Are there ever Vetoable trades?

[Yostb]

Im commissioner of a league and have always gone with the no trades are vetoable. Today we had a trade that looks like might break our league. One contender off to a bad start had a fire sale to another contender ----

Dalvin Cook, Alvan Kamara, Tyreek Hill, Gronk, Mattison, MJj and few other small things for

Deebo, Jeudy, Waddle + 22 1, 23 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 (firsts projected late)

Basically any way you spin it, the guy that gave up Dalvin, Kamara and Hill gave away multiple free 1sts by this deal and stacked the other guys team to the point that it looks like it belongs in a 6 team league not a 12. Do I need to do something about this trade or should I stand firm on the no trades are vetoable and possibly have the league implode?

[mgregoirec]

Tough to be a commissioner sometimes. Not sure how you could overturn it without having a veto clause, but it’s an awful trade for sure

[Gator Sens]

Tough deal for sure, but I don't think its a veto type of deal. Two owners agreed on the deal and it does not look like a completely unacceptable deal on either side.

[Yostb]

Tough deal for sure, but I don't think its a veto type of deal. Two owners agreed on the deal and it does not look like a completely unacceptable deal on either side.

This very site has it off by 3 mid 22 firsts. If thats not unacceptable what would be the line? I think I have to let it stand as I know there was no collusion but unfortunately I think it means the end of the league after this year.

[Dibbles]

Terrible deal but definitely not vetoable - especially because no collusion. If you are playing for $ and someone is willing to kill their team (and any opportunity for near term financial benefit) with a trade like this, nothing you can do. And for everyone threatening to quit the league, you can also fault them for not working the trade waters hard enough to find this deal themselves. Bad trade but definitely not a league killer, should instead fire everyone up to find a way to beat the new favorite. Maybe the guy absolutely loves the 2023 class, and maybe he's correct and dominating come 23/24.

[Anteaters]

I'd veto it. I rarely veto, like once every 4-6 years, but I have and I will.

The commish has to have balls to make the tough decisions. It's not fair to other members to allow a trade like that to go through. That's not simply a bad trade. That is a vetoable trade.

[NFL123]

I never like vetoes and as commissioner I have never done it. However this one doesn't seem right and it stands out more when it's a multi player trade rather than just one or two players swapped. As you said you were worried it might mean the end of the league, it might be worth consulting a couple of people within the league to get their thoughts.

[Gator Sens]

Tough deal for sure, but I don't think its a veto type of deal. Two owners agreed on the deal and it does not look like a completely unacceptable deal on either side.

This very site has it off by 3 mid 22 firsts. If thats not unacceptable what would be the line? I think I have to let it stand as I know there was no collusion but unfortunately I think it means the end of the league after this year.

It's pretty bad but the other owner must really want Jeudy and Waddle and it's obviously buying high on Samuel but I would be shocked if Samuel has not outscored Cook and Kamara individually so far this season. Again, I think its a bad trade but the owner must have really wanted to build around these three wr's and get out of two older backs...

[Dibbles]

Tough deal for sure, but I don't think its a veto type of deal. Two owners agreed on the deal and it does not look like a completely unacceptable deal on either side.

This very site has it off by 3 mid 22 firsts. If thats not unacceptable what would be the line? I think I have to let it stand as I know there was no collusion but unfortunately I think it means the end of the league after this year.

It's pretty bad but the other owner must really want Jeudy and Waddle and it's obviously buying high on Samuel but I would be shocked if Samuel has not outscored Cook and Kamara individually so far this season. Again, I think its a bad trade but the owner must have really wanted to build around these three wr's and get out of two older backs...

Agreed.

[dondickenson]

It might not be optimal to you, but does this help the team making this trade?

They drastically increase the value of their own picks these next couple seasons, add a whole stable of young WRs, plus tack on 2x1sts, 2x2nds, 2x3rds.

What if they open up offers to the whole league and don’t get a better offer? Should they just languish in not being able to rebuild?

