Veto Trade?

[The MAC Machine]

Don’t want my tone to come off as bein a dick here, genuinely interested:

Those of you that posted that think the trade is way lopsided: what do you think should actually be done here? Veto?

If I were you (and I know I’m late to the convo) I’d have each owner break down and defend their end of the trade and why there was need for such excess. Its not that the trade needs to be vetoed. Its just that there’s so much extra that doesn’t make sense.

Giving up 10 assets for 1 player is a lot. After they each explained their sides, I’d just have them rework it to shed some of the excess value being exchanged.

Why are you just counting assets? 4ths, 5ths, 6ths and 7ths have de minimis value and can hardly even be considered assets. If I gave up 2 3rds, 2 4ths, 2 5ths, 2 6ths and 2 7ths for Kamara would that be a lot? That's just a weird way to value a trade.

MT and Henry are probably the two biggest changes in value when you switch from PPR to non-PPR: Henry has never has 20 receptions in a season; MT just set the single season reception record. Add in that there is sometimes a requirement to start 3RBs and you get a sensible argument for this trade.

Also, if the side of a trade that you think gave up too much is a power house in the league, I generally think it makes the deal FAR less suspect as the narrative for collusion is just way less plausible.

I hear what you are saying. But even if you broke it down to

Henry for MT and 2 1sts being fair. (Which I’d agree is fair)
It still leaves you with
2 4th rounders on each side cancelling out (why even swap them?)
and then Peoples Jones for Drake, Higbee, 2 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths

All I’m saying is no matter how you slice it...it’s overkill at some point. Even if you added Drake to the MT side of the breakdown, trading Higbee and 6 picks for People’s Jones is still excessive. That’s all I’m saying. I get being high on a player...but it just seems like assets are being moved with little regard between 2 people who have a close relationship. Its the excessiveness + the relationship part that makes me call it into question. Not necessarily the MT for Henry part. You can slice the trade in a way that makes that part of the exchange fair.

[JJRules]

All I’m saying is no matter how you slice it...it’s overkill at some point.

It's total overkill, but if it results in the "losing" side making the championship game and maybe even winning it all then it was 100% worth it.

Giving an underperforming big-name player and a ton of depth for a big-name player who's actually producing at a position of relative scarcity is a valid strategy, and one I actually foresee working out well for both sides, given their respective goals.

[Ice]

Non PPr,
Small rosters

The guy getting Henry can now start
Chubb
CMC
Henry

To those getting wrapped up in the fluff of a bunch of meaningless assets.....
Play Chess once in a while. That was a bold and calculating move.

This isn't close to a veto and the owners don't need an explanation.....Get off My Lawn is probably what the new Henry owner is thinking.

FYI, those 3 RB's had 45 TD's last year and anyone that looks at their playoff schedule will see 8 favorable match-ups in their 9 collective games.

[hoos89]

I hear what you are saying. But even if you broke it down to

Henry for MT and 2 1sts being fair. (Which I’d agree is fair)
It still leaves you with
2 4th rounders on each side cancelling out (why even swap them?)
and then Peoples Jones for Drake, Higbee, 2 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths

All I’m saying is no matter how you slice it...it’s overkill at some point. Even if you added Drake to the MT side of the breakdown, trading Higbee and 6 picks for People’s Jones is still excessive. That’s all I’m saying. I get being high on a player...but it just seems like assets are being moved with little regard between 2 people who have a close relationship. Its the excessiveness + the relationship part that makes me call it into question. Not necessarily the MT for Henry part. You can slice the trade in a way that makes that part of the exchange fair.

