard enough for there to be notable capillary damage and blood accumulation in the surrounding area.

Well that sounds even worse.

[CK_]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

I'd say collusion is whenever two owners run into each other. Sounds painful, should definitely be banned.

No no no you’re thinking of colision. Collusion implies that they collided hard enough for there to be notable capillary damage and blood accumulation in the surrounding area.

No no no no you are thinking of a contusion. Collusion is when they both collide so violently that both their brains actually rattle inside their heads!

[PR0v3]

I often hear people say no veto unless it’s collusion, but can someone explain to me exactly what collusion even is? What if we tell the league what we’re doing, if everyone knows then can it technically be collusion? I want us to all come to a consensus on what collusion is and then we can tackle the subject of vetos.

To me, collusion is when a trade goes through that I wish I could have been a part of.

[turcorox911]

Simply put - because values change instantly and differently for each owner in each league. See example of the owner arguing that G. Allison is an overpay for L. Jackson.

I do not have many shares of C. Kupp but recently in one league I am in an owner offered me a late 1st & a 3rd for him & I declined - todays injury news would likely suggest that said owner would not even offer that tomorrow.

So you cannot fairly veto a trade where the valuations change from week to week much less month to month because the "line in the sand" of what is fair & what is not will always be different from 1 day to the next.

That does not mean that owners cannot & do not make bad trades - but (a) you cannot learn & improve as a owner if you are blocked from making what everyone else deems mistakes and (b) a majority of owners telling another owner what they can & cannot do simply does not work for the long term health of a league (imho).

If an owner wants to spend a 1st on Larry Fitzgerald, or gives up D. Johnson for D. Martin & a 2nd - that is their choice. Leagues can always remove owners down the road if the owner makes a complete mess of a team over an extended period.

Trades get vetoed in redraft leagues to ensure that cheating does not occur - because once the season is done it is done. But in dynasty the season never ends (or so it is said).

Late first and 3rd is actually not a bad deal for Kupp, but I think you were right to not accept it. If he threw in a 2nd as well, then I'd take it, and if he thinks that's lopsided, then I'd throw back a 4th and/or a 5th in return, lol.

[ArrylT]

I'd say collusion is whenever two owners run into each other. Sounds painful, should definitely be banned.

No no no you’re thinking of colision. Collusion implies that they collided hard enough for there to be notable capillary damage and blood accumulation in the surrounding area.

No no no no you are thinking of a contusion. Collusion is when they both collide so violently that both their brains actually rattle inside their heads!

If they were unable to avoid the collision that caused the contusion that led to the thoughts of collusion it might have been due to the corrosion of their brakes ...

[sloth8u]

Ive often thought that trades in dynasty leagues should be awarded to the highest bidder amongst the league rather than 2 owners negotiating behind closed doors.

Seems as if that would take care of deals that may be considered for veto. Would also allow for the seller to get top dollar from all owners interested. Way to many times ive seen owners benefit from acquiring at discounts.