Discussion: How egregious does a trade need to be before you support a veto?

[Lumps]

Topic title. Feel free to articulate it however you like.

Only collusion?
A specific gap in value?
A new owner being an idiot?
League health?

[Pac_Eddy]

Pretty much only proven collusion.

I've seen a lot of trades that looked lopsided that, in a year or two, ended up being great for the perceived loser. You have to let people run terms as they see fit.

[Bronco Billy]

As a commish, I’m firmly committed to let owners manage their own teams, for better or worse. Just because I have value fixed in my mind does not make it correct, and far be it for me to substitute my judgment of value over another owner running their own team.

We do have collusion written into our rules, but there is no hard definition for it other than the obvious pooling of the players on two or more teams for the overt betterment of one team at the expense of another. I believe in the Potter Stewart philosophy when asked to define hard core pornography, in that he admitted he could not specifically define it, “but I know it when I see it”.

In our league it requires more than one owner officially complaining about what they consider collusion, a discussion during which the involved owners are allowed to explain their positions, and then it goes to a vote of all but the owners involved in the action, and then at least 75% of the voting owners agreeing, at which point the trade is overturned and the offending owners are immediately expelled.

In 22 years we have never seen a charge of collusion, much less the following discussion and vote.

We have had a couple owners fail to manage their teams properly - failing to submit a full lineup multiples weeks and/or starting players on byes when they had other options. I’ll usually have a long one on one discussion to try to figure out what’s going on, and in the past season having it come to a public hashing out. We’ve had to replace 2 owners that way over the years and they admit they lost interest or had personal life keep them from playing. I helped them limp through the rest of the season with my assist and then them stepping aside after the season is over.

But that’s pretty much it.

[abloom]

only collusion

I support two players agreeing between themselves what seems fair to each.

[natjjohn]

In general agree with thoughts in collusion BUT if something is just comical, have to veto. I mean truly comical where there is no explanation (e.g. Josh Allen for pick 50 in a SF rookie draft, etc.).

[Cameron Giles]

Collusion duh.

League health also matters significantly. If there's a deal that absolutely pillages a team, people need to step in.

[Anteaters]

In general agree with thoughts in collusion BUT if something is just comical, have to veto. I mean truly comical where there is no explanation (e.g. Josh Allen for pick 50 in a SF rookie draft, etc.).

++
And it doesn't even have to be that egregious.
Someone trading Mahomes for JJMcCarthy+pieces, I'll let this horrible trade pass because maybe someone believes in miracles. Trading Mahomes for Fields+spare change, we're going to have to have a conversation. No one can be that stupid.

[killer_of_giants]

No one can be that stupid.

just avoid plant-like IQ people and the league will be fine.

[Lumps]

Collusion duh.

League health also matters significantly. If there's a deal that absolutely pillages a team, people need to step in.

What is a threshold of "pillages" for you?

And it doesn't even have to be that egregious.
Someone trading Mahomes for JJMcCarthy+pieces, I'll let this horrible trade pass because maybe someone believes in miracles. Trading Mahomes for Fields+spare change, we're going to have to have a conversation. No one can be that stupid.

Funny you bring this up, but I will hold off on what prompted me to post this for a little longer.

just avoid plant-like IQ people and the league will be fine.

I know you were making a joke (Bijan), but is this a stance that would have you remove a manager due to trades?

[Jigga94]

There's gray area on how bad a trade needs to be in order to veto or determine collusion.

Extreme example but say in 2021 you traded Trey Lance for a 2023 3rd. The league would go nuts. But what if that 3rd turned into Puka?

[Lumps]

There's gray area on how bad a trade needs to be in order to veto or determine collusion.

Extreme example but say in 2021 you traded Trey Lance for a 2023 3rd. The league would go nuts. But what if that 3rd turned into Puka?

This argument is one that people make ALL. THE. TIME. It is wholly illogical and terrible.

A trade is an exchange at a point in time at the given values of the pieces. It is not something that you wait a few years to decide if it was fair at the time. Can a trade look different 5 years down the line than initially? 100%. Does that matter for the exchange of value at the given time of the trade? Absolutely not.

Just like a stock trade (which everyone seems to be soooo keen on treating their teams like a "portfolio" now... I could go on a long rant on this subject) you don't pay $500 now for something that "could be" $500 in the future. If you have an outlook that it will increase in value in the future, you buy at it's current price. Maybe 1% over depending on how much you are buying/willing to buy whatever. But not 50% more.

[Jigga94]

There's gray area on how bad a trade needs to be in order to veto or determine collusion.

Extreme example but say in 2021 you traded Trey Lance for a 2023 3rd. The league would go nuts. But what if that 3rd turned into Puka?