I'm not trying to argue that it's fair, or that I would have sold MT at that price, but that's not really relevant to whether this trade should stand. I'm not a full "veto only for collusion guy", but I still think that if there's any plausible rationale for both sides of the trade then it should stand, and I see that here. Those 1sts are likely to be late and their value is speculative. MT is trending down. It's non-PPR. Drake may never produce at a reliable level again. Kirk has some upside but I can understand not being high on him. Henry is an absolute stud at RB and is producing big numbers (especially in non-PPR) right now. The owner getting Henry is in serious contention. I think this is a major overpay, but it's a chips-in move and if Henry wins this guy a title it'll be hard to argue with it. Also the relationship would only be a concern to me if I felt the contending team was getting too much. "Collusion" gets thrown around a lot as another word for a really lopsided trade, but remember that ultimately collusion requires some arrangement outside of the confines of the league. Most commonly, it would be an arrangement for a bad team to send assets to a good team in exchange for a cut of the winnings (if the good team wins), or where the good team just directly pays the bad team. It would be super weird to see the opposite happen.

(Also people often throw 4th and later picks around with no regard because they attach pretty much 0 value to them and view them as pretty much a nuisance)

[thebeast]

Giving up 10 assets for 1 player is a lot. After they each explained their sides, I’d just have them rework it to shed some of the excess value being exchanged.

Why are you just counting assets? 4ths, 5ths, 6ths and 7ths have de minimis value and can hardly even be considered assets. If I gave up 2 3rds, 2 4ths, 2 5ths, 2 6ths and 2 7ths for Kamara would that be a lot? That's just a weird way to value a trade.

MT and Henry are probably the two biggest changes in value when you switch from PPR to non-PPR: Henry has never has 20 receptions in a season; MT just set the single season reception record. Add in that there is sometimes a requirement to start 3RBs and you get a sensible argument for this trade.

Also, if the side of a trade that you think gave up too much is a power house in the league, I generally think it makes the deal FAR less suspect as the narrative for collusion is just way less plausible.

I hear what you are saying. But even if you broke it down to

Henry for MT and 2 1sts being fair. (Which I’d agree is fair)
It still leaves you with
2 4th rounders on each side cancelling out (why even swap them?)
and then Peoples Jones for Drake, Higbee, 2 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths

All I’m saying is no matter how you slice it...it’s overkill at some point. Even if you added Drake to the MT side of the breakdown, trading Higbee and 6 picks for People’s Jones is still excessive. That’s all I’m saying. I get being high on a player...but it just seems like assets are being moved with little regard between 2 people who have a close relationship. Its the excessiveness + the relationship part that makes me call it into question. Not necessarily the MT for Henry part. You can slice the trade in a way that makes that part of the exchange fair.

I think a lot of this is speculation as we don’t know how many teams are in the league and what the roster size is. What if it’s a 12 team league with 18 roster spots? Those picks are worthless.

[The MAC Machine]

I hear what you are saying. But even if you broke it down to

Henry for MT and 2 1sts being fair. (Which I’d agree is fair)
It still leaves you with
2 4th rounders on each side cancelling out (why even swap them?)
and then Peoples Jones for Drake, Higbee, 2 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths

All I’m saying is no matter how you slice it...it’s overkill at some point. Even if you added Drake to the MT side of the breakdown, trading Higbee and 6 picks for People’s Jones is still excessive. That’s all I’m saying. I get being high on a player...but it just seems like assets are being moved with little regard between 2 people who have a close relationship. Its the excessiveness + the relationship part that makes me call it into question. Not necessarily the MT for Henry part. You can slice the trade in a way that makes that part of the exchange fair.

I'm not trying to argue that it's fair, or that I would have sold MT at that price, but that's not really relevant to whether this trade should stand. I'm not a full "veto only for collusion guy", but I still think that if there's any plausible rationale for both sides of the trade then it should stand, and I see that here. Those 1sts are likely to be late and their value is speculative. MT is trending down. It's non-PPR. Drake may never produce at a reliable level again. Kirk has some upside but I can understand not being high on him. Henry is an absolute stud at RB and is producing big numbers (especially in non-PPR) right now. The owner getting Henry is in serious contention. I think this is a major overpay, but it's a chips-in move and if Henry wins this guy a title it'll be hard to argue with it. Also the relationship would only be a concern to me if I felt the contending team was getting too much. "Collusion" gets thrown around a lot as another word for a really lopsided trade, but remember that ultimately collusion requires some arrangement outside of the confines of the league. Most commonly, it would be an arrangement for a bad team to send assets to a good team in exchange for a cut of the winnings (if the good team wins), or where the good team just directly pays the bad team. It would be super weird to see the opposite happen.

