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

[wickerkat1212]

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.

Well said. This is how I feel. Even in the moment, you can't tell what's a bad or good trade. Guys get hurt, teams need depth, people overpay, depth charts change. So yes, as a commish, it would be hard evidence of collusion or some ridiculous trade. I think we've all seen the OOPS traded Brian Robinson instead of Bijan Robinson kind of thing. I'd only step in if it was a really obvious bad trade. We also only allow trades two years up to two years down the road, and if you trade your picks, you have to pay. That way if a guy blows his team up and bails we have his fees, and can then offer that for free to a new owner. MOST of my leagues are friends, and people I've been playing with for 15-20 years.

[tstafford]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2012/ ... -the-veto/

[wickerkat1212]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2012/ ... -the-veto/

Yeah, none of the league I'm in have a veto like that. I was only speaking to the commish powers of undoing a trade due to collusion or an obviously bad trade. I won't play in a league with members being able to veto a trade.

[MacDaddy123]

Only veto in case of proven collusion.

[moishetreats]

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.

I think you've highlighted the issue with vetoes: As an owner and a commish, I have no issue with your hypothetical trade. Don't me wrong: I think the player trading away Jefferson is losing out on value. But I'd have no problem with it all and would never, ever, ever have vetoing come to mind.

[Lumps]

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.

I think you've highlighted the issue with vetoes: As an owner and a commish, I have no issue with your hypothetical trade. Don't me wrong: I think the player trading away Jefferson is losing out on value. But I'd have no problem with it all and would never, ever, ever have vetoing come to mind.

Aren't you just doing exactly what I was saying in that post though? Hand waiving at player for player trades as "let people make bad trades", while we have a trade that is at least 50% lop sided?

Seems that people here have the same attitude I see across dynasty conversation. Veto bad.

No one has yet talked about how these kinds of trades, over time, will destroy a league. Make the league completely imbalanced, people lose interest, stop trying, stop setting lineups etc. Then you're replacing 4-6 owners in an off season or the league folds altogether. IMO, if this kind of deal were to go down, I think the commish should be looking for a new manager.

I was thinking that I've done this long enough that I don't want to deal with bullshit like this in my leagues, but there are number of long timers posting here as well. I want my leagues to be competitive. I want it to be difficult. Dumbassery like this is the opposite.

Finally, here is the trade that I saw that started this thread:

10 Team SF
A: Mahomes, Curtis Samuel
B: KW3, Deebo, Fields

[wickerkat1212]

Finally, here is the trade that I saw that started this thread:

10 Team SF
A: Mahomes, Curtis Samuel
B: KW3, Deebo, Fields

I mean, that's not a trade that should have a veto or commish involvement. I'd rather have the Mahomes side, but without seeing the league, rosters, scoring, and depth for these guys it seems fine. Maybe the Mahomes owner also has a lack of RBs, maybe the own Wilson too, maybe they have Williams and Maye. IDK. It's fine. Lopsided IMO (998 to 603 on DLF) but nothing to get a commish involved.

[Lumps]

Finally, here is the trade that I saw that started this thread:

10 Team SF
A: Mahomes, Curtis Samuel
B: KW3, Deebo, Fields

I mean, that's not a trade that should have a veto or commish involvement. I'd rather have the Mahomes side, but without seeing the league, rosters, scoring, and depth for these guys it seems fine. Maybe the Mahomes owner also has a lack of RBs, maybe the own Wilson too, maybe they have Williams and Maye. IDK. It's fine. Lopsided IMO (998 to 603 on DLF) but nothing to get a commish involved.

You have mentioned a few things in this thread that are completely irrelevant to trade value. It doesn't matter if you need RBs. You can get a RB and still get appropriate value. You can get depth and still get appropriate value. Whether someone gets hurt after the fact, has no bearing on getting accurate value in a trade. And I guess, again, 50% disparity is OK with you.

I think I got what I wanted to see out of the thread.

