THIS trade has started trade approval talk in league?!? EDIT!?

[saw061600]

Made this trade for Team 1 this week and all of a sudden we have concerns about trades made by owners leading to discussion about league vote for trades. So here it is, feedback appreciated.

Team A gave Gabe Davis, Malcolm Rodriquez
Team B gave Jakobi Myers, A'Shawn Robinson, 23 1st from 1-4 team

Long list of comments in chat and text. Talk of future veto option (I'd quit).

Edit
So some more information. NO PPR, 1QB, low scoring IDP (although not as low as it used to be after I kept arguing for increased values).
Original offer from offering owner
Give: Davis+Rodriquez
Get: Jakobi, A'Shawn, Lindsay, 2nd and 4th.

Because non PPR, I value Davis a bit more; he seems to get TDs on long plays but has less catches.
I suggested the first from him to me with a pick coming back from me. Instead, the offer above was sent because owner said he REALLY wanted Davis. I'm not going to argue. Last time I argued for giving more I got roasted on the forum. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=209064&p=1921175#p1921175

[frerichs5]

My first thought is which side are people upset about? I’m assuming Meyers and the 1st (I’d rather have). But there are some big Gabe Davis truthers out there. I think the 1st side clearly wins, but I’ve seen much worse. I can’t speak to the difference in Rodriguez and Robinson as I don’t play IDP.

[meineymoe]

Every trade made is going to be uneven, and look even more unbalanced depending on value perceptions.
I don't see a problem with this trade, though I think the person receiving the early 1st in an exchange of similar talent levels is the clear winner. I prefer both Davis and Rodriguez, but not enough to toss a 1st in. But I've seen worse, probably annually in each of my leagues.

No reason to discuss voiding here.

-oo-

[Kcarr]

My first thought is which side are people upset about? I’m assuming Meyers and the 1st (I’d rather have). But there are some big Gabe Davis truthers out there. I think the 1st side clearly wins, but I’ve seen much worse. I can’t speak to the difference in Rodriguez and Robinson as I don’t play IDP.

The 2 idps can vary a lot in value depending on league. Rodriguez is an upside play probably worth a 3rd but I would in most cases consider selling at that, Robinson can be quite variable depending on settings ranging from no value to nearly as much as Rodriguez. Either way those 2 should hugely off balance the deal

[Pullo Vision]

I think it's getting an early 1st for a player with a VERY wide range in valuations in Davis- some people probably upset he netted a 1st of any sort, others that that it's projected to be early.

[halfbaked88]

Probably upset because an early 1st should get more than Gabe Davis who should probably be worth a midlate 1st at the most.

An early 1st can buy Metcalf/Deebo in some leagues.

I bet your team is the one of the favorites arguably having the Top 2 dynasty RBs, Chubb who is killing it this year in a non-ppr league, and also the top 2 TEs.

No veto's. Trade is close enough. RBs get injured and if they do your WRs are better PPR plays. You could easily be a middling team in a hurry, just like everyone can.

[Jrblaha]

It’s a fine trade. A veto should only be used for collusion along with expelling both teams from the league. It’s super serious and this trade is nothing like that

[Anteaters]

I'm a big believer in Gabe.
I'm a believer in Veto power for terrible trades that upset the competitive balance of the league and are principally unfair to the owners not involved in the deal who have built their teams "the right way" (whatever we want to say that means.)
IMO, this trade is heavily in favor of the side receiving the early 1st. Especially so if this is a 2QB league.

In the end, it's not so uneven that I'd veto it. The only thing that might make me take some sort of action would be if the team on the losing end consistently made trades this bad for himself, OR if the winning team had two or three guys he routinely destroyed in trades. i don't know what that action would be - probably much more along the lines of a conversation than a veto.

I think that leagues that constantly have two or three teams making severely unbalanced trades end up being unenjoyable for the majority of the owners, and have a higher chance at dissolving. I feel one of my most important roles as commissioner is to ensure the league is fun AND that the competitive balance is not altered in a way that makes it impossible for well-run teams to compete for a championship because two owners repeatedly trade-rape a few bottom-feeding owners. Not all commissioners feel that way, and some take a completely hands-off approach. That's fine, but when I find myself in a random league that ends up uncompetitive because of repeated terrible trades, I don't return the next season. I don't like those kind of leagues, and I try not to run that kind of league.

[Forza_Azzurri]

It doesn't make sense for the 1-4 team to give up its #1 for Davis, but I wouldn't veto it. The league shouldn't be in the business of protecting bad owner decisions.

[FantasyFreak]

League votes for trades are a bush league concept. It's only seeks to protect their own interests, and people's values outside a trade shouldn't affect the outcome of a trade. It would create way more issues than it solves. The fact this is even being considered, is a very bad sign.

[Anteaters]

League votes for trades are a bush league concept. It's only seeks to protect their own interests, and people's values outside a trade shouldn't affect the outcome of a trade. It would create way more issues than it solves. The fact this is even being considered, is a very bad sign.

Agreed 100%. I would prefer not to play in a league where the other managers vote on each trade.

It there are vetoes it has to be left up to the commish. If the owners don't trust the commish to be fair, they shouldn't be in the league in the first place.

[saw061600]

I think it's getting an early 1st for a player with a VERY wide range in valuations in Davis- some people probably upset he netted a 1st of any sort, others that that it's projected to be early.

This was my response to the commissioner. Davis value is all over. I'm going to add to my post for more context, including a previous deal with this owner, who was new to the league, and I could have fleeced if I had let his original ask valuation for Barkley.

[MacDaddy123]

This trade is lopsided, IMO, but certainly not veto worthy.
IMO the early 23 1st is by far the best piece in the deal.

[Orenthal Shames]

If league dues are paid, there should be no vetoes.

[Ice]

In ppr leagues so far this season only 3 rookie WR/RB's are averaging more PPG than Davis who just became starter late last year in his own right.

Owners can be such children sometimes.

While most like those shiny draft picks when no name or no production is associated with it, the reality is this isn't close to a veto worthy trade in any format especially in a non ppr league regardless of ones view on Davis.