Trade Vetoes and Midseason Rule Changes

[DragonFire]

Two part question for everyone based on a situation currently happening in one of my leagues.

 

First question - What are your opinions on trade vetoes? I've been in leagues that have done this a couple of different ways, but the two I'm in on Yahoo do it the same. The league owners have a couple of days to review trades made, and can vote to veto a trade during that period. I think it's a majority required, but if enough vote, the trade is defeated. I've always felt this is an unfair way to judge a trade. I think there needs to be some sort of oversight to prevent collusion, but mob rule is probably not the way. I've known of many over the years who vetoed a trade for no reason other than they thought it made one team too good. What are your thoughts?

 

Second question/situation - What are your opinions on rule changes midway through a season? In one of those two leagues, we had two trades vetoed by the league within the same day that were done by the same teams. The first trade I personally found egregious. Joe Mixon for Martavis Bryant and Wendell Smallwood. The team giving up Mixon is 0-7. The team that would have gained Mixon is 5-2. Bryant was just demoted to the scout team and has been trending backward all year. Smallwood has been solid (this is full point PPR), but is hurt and in a three man time share. It looked TERRIBLE. That got shot down, so they pushed through Mixon, Gillislee, and Moncrief for Wilson, Bryant, and Smallwood. I still don't view that as totally on the level, but it was close enough that I didn't vote against that one. Even though the 0-7 team already had Brees at QB, Wilson is a strong enough QB that I could see someone giving Mixon for him. That one was vetoed as well.

 

This is where the situation comes in. The team that was 5-2 and would have been gaining Mixon is the deputy commissioner. He posted about his trades being vetoed, and then within about an hour the commissioner changed the trade oversight process from team vetoes to commissioner review. I actually favor that sort of review, but I draw the line at changing an established rule midway through the year. I feel like the optics on that are really bad as it has the look of the second in command being upset that he couldn't get one over on a bad team, complaining about it, and then his buddy the commissioner changing the rule. If he were to push the trade through now, it would be very ugly.

[UKMustangFan]

Trade veto voting is dumb in general. Rule changes in the middle of the season are even dumber.

 

Voting against a Mixon for Bryant & Smallwood trade though is a major head-scratcher....None of those players are relevant enough to veto it.

[MJAlltheWay24]

We basically removed the veto from the league I run a couple years ago. The veto is basically pointless. "Don't be butthurt cause two teams are getting better and you're left out.

 

Changing rules in the middle of the season is crap.

 

Changing rules should also be voted on by the league or at least some type of rules committee considering you always play with the same guys.

[MJAlltheWay24]

In our league, guys will potentially submit "rule changes" to myself all summer and then at the draft we will vote as a group on any changes people would like to make. We say majority has to vote for the change for it to happen, so 7 yes votes. No rules changes in midseason, bring it up in the offseason if you want to change something.

 

Things that have been recently submitted:

 

Move to PPR (Failed)

Change the number of teams that makes the playoffs (Failed)

Waiver wire doesn't reset each week (Passed)

Winner of the "Toilet Bowl" gets the first overall pick instead of just the worst team in the league (Passed) We had guys just completely quit and bail on their team when they knew they had no shot to make the playoffs.

[NamecipS]

I have never liked the Owner Vote Veto process. I'm of the opinion if you don't trust the people in your league then they shouldn't be in the league. The commissioner should be the only authority. If you don't trust the commissioner to run the league and make the decisions, then he/she shouldn't be the commissioner.

 

We had an incident last year in one of the BGP related leagues where a TD was scored on a fumble recovery(I think) and the league hadn't accounted for that specific situation. I think something like that would be the only mid-season rule change I could see being allowed. Otherwise all league rules should be decided prior to the season and any changes should be made next season. Changing how trades will work in Week 8 just draws more perception to the collusion thoughts.

[Habib]

I wouldn’t play in that league again. Totally amateur stuff there.

 

Mid-season rules changes should almost never happen, and only in the most extreme cases where something needs to be clarified or fixed. I can’t even think of an example.

 

I prefer leagues where the commissioner alone has trade veto power (and you need a good commissioner).

 

Trades should only be vetoed for collusion and not because someone is a poor manager. One person’s trash is another’s treasure and all that. Ideally a good trade makes both teams better, and letting other managers vote on it gives them the incentive to block good trades that make rivals better.

 

I don’t know the dynamics of your league, but considering the 0-5 team is losing Mixon for Bryant and the co-commissioner is changing rules to make it happen, it sounds much more like collusion than a manager taking a risk/reward gamble on Bryant bouncing back (I can almost see the strategy of the 0-5 guy is a savvy manager but I’m willing to bet he’s checked out, not caring anymore).