[wickerkat1212]

Finally, here is the trade that I saw that started this thread:

10 Team SF
A: Mahomes, Curtis Samuel
B: KW3, Deebo, Fields

I mean, that's not a trade that should have a veto or commish involvement. I'd rather have the Mahomes side, but without seeing the league, rosters, scoring, and depth for these guys it seems fine. Maybe the Mahomes owner also has a lack of RBs, maybe the own Wilson too, maybe they have Williams and Maye. IDK. It's fine. Lopsided IMO (998 to 603 on DLF) but nothing to get a commish involved.

You have mentioned a few things in this thread that are completely irrelevant to trade value. It doesn't matter if you need RBs. You can get a RB and still get appropriate value. You can get depth and still get appropriate value. Whether someone gets hurt after the fact, has no bearing on getting accurate value in a trade. And I guess, again, 50% disparity is OK with you.

I think I got what I wanted to see out of the thread.

Well, no, rosters, depth, that isn't irrelevant. If a guy has no starting RBs, and has four-deep QBs he may need to move one to get a RB. Some leagues I'm in I can't get guys to trade for anything. The trade was 900 to 600 not 900 to 50. It's lopsided, but lopsided trades aren't worthy of a veto by a commish. I'd have to have more information, but even on face value this trade isn't worthy of investigation to me.

The only other thing I can think of is just try to be in, and help maintain, leagues that have good players. We had a guy join our league, he made some risky moves, and then eventually left. Not much could be done about it. He took his shots, and it didn't work out.

I think the most I'd do in your situation would be to keep an eye on things. Does the guy make a bunch of bad trades? I mean REALLY bad trades? Trading a 2025 1st for the 2.09 pick? Does he always lose the trades, and with the best teams in the league? It may be something to monitor, but a league is only as good as its members, right?

Again, the conversation was about vetoes, and I see nothing here that requires commish involvement.

[Lumps]

I mean, that's not a trade that should have a veto or commish involvement. I'd rather have the Mahomes side, but without seeing the league, rosters, scoring, and depth for these guys it seems fine. Maybe the Mahomes owner also has a lack of RBs, maybe the own Wilson too, maybe they have Williams and Maye. IDK. It's fine. Lopsided IMO (998 to 603 on DLF) but nothing to get a commish involved.

You have mentioned a few things in this thread that are completely irrelevant to trade value. It doesn't matter if you need RBs. You can get a RB and still get appropriate value. You can get depth and still get appropriate value. Whether someone gets hurt after the fact, has no bearing on getting accurate value in a trade. And I guess, again, 50% disparity is OK with you.

I think I got what I wanted to see out of the thread.

Well, no, rosters, depth, that isn't irrelevant. If a guy has no starting RBs, and has four-deep QBs he may need to move one to get a RB. Some leagues I'm in I can't get guys to trade for anything. The trade was 900 to 600 not 900 to 50. It's lopsided, but lopsided trades aren't worthy of a veto by a commish. I'd have to have more information, but even on face value this trade isn't worthy of investigation to me.

I can't hold your hand through this. Nor am I willing to do math for you.

[Cameron Giles]

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?

You'll know it when you see it.

A lot of short-sighted deals from teams that are consistently getting beat up in trades and making awful decisions everywhere else. That can slowly burn a team into the ground and put your league in a very tough spot.

[wickerkat1212]

You have mentioned a few things in this thread that are completely irrelevant to trade value. It doesn't matter if you need RBs. You can get a RB and still get appropriate value. You can get depth and still get appropriate value. Whether someone gets hurt after the fact, has no bearing on getting accurate value in a trade. And I guess, again, 50% disparity is OK with you.

I think I got what I wanted to see out of the thread.

Well, no, rosters, depth, that isn't irrelevant. If a guy has no starting RBs, and has four-deep QBs he may need to move one to get a RB. Some leagues I'm in I can't get guys to trade for anything. The trade was 900 to 600 not 900 to 50. It's lopsided, but lopsided trades aren't worthy of a veto by a commish. I'd have to have more information, but even on face value this trade isn't worthy of investigation to me.

I can't hold your hand through this. Nor am I willing to do math for you.

