I’m only writing this article because I have received multiple requests to weigh in on the veto in dynasty. I’ve been procrastinating because it sort of disgusts me to even think about the topic. I’m going to lay out my main reasons that the veto has no place in fantasy and especially no place in a dynasty league. Feel free to comment back; I suspect this will create disagreement.
Get ready because I’m not pulling any punches!
Let’s first make sure we are using common language. For the purpose of this article, I am using the term “veto” to mean a league vote that determines whether a trade between teams can go through. So effectively the other ten owners in a twelve team league deciding, for whatever reason, how the teams involved in the trade should manage their rosters. And when I say “whatever reason” I mean that inclusive of the merits of the trade, collusion or whatever else.
The first reason the veto is controversial is that no one knows my long term plans for my team. I have a three year plan at all times for my dynasty teams that may lead me to do things that look strange right now, but I believe position me for future success. None of my league mates know my plans and I’d be fool to tell them. So if they veto a deal, they are doing so without the benefit of the facts – that’s an Uniformed decision.
Second, my league mates don’t know any more about player values than I do. And I’m not saying that because I think I know more, I may not. What I do know is that any assessment of player values is based on taking in all available information and passing a personal judgment on it. It’s frankly arrogant of anyone to take the paternalistic position that they need to protect me from myself by vetoing a trade for it being unbalanced.
Unbalanced is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure that many, many people would have said that a trade of Tampa Mike Williams for Victor Cruz was unbalanced going in to 2011. Well, they were wrong. The mere fact that there is a one percent possibility that they could be wrong should have prevented them from passing definitive judgment on the trade. Those owners are absolutely entitled to their opinion on the trade, but they aren’t entitled to decide whether I can make it. How dare they tell me how to run my team!
Third, the veto is used as a weapon. I made the awful mistake of joining a public (redraft) money league last year. I thought it would be fun to put my money where my mouth is and see if I could win some dollars. I won’t say how much, but the buy-in was high. I quickly found myself in trouble after losing Jamaal Charles to the ACL tear, but I muddled through and had a .500 record through week eight – still very much in contention and at least a problem for the leaders. I was approached with a deal where I got Matt Forte and gave Mike Wallace. While I wasn’t deep at WR, I had sufficient players to field a strong set and the addition of Forte would make my team better. Clearly the other owner felt his team was better off with Wallace. I accepted the trade thinking I was back in the mix.
What happened next?
All of the teams with better records vetoed the deal. And worse yet, the format of this league only required three vetoes to block the deal. They could tell immediately that both teams in the trade were getting more competitive and they didn’t want that to happen. It was in their financial interest to veto the trade. Had it gone through, their chances of winning the pot would go down. While I can’t fault their logic, I can argue the ethics of that. The simple solution would be for them not to have that tool at all.
At this point, I know you are saying, “but Tim what about collusion.” I’ve played fantasy football for 15 years and never once have I seen a case of collusion. That isn’t to say it doesn’t happen, but it’s safe to say it’s rare. Here’s the thing: if you really have a situation in your dynasty league where collusion has occurred, the veto isn’t the right remedy anyway. An unbalanced trade is an unwise decision at very worst. Collusion is cheating. How could it possibly be that simply preventing the collusion from working is sufficient? That’s like catching a bank robber, returning the money and letting him go on his merry way. If you have clear cut proof of collusion in your dynasty league you have two choices – kick the people out or quit yourself, unless you can stomach the idea of playing with known cheaters. That wouldn’t work for me, but to each his own.
So at the end of the day, there are basically three reasons people want to veto:
a) Preventing people from hurting themselves through bad trades
b) Preventing people from helping themselves through good trades
c) Solving the problem of collusion with an inappropriate response
Simply put, none of these are good reasons. My challenge to you is to “Veto the Veto” by simply abstaining from the votes or approving all votes without even looking at the players involved.
Happy Easter!
Editor’s Note: Tim Stafford can be found @dynastytim on twitter and in the forums as tstafford.