(Also people often throw 4th and later picks around with no regard because they attach pretty much 0 value to them and view them as pretty much a nuisance)

Like the beast mentioned we know nothing about the details of this league. What if Rounds 1-3 is just rookies and rounds 4-7 is a FA draft? That could significantly change how those picks are valued. I think we are all on the same page in terms of not wanting to veto, or trying to see the best in the deal. I would just want to hear the intention behind adding anything beyond the 1sts. The 4th swap is weird and then just adding the rest of the picks (which btw, since they have 2 in each round means that at some point he intentionally acquired extras) just seemed like unnecessary gimmes. Peoples-Jones isn’t a win now piece so how did he factor in? If it were Antonio Brown I would get the “win now” vibe a bit more. Its just a really odd trade and should at least be heard in kangaroo court.

Also, we have only seen what the team receiving Henry looks like. What does the team receiving everything else look like? Who do they have to drop if the rosters are small?

[hoos89]

Small rosters make Kirk and Drake worth less, and to the extent that the other team has to drop anyone it means they're effectively getting less value from this trade, which cuts further in the direction of "no veto". Maybe if 4ths through 7ths have actual value in this league because it's really a keeper league I guess, but note that if there's not room for those players taken in the 4th-7th to be kept from year to year they're still not super valuable from a dynasty perspective (and this guy is pushing all-in on this season).

[grooner]

As others have mentioned have mentioned this seems like an overpay, but I think most of those comments come from a PPR background, in a non-ppr this might not even be an overpay. Henry is an elite RB, that was just given a new contract and will continue to be fed.
There are also a lot of comments saying did the MT owner shop him. Maybe Team B just really wanted Henry, views him as his dynasty #1 (in non-ppr easily plausible), and Team A also didn't want to give up Henry. Only way team B could get Henry was a perceived overpayment. This also gives Team B more roster room to add/drop free agents, which maybe they value. That being said, no veto.
The worst trade I have ever seen was in a 16 team startup, where one guy traded his first round startup pick for another teams future first. Everyone wanted it vetoed as it was ridiculous, but they let it stand. The team that gave up the first round startup actually ended up winning the league a few years down the line, learning from that first trade. The best way to learn dynasty is to make a really bad trade lol.

[Brig]

OP here....just wanted to answer a few questions that were popping up.

1st The trade went through with no veto and the Commish flat out rejected the idea of a veto or the idea that the rest of the owners wanted to establish a trade committee as a result of this trade.

2nd This is a 10 team league with 30 Roster spots we play with IDP 1 DL 1 LB 1 DB and we also have an 18 player Developmental Roster for players that we draft in late rookie rounds. This is a Salary cap Dynasty league.

3rd Its Non PPR with 1 extra point for each 20 yards Rushing or Receiving and 50 yards passing.

4th Both teams posted on our boards prior to this deal letting others know they were moving these players. I even offered for Henry, but it was no where close to what he was traded for. I offered a 1st and a 2nd and Goedert , Shenault, Fournette and never got a response as the Henry owner is extremely hard to trade with. My offer simply was weak. Understand though that I make deals with the majority of the owners in this league even the MT owner but have never made a deal with the owner of Henry during our time together. Over 20 years, we don't see eye to eye. It was a cursory offer to see if I could get him talking.

The swapping of future 4th rounders is extremely odd to me. But it means little in the grand scheme of the trade and I am with the majority on this trade and have posted on our league boards how I support the trade after reading the opinions of most of you. Its non PPR and Henry is worth more than MT especially this season. Yes He overpaid for Henry but I understand and support it.