Trade vetoed by league. I need the forum to settle it.

[hoos89]

Our league does vetoes in 2 circumstances: (1) collusion and (2) near total outrage by rest of league. This has worked well so far. Given this trade meets neither, i think it should stand

a top team gaining a top player and paying scraps wouldnt fall under the second circumstance for you? id imagine the league was not pleased in the least

I'm not a huge fan of the trade, but let's not act like Fournette is suddenly a top-tier RB. He has essentially 0 TD upside and is a high risk player to hold. This is a difficult deal to overturn because while it looks bad from a value standpoint today, all it takes is one or two of those pieces turning into a highly productive player or Fournette getting hurt or suspended to flip the perception of it. Trades like that should stand.

[Dynasty_Analyst]

Unless your inactive everyone receives a lopsided offer. If this happened to be maybe im the extreme I'd let them know I'm finishing out the year then I'm done and they can get 12 comanagers together who enjoy comanaging each other's teams

[jonesmaster]

Our league does vetoes in 2 circumstances: (1) collusion and (2) near total outrage by rest of league. This has worked well so far. Given this trade meets neither, i think it should stand

a top team gaining a top player and paying scraps wouldnt fall under the second circumstance for you? id imagine the league was not pleased in the least

I made that assumption based on the fact that OP was taking it here to help determine (i.e. "i need the forum to settle it"). Of course, if there is league-wide disagreement, which only OP can know, I would be in favor of vetoing. The logic is that collusion and outrage both typically result in disbanding the league (b/c of max exodus) and i think you need a veto to stop that from happening.

[McCafsteez]

LOL i did not think this post would be this controversial. The trade is not as bad as everyone is saying. Plain and simple, no collusion = no veto. If you start vetoing deals like this, then almost every trade could starting getting vetoed.

[tominansky]

Anyone who voted to veto here has trade envy. Should never veto unless collusion.

[Dunville]

Very fair trade considering one of the teams is rebuilding

[Mephistopheles]

I don't see what's wrong with this trade. Why was it vetoed?
I mean, it's a little light for Fournette, but if that side were selling the player I would expect it to be.
Maybe this league doesn't understand the concepts of buyer's premium/seller's discount?

[jpusmc0311]

there should only be a veto if there's obvious collusion.

[Dibbles]

LOL i did not think this post would be this controversial. The trade is not as bad as everyone is saying. Plain and simple, no collusion = no veto. If you start vetoing deals like this, then almost every trade could starting getting vetoed.

^ This

[thomasscheeks]

I would demand this trade be reinstated or I would leave the league. Vetoes are reserved for collusion and collusion only

[NFL123]

No way should that have been a veto. It's not a great trade but it's nowhere near veto, rules like that kill leagues and makes everything subjective from now on.

[mgregoirec]

Piling on, there should never be a "vote" option on trade between two owners. No other owners should have a say between two grown men trading players even if some of them thinks it's lopsided. Quit the league now before it's too late.

[StripesOfKC]

No idea if people who say “no veto ever” actually understand the reality of what they are saying. It is dynasty. It is pretty much impossible to prove collusion. There are trades that will 100% ruin the competition in a league for years if they go through. If you give the contending Zeke and Barkley owner CMC or MT for Andy Isabella+Justice Hill+3rd, your league will not be all that competitive for years.
This meets the threshold of ruining a league. Giving a RB1 at a decent age and not getting a single asset the level of a 1st round pick back
Trades affect the whole league not just the teams involved. Giving a pile of underperforming garbage for a stud should 100% get a veto.
Rip into me all you want and tell me how giving Donte Moncrief and a 2nd for JuJu is “fair and should stand” but when something like this happens in your league, then you can talk about how all trades should stand

[hoos89]

No idea if people who say “no veto ever” actually understand the reality of what they are saying. It is dynasty. It is pretty much impossible to prove collusion. There are trades that will 100% ruin the competition in a league for years if they go through. If you give the contending Zeke and Barkley owner CMC or MT for Andy Isabella+Justice Hill+3rd, your league will not be all that competitive for years.
This meets the threshold of ruining a league. Giving a RB1 at a decent age and not getting a single asset the level of a 1st round pick back
Trades affect the whole league not just the teams involved. Giving a pile of underperforming garbage for a stud should 100% get a veto.
Rip into me all you want and tell me how giving Donte Moncrief and a 2nd for JuJu is “fair and should stand” but when something like this happens in your league, then you can talk about how all trades should stand

I'm guessing every person has been in a league where a trade worse than this has stood. The example that always come to mind for me is Jacquizz Rodgers for Aaron Hernandez about a month before Hernandez got arrested for murder. I also let Tyreek for a 2020 3rd stand in a league this offseason (this was when his value was at its lowest but he was probably still worth a late first/early 2nd based on ADP).

Also I think a lot of people mean that you should only veto if you can prove collusion OR if the only conceivable reason a trade would have been made is because of collusion. When I say "only veto if collusion", I don't mean that you need to find a smoking gun or get a confession, but if the trade is just so inconceivably one-sided that it would only make sense if the owners made an outside arrangement then it should be considered collusive and vetoed. This is a *very* high standard and I think the Jacquizz/Hernandez trade is the only one that actually came particularly close...and the value STILL ended up being on the other side.

You're substituting your judgment for the other owner's here. A lot of people would call Fournette a high risk, fringe RB1. He's got a history of injuries and character issues. He's scored 6 TDs in his last 15 games (dating to start of last season) so he doesn't have crazy week-to-week upside either. What are you going to tell the Fournette owner when Fournette gets injured, or when JJAW, Ross, Isabella, or the player he was targeting at 2.01 break out next season or the season after? This is dynasty...too much can change over a long enough stretch of time and we just should not be attempting to manage other people's teams like this. Would I have personally sold Fournette for this package? No. But I think there is a rationale for it other than collusion.

[saw061600]

No idea if people who say “no veto ever” actually understand the reality of what they are saying. It is dynasty. It is pretty much impossible to prove collusion. There are trades that will 100% ruin the competition in a league for years if they go through. If you give the contending Zeke and Barkley owner CMC or MT for Andy Isabella+Justice Hill+3rd, your league will not be all that competitive for years.
This meets the threshold of ruining a league. Giving a RB1 at a decent age and not getting a single asset the level of a 1st round pick back
Trades affect the whole league not just the teams involved. Giving a pile of underperforming garbage for a stud should 100% get a veto.
Rip into me all you want and tell me how giving Donte Moncrief and a 2nd for JuJu is “fair and should stand” but when something like this happens in your league, then you can talk about how all trades should stand

First, since you're the 1 person who voted veto, I'd say it's more likely we do have an idea of what we are saying.
Second, it's absolutely not impossible to have good enough evidence of collusion to warrant a veto. This isn't a legal setting, it's a fantasy football league.
Third, I've observed worse trades than this and it absolutely did not end in a non competitive league.
Fourth, this trade NO WAY IN HELL meets any threshold of being so awful that it's going to destroy the league.
Fifth, most of us don't "Rip into" anyone. However, I have often found that those who make this assumption are the same who end up ripping into others.