Question regarding a trade

[djeternal2]

First off I am NOT turco nor any subsidiary or alt of his acct. This actually happened in my league today.


Ok so my buddy joined my main dynasty league this offseason as we had 2 original members leave due to time constraints. He is new to dynasty but not FF. So my buddy is not sold on Lindsay repeating what he did last year and wanted to sell. Now he did not put him on the trade block nor did he shop Lindsay around. He did end up in talks with one particular owner (no idea who started the talks but it's irrelevant).

This morning a trade notice pops up he gives Lindsay and gets a 2020 second. So shortly after the trade notice pops up one of the owners that is not involved in the trade pops into the groupme chat and states how bad of a trade it is. A handful of others including the commish agree and the commish agrees that even tho our constitution states no veto except for collusion he was leaving it up to a veto vote which takes 4 votes. The reasoning is that Lindsay has been seen in other leagues going for at the least a late first therefore the new guy got fleeced. And that the owner should have shopped Lindsay around. Surprise ending...it was vetoed.

Once I saw this I told my buddy since 4 ppl feel Lindsay is worth more than a second to send out an offer of Lindsay for their first. Whomever hits accept first gets Lindsay. The commish jumped into chat as I was talking to my buddy and asked for the owners that vetoed to step up and state why they voted to veto. The first guy that said he vetoed I asked so if he sends you Lindsay for a first you accept? His answer surprise of all surprises....nope I don't need a RB but Lindsay is worth a first. So I said ah ok you voted it down because someone MAYBE will give a first for Lindsay. Got it!

This is where is starts devolving. The commish stated he wouldn't give a first cuz he didn't need Lindsay. I'm not a believer in Lindsay myself at a first value so I'm out. The owner obviously can't give himself a first and the owner giving the second refused to give a first. So out of the 10 teams in the league 5 have already said no. Next owner jumps in (it's the owner getting Lindsay's roomate) states he wouldn't give a first again because he doesn't need Lindsay and that he only voted veto because he didn't think it would actually get vetoed. It was supposed to be a jab at his roommate (excellent idea but I digress). So now we are at 6, only 4 to go. Another veto owner chimes in stating he voted to veto. He never actually claims he wouldn't give a first. But when I pressed him on putting his money where his mouth was because his veto reason again was Lindsay is worth a first and we need to save this new owner from himself he would not commit. Therefore I publicly stated I putting him down as not willing to send a first for Lindsay. As the situation devolved this owner actually claimed all moves by new owners into the league should be up for vote in year 1 in the league to which I called him out on wanting to run other people's teams and asked if they should text or call him when they set their lineups.

So now we've heard from 7 owners none of which are actually willing to part with a 2020 first for Lindsay but some insist he's worth that. So I started pointing out that if no one in the league is willing to actually part with a 2020 first in this league then in this league he's not worth a first no matter what you saw him go for in other leagues and that the owner actually did get fair market value in our league. Sure you can say well he could've gotten a second+ but is that really worth arguing for hours over? No and I don't feel the first to second is worth it either but again I digress.

The owner that feels we should run new owners teams for the first year then starts with the name calling stating I'm a retarded troll, stating I'm a kid and to let the adults talk, & that I'm a liar. As it turns out at this point the commish seeing how things have turned very ugly over this trade feels bad for making an exception to the bylaws and allowing it to go to a veto wants to basically end it and move on, sends his 2020 first for Lindsay and a 2020 third. Lindsay owner accepts and everyone is happy except as of the writing of this post we still have not heard from the owner that had his trade vetoed (illegally per the bylaws). It would not surprise me if I wake up tomorrow and see that owner having vacated his team. Maybe he won't take it personally. Maybe he won't see this as the possible beginning of a slippery slope. I would in his shoes and would probably move on. We'll see.

TL;DR: Lindsay traded for a 2020 2nd was vetoed when there is no clause in the bylaws for a veto because ppl feel he's worth a first. It ended up hours later with a different owner trading a 2020 first for Lindsay & a 2020 3rd.

Now all that said should this trade have created this much chaos over a period of a few hours?

[Jigga94]

This is why you don't allow vetoes

[hockeyBjj]

This is why you don't allow vetoes

Lol. Yup. Everything there could have been avoided with a simple "Well, the new guy lost some value. Quit bitching. Happens. Educate him if someone wants and move on" from the commish

Pretty chicken bleep of them to veto then none to offer up a first of their own. I'd for sure offer a first for Lindsay in any of my leagues

[Cult of Dionysus]

This is why:

You shouldn't play in 10 team leagues or less.

Join a league without robust Bylaws.

Pick a kicker early.

Piss in the wind.

[djeternal2]

Update from the commish. A handful of owners are now claiming collusion because it was the commish that ultimately traded a first for Lindsay and a third. The commish is seriously thinking about blowing the league up as some owners seem to want to run other peoples teams.

[TimeWillTell]

Sounds toxic

[Ice]

What a stupid league,

You all get what you deserve.

The end!

[Bot101]

You're in a league full of idiots. Ironically except for the new guy. And yourself of course.

[lukkynumber13]

Hahaha wow


Leave the league. Stupid league. Sorry, not sorry.

[briank]

This should be shown to every person on this forum with questions about vetoes.

[djeternal2]

This should be shown to every person on this forum with questions about vetoes.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[wickerkat1212]

No vetoes. Agree with Ice and Lukky. Stupid league. I'd leave. WTH.

[moishetreats]

There are two issues:

1) The Commish messed up and admitted as such. Had he never called for a vote, then the result would have been the typical sour grapes grumbling.

2) This issue did, however, seem to raise underlying issues in the league of distrust, whining, and potentially toxicity. It's up to you to evaluate the cost / benefit of staying in the league given what surfaced. (Of course, it's possible that these issues were a one-time anomaly, but you would know best if that's the case or if this is a symptom of real problems.) Put another way: all the grumblings, vetoes, and complaints in this case seem pretty messed up.

[sloth8u]

Remind your commish that the bylaws are there for a reason. No veto vote means no veto vote. This could have been prevented.

[Jigga94]

Time to start over... With a new commish... And new owners