Vetoing trades

[55]

In the main money league I play in, this week is the trade deadline. We've had a few trades go through over the course of the last couple of days without any problems, when all of a sudden my phone starts blowing up over a trade that was accepted this afternoon. I am the commissioner of said league so it is standard for people to come to me with questions, etc. but today was pretty nuts IMO.

A little background on my league:

It is a ten team standard scoring keeper league. Each team can keep up to three players per year but cannot keep more than one player at any given position. The cost of keeping a player is forfeiting their draft pick in the respective round in which a player was drafted in the previous year. For instance, if I drafted Matthew Stafford in the 7th round of the draft this year and wanted to keep him next year, he is put on the board as my 7th round pick. As long as you keep a player year in and year out, the price of keeping them never goes up and Stafford would be my 7th round pick every year until I decided not to keep him.

Now, onto the trade:

Team A trades Jamaal Charles
Team B trades Percy Harvin

On paper that looks extremely lopsided, but in this league Percy Harvin is a 12th round pick and has tons of value as a keeper, whereas Jamaal Charles is a 1st round pick and has little to no value as a keeper at all.

Team A (the one trading away Charles and getting Harvin) is 2-7 and completely out of playoff contention. This team also has several options at RB in the middle rounds to use for their RB keeper but doesn't have a WR on their roster worth keeping which is where Harvin comes in. This owner is also pretty much guaranteed a top 3 pick in next years' draft where Charles, McCoy, Forte, Morris, Foster, etc. will all be available again. If everything goes well, he just might even be able to draft Charles right back if he pleases.

Team B (the one trading away Harvin and getting Charles) is 6-3 and in the hunt for a playoff spot. They already have a stud RB with a 3rd round pick that they intend to keep, so they are only guaranteed to get three games out of Charles since we only have a 13 week regular season. This person also has several options at WR to keep with good value even after moving Harvin.

The rule in our league is that the majority of the owners (6 out of 10) must vote to veto a trade in order to block it. So far every team in playoff contention has voted to veto the trade as sort of a "defensive" strategy, whereas every team out of playoff contention has approved it. As the commissioner, I have the final say/tie-breaking vote. What should I do?

[Jr.]

Jamaal Charles is the top back in fantasy this year. He's worth so much more than a player that has yet to play a snap with a significant history of injury problems.

I understand the keeper stuff (I'm in a keeper league as well and traded away Calvin Johnson and Ray Rice in a similar strategy), but there is still this year going on. I'm normally against vetoing trades because I think one side getting the better end of a deal is natural, and owners should be rewarded for being able to work out favorable trades. But this one is too much in my mind.

I would vote for veto as well, and honestly I would want the guy with Charles out of the league for being okay with such a lopsided trade.

[jeremym480]

Do like everyone else and do whatever is in YOUR best interest.

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeremym480

Do like everyone else and do whatever is in YOUR best interest.

The thing is, I'm the commissioner of this league. It's my responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the entire league and not just myself.

Personally, I would never veto ANY trade just because I didn't like it unless it was Peyton Manning for a kicker or something. It just doesn't seem right.

This article pretty much sums up my feelings:

http://www.fantasywired.com/football...etoing-trades/

[Jr.]

Sounds like you already know what you want to do. Why the hesitation?

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

Sounds like you already know what you want to do. Why the hesitation?

I was just hoping to get some discussion going from both sides.

It's not just about this particular trade though, but all future trades.

In a round based keeper league you are always going to see more trades that look one-sided but actually aren't when you think about it. In any event I just can't veto this trade simply because it makes my chances to win lessen. That's just a dickhead move. If anyone can give me a reason to veto the trade more compelling than, "ZOMG BUT ITZ CHARLEZ DOE!" then I'm all ears.

[CC]

I would let it go through, let people manage their own teams. Theoretically, if I was the owner getting Harvin it would be better if he was getting a RB2 as well or something similar, but especially if the Charles owner is the one who made the offer for Harvin, I see no real issue.

Different people have different ideas of player value and there will always be someone that doesn't think a trade is fair. For example, in my leagues I have been offering seemingly lopsided trades the past few weeks in order to land Roddy White who hasn't done jack all year because I believe it will put my playoff-bound teams over the top. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[woodjer]

I've always viewed keeper leagues as the closest thing to a real GM that a fantasy player can get. By refusing to acknowledge the long-term benefits of this move, you would essentially eliminate a big strategy aspect of them. In that respect, you've gotta let this go through.

I guess my only worry would be if you thought there was some profit-sharing going on here. I'm not ok with that but it's a tough one to prove. If we're talking spouses or siblings making the deal, I'd MAYBE lean toward a veto.

I pretty much think the same way as you do though. If this wasn't a money keeper league with the rules that you laid out, I'd veto this all day because, on the surface, this is way too lop-sided. But it's not...I applaud the 2-7 guy for thinking outside the box and within the rules of the league.