GREAT ARTICLE….I couldnt agree more with what you said. In the leagues that I am commish I have all the power to veto deals and I have CLEARLY stated that the ONLY reason a trade would be vetoed is because there is apparent collusion (never has happened inany of my leagues either but it could I guess). When there is a deal that is so 1 sided I make certain to contact both owners involved and figure out if there is a case of collusion going on. I always tell everyone in my leagues, I, or no one else in the league, will tell an owner how to manage his team or what moves he should or shouldnt make. Thats the joy of fantasy, its your franchise to build how you see fit.
Excellent Article Tim…. this subject comes up in the forums every other month, the posters should be directed straight here.
Amen!!!!!!
I have been preaching this for years. Veto the veto…love it!
We don’t have vetoes in our league either. As long as you have 10 or 12 honest managers, it isn’t a problem. We had one guy in our league have to serve in Afghanistan after the first year of our dynasty. He said that he wouldnt have time to be a full member. So, we scrambled to find a replacement. This team had Arian Foster, Aaron Rodgers, Ahmad Bradshaw, Michael Crabtree and pick 1.1 in the rookie draft. This was back in 2010, so Arian hadn’t really broken out yet. Well, new guy managed to absolutely mangle that team. He took Spiller 1.1 instead of Mathews. Traded Rodgers and Foster for Dallas Clark and Drew Brees. Awful. Another reason why it is a great idea to have players with a maximum 4 or 5 year contract length. This way, you are essentially forced to auction draft a new team every 4 years. Also, if owners aren’t working out, you can replace them every 4 years as well. As a prospective new owner will have a chance to draft a new team.
Not seeing how this fits with the article. For every team that wins a trade, someone loses. I myself offered Foster and Wes Welker during that same offseason for Shonn Greene. To prove that your mentioned trade above wasn’t unfair AT THE TIME the owner I offered my trade to said no.
I wouldn’t have done it.
At the time, in our league, it was quite scandalous. It came to be known as “The Rape of Nanking”. Rodgers was the top scorer in the league, and Arian was a 4th round pick in redrafts. Shonn Green was a second rounder, Welker was coming off an ACL…I hope for your sake he didn’t accept.
You are right though. Later on, this guy traded the 1.2 for Karlos Dansby, Sidney Rice for a 4th round rookie pick and Ahmad Bradshaw for Owen Daniels. That particular trade wasn’t the worst of the lot. My point is that he took a contending team, and transmogrified it to the point where we couldn’t even sell it.
It’s a tough call. The most important thing is to join a great league with owners who have a passion for fantasy football. I avoid public leagues like the plague. I paid $50 to join a public league on CBS and it was not much fun. On the other hand, I’m in three dynasty leagues, and all have great owners who take a professional approach to team management. In these leagues, the veto isn’t important at all, because I trust that all owners will make fair exchanges. As for your Victor Cruz for Mike Williams trade, that’s being a bit retrospective. If you trade TBMW after his successful first season, for Victor Cruz, before 2011, that would generate controversy, IMO. Cruz had been a preseason warrior but nothing else. That would be like trading Victor Cruz now for Joe Morgan. I think it is important to let individual owners manage their teams as they see fit, but bad trades can be an issue. It’s impossible to know who will be the breakout player in 2012, and trading solid players for unknown commodities is a big gamble. In the end, I think it’s important to join a trusted league with a strong commish and a great reputation. That way, the veto issue is already buried. NIce article, Tim!
I couldn’t agree more with your conclusions. Our commissioner has kept the power of approving trades in our league, so this often becomes an issue. After negotiating a deal, I have to then negotiate with the commish to convince him the deal is fair. Because I am one of the few owners thinking a few years ahead, my deals also don’t often seem balanced to him. Last year, he made me ante up a few more low round picks to “balance” out a trade he thought was unfair to the other owner. In the end, I got a player who got injured early, and the other owner got a solid player all season…AND I was forced to give up extra picks.
