Trades Vetoes and LM Power

Hello, we have a commissioner who decides to approve or veto trades on his own. I would love your opinion on a couple of things.

  1. When should trades be vetoed? For lopsided trades or just for collusion and how is this determined?
  2. I would really appreciate a third party perspective on these series of trades.
    a) Team A, 0-2 team with lowest points, trades Melvin Gordon to Team B, which is a top team in the league) for Hyde and AP. I don’t have an issue with the validity of this trade due to the risk.
    b) When it is announced he is coming back, the trading parties above show screen shots of text saying it was a contingent trade and do a reverse trade. League Manager pushes it through immediately. I think he only did this because it benefits him due to Team B, which is a serious contender, losing Melvin. I think contingent trades should be disallowed and this trade should have been evaluated in isolation. Knowing Gordon is back, there is no way Hyde and AP is a fair trade.
    c) Team C (me) trades Team D, which is 1-3 and already lost AB, Shady for Barkley. Team D needs starters immediately and does not want to get last place. To me this trade is similar to the trade A, but the LM vetoes it immediately without comment.
    Additional note: At the same time, the LM trades Team D Lindsay for David Montgomery and pushes it through immediately (no issue with the validity of this trade just noting the timing).

What is your take on the above? Am I out of line for calling out the LM and asking him to provide guidelines for vetoes and to explain why trades A and B were allowed and not C?

1 Like

A whole lot to comb through so I will do my best.

  1. Trades should only be vetoed if it is obvious collusion and should ALWAYS be league vote. If the trade is clearly collusion and for some reason it is not getting the votes (absent members who don’t care to vote on other trades) then the commissioner can step in and make the decision.

2(a): I don’t have a problem with contingent trades personally. For example, in my league there was a trade agreed upon on Saturday night and both teams agreed prior to sunday morning that if either player in the trade got injured, the trade would be canceled. I’m ok with that. What I don’t like, is when Team A needs a QB this week and Team B needs a RB so they trade with the plan to trade back the following week. That is collusion IMO. (not the case here, just hopping on my soap box real quick).

2(b): as for the trade itself, while it is a very lopsided traded I don’t see it as collusion. Both teams are technically getting a starting RB and the team that is getting the lesser of the two starters (hyde) is technically getting depth and another starter in AP. Not a great trade for that team but still should be ok to go through.

2©: This trade also should have been accepted for the exact reason you said. If team D needs to win right away and can’t wait for Barkley to return and is willing to take that overall hit for immediate relief at the RB position that is on them. No reason at all why this trade should not be allowed.

PSA: Your commissioner sounds a bit shady to me honestly. There is no reason why he/she should be pushing trades through earlier than their designated time of review. IF, there is no review time and it is solely in their hands to approve or not, that should change. First reason is, your commissioner (who again doesn’t sound too trustworthy) can pick and choose when a trade goes through. Hypothetically speaking, he is in a matchup against Team D who trades for Barkley on Saturday night. Commissioner can easily “not notice” the trade until after Sunday games start making his opponent not be able to roster Barkley. Just sounds like it opens the door for a lot of shady stuff.

Trades should be league vote, 1 day review, leave it at that. No pushing it through early for this team or waiting on commissioner to decide. Giving that much power to the commissioner allows them to take their best interest into account before accepting/vetoing a trade which again, with this specific commissioner, sounds like it would be a problem.

Good luck in the league, and if I’m you, I’m raising hell that you should be allowed to have Barkley since the deal was agreed upon with no other contingencies in place.

Thank you for taking time to read all of that and to respond in such depth. I really appreciate it. I was pretty pissed when it happened, but I want to take a step back to make sure I wasn’t being unreasonable.

Yeah no problem at all. Glad I could help.

Would anyone else mind weighing in before I go back to my league? It could just be a quick response about if you think trade C should be vetoed.

That’s super shady, Trade C should go through.

Trades should ONLY be vetoed if obvious collution and not by league vote but by comish. If comish is shady and if people in league is colluding then leave league.

I mostly agree with all of what’s been said. Except, I don’t like league voting unless you don’t trust the LM (which seems like it could be an issue in your current league). Also, I don’t think you can change this right now since it’s the middle of the season already. I do not agree with changing league rules unless every manager agrees, and even then I have large preferences not to because people buy into a league with set rules and changing them mid-season isn’t appropriate.

The LM should push through just about every trade unless everyone puts up some fuss or there is clear evidence of collusion (someone tanking and giving away all their best players to another manager). The other way to address this is ask for the LM’s reasoning before any vetoed trades (which doesn’t change the rules). In this case I’d ask for it and explain your reasoning for the trade and see if you can get the trade reinstated, if the LM doesn’t agree, then they’re not being reasonable and you just have to note it for next year in your decision to play in this league - i.e. you’re SOL if he doesn’t buy it.

See the League Collusion - NEED ADVICE ASAP discussion for why LM veto is better than league vote (in cases where you trust the LM).

1 Like