This argument is one that people make ALL. THE. TIME. It is wholly illogical and terrible.

A trade is an exchange at a point in time at the given values of the pieces. It is not something that you wait a few years to decide if it was fair at the time. Can a trade look different 5 years down the line than initially? 100%. Does that matter for the exchange of value at the given time of the trade? Absolutely not.

Just like a stock trade (which everyone seems to be soooo keen on treating their teams like a "portfolio" now... I could go on a long rant on this subject) you don't pay $500 now for something that "could be" $500 in the future. If you have an outlook that it will increase in value in the future, you buy at it's current price. Maybe 1% over depending on how much you are buying/willing to buy whatever. But not 50% more.

We're in agreement. I am just pointing out that there's trades that look bad based on value that can work out.

So how do you go about vetoing a trade that looks bad based on current value? Do you veto if a calculator says its more than 50% off for one side? There's gray area. You basically have to prove collusion or it has to be a trade like a 1st for a 3rd or Mahomes for Zach Wilson.

Either way, I would be kicking some owners as good owners will follow your line of thinking regarding current value.

[Anteaters]

So how do you go about vetoing a trade that looks bad based on current value? Do you veto if a calculator says its more than 50% off for one side? There's gray area. You basically have to prove collusion or it has to be a trade like a 1st for a 3rd or Mahomes for Zach Wilson.

As commish, what I do is have a conversation with both parties, starting with the guy giving up the valuable pieces and receiving scraps.

Basically I start by asking "what's in it for you? Why did you make this trade?" Every non-collusion trade is made when each side thinks they won. Even when others disagree, the guy who made a bad trade will be happy to explain why he thinks it's a good deal. When it's an out-and-out bad deal, that guy has a hard time providing believable explanations for why he made the trade.

If it's a case like the OP presents where I'm just a manager voting on a trade that doesn't involve my team, I don't mind vetoing obviously unbalanced trades. It's not my preference to have a league with veto votes. I'd rather have a league with a strong, smart, fair commissioner who makes the decision himself. But if I'm given the chance to vote, I decide where my line is and I accept or veto based on that. I don't focu on if it makes a strong team stronger. I focus on trying to figure out for myself why the loser might have accepted the trade. If I can't find a far-fetched reason that has some logic in it, I veto. I don't worry too much about "proving" to myself that it's collusion. A flat out terribly unbalanced trade can ruin the competitive balance of a league whether it's collusion or not.

[81-]

It would have to be terrible for my league to touch a trade. 13 years in with mostly the same managers and no issues.

[Lumps]

There's gray area on how bad a trade needs to be in order to veto or determine collusion.

Extreme example but say in 2021 you traded Trey Lance for a 2023 3rd. The league would go nuts. But what if that 3rd turned into Puka?

This argument is one that people make ALL. THE. TIME. It is wholly illogical and terrible.

A trade is an exchange at a point in time at the given values of the pieces. It is not something that you wait a few years to decide if it was fair at the time. Can a trade look different 5 years down the line than initially? 100%. Does that matter for the exchange of value at the given time of the trade? Absolutely not.

Just like a stock trade (which everyone seems to be soooo keen on treating their teams like a "portfolio" now... I could go on a long rant on this subject) you don't pay $500 now for something that "could be" $500 in the future. If you have an outlook that it will increase in value in the future, you buy at it's current price. Maybe 1% over depending on how much you are buying/willing to buy whatever. But not 50% more.

So how do you go about vetoing a trade that looks bad based on current value? Do you veto if a calculator says its more than 50% off for one side? There's gray area. You basically have to prove collusion or it has to be a trade like a 1st for a 3rd or Mahomes for Zach Wilson.

Either way, I would be kicking some owners as good owners will follow your line of thinking regarding current value.

The bolded is what I was asking in starting this thread. Or rather, just asking what is it that would trigger someone to want a trade vetoed.

I was thinking about this kind of on the whole and found a good thought experiment of what I think would help the discussion:

When we deal with players, people really seem to hand wave trades like "well, we all value things differently." But we can all agree someone like Jefferson goes in the 1st round of startups right? One of the best at his position. If a trade goes down like:

Jefferson
for
Devonta Smith, 2025 2nd, and Justin Fields

People would probably do the hand wave thing at this. Nothing to see here. "Bad trade, let people make mistakes."

But if you look at it from any other vantage point, it's clear how horrific it is.

In a SF startup ADP you are looking at a mid-late 1st for a late 3rd/early 4th, a late 10th/early 11th, and a future 2nd rookie pick. Absolutely no one is making this trade.

Or if you convert it to just rookie picks: JJ = 3 1sts? Probably more? Devonta for a 1st? Fields for......a 3rd? So we have:

3 1sts+
for
1st, 3rd, future 2nd.