Wow. I don’t think a commish should be modifying any trades. The most a commish should do is veto a deal that is flagrantly one-sided. I’ve never heard of a commish asking one side to kick in a little extra on a deal. That seems shady to me.
I have a lot of respect for Tim S along with many of the other smart members of this website. However this article and argument seemingly ignores the most important reason to veto a trade. Because in some leagues all of our ownters arent so savvy and some care less than others. It would be awesome for me to be in a league where I can trust all the league owners not to do retarded trades where they are fleeced but that just seldom seems to be the case. The issue with a bad trade isn’t that I want to protect the idiot owner who got the raw end of a deal. But rather I seek to protect all the other owners who werent involved in the deal. The other owners who built their team the right way, drafting well, solid FA pickups, and yes trades here and there. I just know I’ve been in leagues where terrible trades have shifted the balance of power and it made the league less fun because of it.
less fun for the people not shrewd enough to make a better offer . I am involved in a league where vetoes have been vetoed at mostly my urging along with a couple of other owners – after the commish killed several deals that were fine . Constant arguing and whining – after the veto was abolished the league smoothed out ; the balance of power has shifted a bit but it is a far more enjoyable league ramping up for the draft for season 3
I think the biggest problem is not so much the veto, but if a league has to use it. I agree, it can be protective, and there are owners out there who don’t understand sportsmanship, or don’t really understand fantasy football. The sad part is, whenever a bogus trade happens, it creates a lot of bad feelings, and kind of ruins it for everyone. If any league uses the veto, it should create red flags about whether it is worth the effort to stay in that league. Using the veto, to me, is a sign that a league might have issues, and good owners don’t need that kind of frustration. Find a new league with good owners, if the veto button is pushed, I say.
You want to protect the other owners that weren’t involved? Why? They had the same right to make an offer and didn’t. This sounds like jealousy over”losing out” on a player.
The trade “shifted the balance of power” in the league? You mean that a team that wasn’t competitive for the title made a deal that made them a contender. You should not veto a trade because it hurts your chances of winning the league.
The only reasons to veto are collusion or if an owner is clearly dumping his roster out of spite.
i’ve been in my dynasty league since 1997. there really hasn’t been many issues with this throughout the years. one owner got frustrated and traded all of his good players for nothing… he’s not in the league anymore.
i have been in yearly leagues where an owner forgets he is in the league and then logs in 3 weeks later and trades or cuts all of his players. nothing upsets me more than something like that.
This actually kind of supports the idea of getting rid of the veto. In that case I’d just lock his team as the commish and find a new owner ASAP.
I would never have league wide votes on trades, and have done away with trade committees when I became the commish. There is only one league that I still have trade approval powers, and that’s because we have roster limits that have to be met, and it’s merely an inventory step for me, no other assessment.
-oo-
I agree 100%! I will give you a perfect example of this. I once traded a dynasty league 2nd round draft pick for Felix Jones (and a player I was dumping). The guy I happened to be dumping was Arian Foster (the year prior to his breakout).
My league freaked. They basically said I was getting Felix (who everyone was high on) for a nobody draft pick. Well, a couple years later we see Felix on the wrong side of the Murray tandom and Arian as the #1 or #2 fantasy option out there. Luckily I was able to get Arian back in another trade! 🙂
Its hard to veto a trade when two grown men agree!
I agree with your article. I am in ministry and my league is full of current and former students. I with-hold the right to veto trades if I feel that owners are taking advantage of other owners who are new to FF or are being taken on a mistake like trading draft picks for rounds we don’t actually draft or are trading for the wrong Gronkowski. These have never happened so far. I have seen some trades that didn’t make any sense but both parties always say the understand what they are doing and it makes sense to them. Who am I to say who they can or cannot trade. I also have a trade deadline to avoid any collusion and during the off season I keep an eye out for it, and it has never happened that I have noticed. I don’t think I would take part in a league in which anyone could veto my trade for whatever reason they see fit.
Spot on analysis of the veto. Nice job!