When to veto?

So, I am always in favor of leaving the veto out of trades. However, there seems to be some obvious collusion in my league where teams out of the playoffs or giving up players like David Johnson to get Gus Edwards. Would you guys consider this to be collusion? (This is a redraft league. This particular owner has made 3 last minute lopsided trades with a team out of contention.

Note: the same owner (he is making the playoffs) is also selling away TGabriel & Riddick to get Diggs. Also, he is Receiving BCooks for pennies. They are obviously working together

1 Like

Yes, 100% collusion

So, I am the commish… what do I do?

1 Like

Ask both teams how this trade benefits their team, then based on your findings inform the rest of the league why it is getting vetoed

3 Likes

Is there any legitimate reason they could give me that would make it wrong for me to veto? They have completed 3 obvious lopsided trades . These two guys are friends

Collusion is almost impossible to prove.

And I’ve seen clearer cut cases than this that turned out not to be (Troy Hambrick for Peyton Manning in 2003: collusion right? But the Hambrick recipient really wanted him and made a convincing case for it; and he wound up as the four seed in the playoffs that year).

The Edwards recipient is likely looking at yesterday’s FA rankings, Harbaugh’s recent raves about Edwards, and is thinking he wants to “sell high” on DJ.

Plus, if he desperately needs a win this week, he might not like DJ’s matchup with SD in a bounce back week with a defense that is playing well against the run and might get Bosa back. The Ravens, on the other hand, have the Raiders and then a very favorable schedule of soft defenses for the next three weeks.

It’s not clear collusion to me.

And besides, no matter how lopsided a trade is, if both parties want it, then that’s not collusion either.

There is no way to decide a head of time that it’s collusion. Collusion is the result of an investigation or evidence.

See what they say when you ask both teams how this trade benefits their team.

I would poll the entire league and get their thoughts on the trade and second what @UpsettiSpaghetti said above about asking them how they each benefit. If you’re the commish and you find that it’s collusion based off of their responses then overturn it without majority veto. I had to do that in a league because one team admitted they were giving handouts (they’re 1-10).

1 Like

In a straight redraft league for a team mathematically eliminated there is no valid reason for a trade, even if they swapped high end players for schedule benefits the trades only benefit one team so no there is no reason they could give.

In keeper league settings it’s still very suspect given the massive value in players being swapped both now and future values so unless it was a keeper and DJ and Diggs could not be kept that would be the only time this could be considered but it would still be frowned upon by the other owners and you’d likely have multiple upset parties here too.

Edit - of course you have to ask them the question but as a formality, this is collusion and the league would see it the same way I’m sure.

1 Like

I just saw the part where it says that one of the teams is out of contention. Okay…that makes it a little more clear. BUT…I still don’t think those trades are as lopsided as you say.

And here’s the most important part: The fact that one of the teams is out of contention means that your trade deadline is way too late. This is why trade deadlines should be around Halloween or the first week of November at the latest.

1 Like

That is why I was hesitant to veto. But once I saw the owner was receiving Diggs, DJ & Cooks for pennies (seemingly) I figured it had to be discussed. It’s a casual family league… I’m still learning the ropes, but I agree the deadline should have been sooner :confused:

Gus Edwards had 19 carries for one week… It’s definitely lopsided. Especially if DJ is going to the playoff contender there’s no way that it isn’t lopsided.

This is the solution for next year fully agree. You can avoid a lot of this as @saturnismine says by in the offseason having you league vote on moving the trade deadline to an earlier date. Ideally to a point that’s not too early that it limits the league trading aspect but enough so that even a 1 or 2 win team can still make the playoffs and some of these moves - even crazy on the surface can make some sense in dire win now scenarios.

1 Like

Here is the deal, moving forward you must not have votes on trades. Do not allow the league to determine what is a good trade or even fair. In a voting system everybody will most likely vote no to vote no…they had the opportunity to not allow other teams to get better. That said, any team out of playoff contention is unable to trade players. Also, you must have a trade deadline. I like week 12 for trades.

Now for your situation, as commissioner its your job to hold the integrity of the league to a high standard. This makes other owners know you are all about fair play and can be trusted. As commissioner if you do not have stated rules like a trade deadline or out of contention trades you must consult each of the owners seperately and privately about how this particular trade benefits both teams. When its all said and done the rest of the league is counting on you to not allow lopsided, bogus trades between friends. Especially if there is money involved. Good luck but I don’t think you need it…be strong and deny that trade while also explaining why it is lopsided and not tolerated in a competitive format

2 Likes

It’s about perception. I laid out a number of reasons for why a subpar coach might want Edwards over DJ.

And if the coach who is receiving Edwards genuinely wants him, it’s not collusion. Doesn’t matter if it’s actually lopsided or not.

Sure, in a vacuum it’s not collusion, but read the entire original post… teams out of contention giving up players for pennies. That’s collusion. They might not have necessarily agreed and said, “hey I’ll just give you my players”, but I don’t define collusion as simply a verbal agreement to give players away for less than their true value.

1 Like

No doubt, that part of the equation is super important. That’s why I recommended that the trade deadline should be earlier.

Yeah I agree with that. Could have saved a lot of this from happening.

1 Like

I am a commish and hate these situations.

  1. A team out of the playoffs should not be allowed to make a trade UNLESS there is other money on the line, ex: high score, best lineup, etc. otherwise they are not allowed to make a move it’s an automatic veto. (Make it a league rule before the start of the year when everyone can agree and thinks their team is the greatest)

  2. This is clearly them working together and should be veto’d if anyone aside from the 2 teams involved think it’s legitimate then you need to find a new league or new people to join. Stuff like that really irritates me

The argument of “if a manager really wants him” or “they’ve only played fantasy one time” is a bogus excuse. There isn’t really a legit reason someone can give for these. If it were were week one sure maybe a new player doesn’t know any better but by week 12-13 you mean to tell me you can’t see who is ranked where and who has what points? There’s no way someone “wants” Gus freaking Edwards over DJ. If they do commit them to an institution immediately

3 Likes

Agree with this 100%

1 Like