What if Dalvin or Kamara have an ACL or Achilles, effectively ending their career as valuable fantasy assets?

What if Tyreek, a miserable human being, gets in trouble for mistreating his significant other or toddler again?

And what if he doesn’t get a deal of your liking done before any of that?

I know this all seems kind of ridiculous but that’s why vetoes are ridiculous as well. It is up to the owners in the league to determine what is best for their own team, based on so so many variables that they get to give weighted importance to, imo. If you veto someone’s trade I think you are effectively saying that they shouldn’t be in charge of their own team and shouldn’t be in your league. If that is the case, then I can agree, boot them and veto.

[Anteaters]

I think its a bad trade but the owner must have really wanted to build around these three wr's and get out of two older backs...

I think you're right, but I keep trying to make that POV make sense to me.

I agree it makes sense to try to get out of the two RBs who might have only 1 more elite season left for each. I just think the return is hard to swallow, but I guess that partly because I am lower than most on all three WRs he's getting back. I think the best either Deebo and Waddle will consistently be are low-end WR2s and probably WR3s. Jeudy might sniff mid-tier WR2, but I don't see any way he can be much better.

With the 1sts projected to be later 1sts (especially after this trade) there is not much value on that end either. In 1qb the 2nds are all dart throws with no actual value.

To me, that is extremely low value for 2 T5RBs. To add Tyreek on that side of the deal seems like shooting a corpse of a deal. It was a bad deal without Hill, but I would probably let it pass. Adding Hill is just too much.

Gronk/Mattison/MJjr don't mean much from a dynasty value and I can see why the guy threw them in - if he's tossing in the towel on this season, those guys are unnecessary for his team. However, looking at what they mean to a contender this current season, it just seems like more fuel on the fire of this bad trade.

This trade reeks.

[abloom]

Provided that there was no collusion the trade is fine. Bad deals don't ruin leagues.

[Anteaters]

Bad deals don't ruin leagues.

Bad trades can, and in my experience, have ruined leagues.

At a minimum, bad trades can ruin the fun of fantasy football for every other owner. Creating a superteam in week 4 where no other team has a realistic chance at winning the season is not anyone's idea of fun. Watching one team regularly score 20% more than any other team, week after week, racking up victories week after week, and marching to a championship all because of one horribly one-sided trade makes other owners wonder what's the point. And if Cook/Kamara/Hill come back next year at the same level, that ruins next season as well. When other owners have put multiple seasons into crafting contenders and they see all their planning ruined because of one terrible trade, it makes them want to join leagues where this doesn't happen.

This isn't a case of one guy sinking his own team. He's sinking everyone's team, and making everyone waste their $ this year. That shouldn't be allowed.

[murphysxm]

Bad deals don't ruin leagues.

Bad trades can, and in my experience, have ruined leagues.

At a minimum, bad trades can ruin the fun of fantasy football for every other owner. Creating a superteam in week 4 where no other team has a realistic chance at winning the season is not anyone's idea of fun. Watching one team regularly score 20% more than any other team, week after week, racking up victories week after week, and marching to a championship all because of one horribly one-sided trade makes other owners wonder what's the point. And if Cook/Kamara/Hill come back next year at the same level, that ruins next season as well. When other owners have put multiple seasons into crafting contenders and they see all their planning ruined because of one terrible trade, it makes them want to join leagues where this doesn't happen.

This isn't a case of one guy sinking his own team. He's sinking everyone's team, and making everyone waste their $ this year. That shouldn't be allowed.

We are going to agree to disagree on this. You NEVER can predict the future in trades. I once, granted in a redraft keeper league, was part of a Derek Anderson for Peyton Manning trade. I was trading Manning for Anderson and a stud keeper I can't remember right now, right as DA was breaking out in 2007. The trade was unaminously vetoed. I would have won the championship that year and the keeper was a stud RB1 the next year if the trade had gone through. Haven't vetoed anything since then

[Anteaters]

We are going to agree to disagree on this.

No problem. it happens.