I don't need you to hold my hand or do the math for me. Whenever I am unsure about value I use different calculators—here, FantasyPros, etc. Do I think it's a bad trade? Yes, of course I do. Is it collusion or worth vetoing as a commish? No. But I'd keep an eye on them, sure.

[wickerkat1212]

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?

You'll know it when you see it.

A lot of short-sighted deals from teams that are consistently getting beat up in trades and making awful decisions everywhere else. That can slowly burn a team into the ground and put your league in a very tough spot.

Yep. Agree. This is basically what I was saying.

[TheTroll]

What is a threshold of "pillages" for you?

You'll know it when you see it.

A lot of short-sighted deals from teams that are consistently getting beat up in trades and making awful decisions everywhere else. That can slowly burn a team into the ground and put your league in a very tough spot.

Yep. Agree. This is basically what I was saying.

X3. Common sense and a good commish should rule. Allow “bad trades” but don’t allow something egregiously nefarious

[moishetreats]

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

I think you've highlighted the issue with vetoes: As an owner and a commish, I have no issue with your hypothetical trade. Don't me wrong: I think the player trading away Jefferson is losing out on value. But I'd have no problem with it all and would never, ever, ever have vetoing come to mind.

Aren't you just doing exactly what I was saying in that post though? Hand waiving at player for player trades as "let people make bad trades", while we have a trade that is at least 50% lop sided?

Not. At. All.

I'm saying that I don't think it's 50% lopsided. I certainly don't think it's egregious, as the title of your post suggests. You're making the argument (I think) that Commish/league intervention should not be reserved for collusion only. IMO, that's an interesting conversation. What to do when an egregious trade takes place?

I then found it ironic that you posted a hypothetical that, in my eyes, is nowhere near egregious. Which is why I think doing what your suggesting is so difficult.

Say that the Commish and 5/12 owners find a trade egregious. 2 others think it's bad. 2 others think it's off but completely fine. 3 (including the two that made the trade) love it. Then what?

Or say that two teams make a trade that is really, really, really off. And then say that the team giving up too much knows they're doing it and simply wants to be out on a player ASAP and got the best deal he could. Then what? Say the player was D. Watson or Rice over the past years? Or say the player was Tua after week 5 last year? That's exactly what I did with Tua last year in a team not in sig. I traded him in an "egregious" trade because I was willing to bet my season that he was going to have a HUGE drop in the second half of the year. And after his blow-up start, I wanted the best package I could get. I didn't want to wait to get better value because I saw the drop coming. Had I been wrong, I would have killed my championship run. Obviously, it worked out for me. Even though I made an "egregious" trade, there's no way in the universe it should have been vetoed or reversed.

That could very well be the same in your hypothetical. The owner trading Jefferson (again, I don't think it's egregious) could believe a few things:
1) JJ's value is going to tank this year.
2) D. Smith is a growing stud.
3) Fields will return to top-12 status by the end of 2024.

And maybe the previous owner of D. Smith and Fields shared similar notions. No trade calculator -- and no other person in the league -- might take those into account. They are, however, all reasonable thoughts. No way that trade should be vetoed/reversed.

Finally -- and here is where I think you and I agree, and perhaps we're saying the same thing all along -- if a trade does seem absolutely egregious (understanding that the determination of egregious is different for every single owner), the commish certainly could and in some cases should reach out to party making the egregious trade to see what's up. Depending on the response, the commish/league can go from there.

Example: a few years ago, a new team joined my dynasty league (team 1 in sig). He was a loooooong-time fantasy football players, first-time dynasty player. As commish, I told him I'm happy to talk through things, trade values, league history values, etc. Sure enough, right away, he made a trade that you and I would 100% agree was egregious. I called him up right away, explained where by our league's typical trades, that was pretty off. He had a kind of facepalm moment. I went back to the other owner who was gracious enough to add something (I think it was a high second pick). Was still pretty bad, but it helped smooth things over for everyone. The new owner eventually got a little better but ended up deciding dynasty wasn't for him.

*If those are the situations you're talking about, then we're on the same page. I think it was the example you listed that simply missed the mark for me.