[DragonFire]

To add to my earlier, I've now come to find out that even though it showed the full commissioner as the one who changed the rule, it was the deputy who did it (the one involved in the trade). When I asked if he planned to reverse it or if he did it just to create a discussion, he informed me it was a done deal and that the league wasn't a democracy. Makes my choice pretty cut and dry.

 

I admit I take fantasy football too seriously, but when there's money involved, there has to be rules and trust. And they've both been broken.

[NamecipS]

To add to my earlier, I've now come to find out that even though it showed the full commissioner as the one who changed the rule, it was the deputy who did it (the one involved in the trade). When I asked if he planned to reverse it or if he did it just to create a discussion, he informed me it was a done deal and that the league wasn't a democracy. Makes my choice pretty cut and dry.

 

I admit I take fantasy football too seriously, but when there's money involved, there has to be rules and trust. And they've both been broken.

 

Are these friends of yours?

 

Time for a new league.

 

Curious, is there a reason why you've never applied for the BGP league?

[rjs4470]

Rules should never be changed mid season. Period, and end of story.

 

I'm not a fan of trade vetoes. I played in a league that had that, and trades never happened after a couple got shot down. Trades are a necessary thing in large leagues, and any league that is a keeper league...basically where it's tough to improve your position via the waiver wire.

[DragonFire]

Are these friends of yours?

 

Time for a new league.

 

Curious, is there a reason why you've never applied for the BGP league?

 

Two of the people in the league are. One of those joined with me this year. We've been looking to get into a league together, and two spots came open, so we hopped in. My friend who was already in the league has kinda indicated it's not normally this way, but it is what it is, I can't endorse that. I'll play the year out, but this will be a one year odyssey.

 

As for the BGP league, I was in it one year when the American conference was opened up. It went really badly for me, so I was out after that first year. And honestly, I had jumped up to four leagues that year, which was a bad idea in and of itself. I shouldn't have done that. I wouldn't ever rule it out, but the 16 teams thing really taxed me. I shouldn't even be in the three I am now, and thanks to this incident, I won't!

[UKMustangFan]

So I'm the only one that doesn't understand why the initial Mixon for Bryant and Smallwood trade got vetoed?

[rjs4470]

So I'm the only one that doesn't understand why the initial Mixon for Bryant and Smallwood trade got vetoed?

 

I don't see any real reason. Mixon is better. But Smallwood is capable of having big games, and there's upside with Bryant even though he was just demoted. I kind of think the guy that would have ended up with Smallwood got the better of the deal. No way is Mixon worth two guys.

[DragonFire]

So I'm the only one that doesn't understand why the initial Mixon for Bryant and Smallwood trade got vetoed?

 

I personally thought that one was untenable. I get that Mixon only touched it ten times last game, but before that he'd been given at least 15 every game since the OC changeover. He's seen as possibly the most talented of the RBs in this awesome rookie class - debatable but has been suggested - and is considered the #1 in a better spot of the timeshare. People have and continue to speculate that it's only a matter of time before he's completely handed the keys, and things have trended in that direction. He averaged 6.9 YPC last week against Pittsburgh but was inexplicably not handed the ball in the second half. He is trending up.

 

Martavis Bryant has 18 catches on the year. For reference, that is four more than Mixon has as an RB. Bryant hasn't scored since Week 2, has topped 30 yards only once since then (it was 48), and has created so much discontent that he has been demoted to the scout team and will be a healthy inactive this week. He is trending down.

 

Smallwood has been hurt, is just the third down back, and is currently in a three way timeshare where he probably is not going to be given the keys.

 

Mixon is a startable back. Smallwood is borderline, and there are major concerns with his durability. Bryant is almost completely worthless. To me, the person getting Mixon is dominating. Everyone doesn't necessarily view it that way, hence the problem with team vetoes.

 

All that said too, I do believe the reason it was vetoed is because the top guy was trading players he doesn't need in the least for a player he probably will use. There are many who will veto that trade simply to not see a team improve itself that is already good. Again, the problem with team vetoes. I agreed with the rule change itself, just not when it was done.

[GrizzlyAdams]

Drop that league. I'm commissioner in all leagues I'm in minus BGP. I couldnt take all the bad commissioners in leagues. It's an awful job because it is a thankless job but I have so much more fun in leagues where I know stupid stuff wont happen.

[GrizzlyAdams]

Trade veto voting is dumb in general. Rule changes in the middle of the season are even dumber.

 

Voting against a Mixon for Bryant & Smallwood trade though is a major head-scratcher....None of those players are relevant enough to veto it.

 

Guy from work is in a league that doesnt do vetoes. Trade just happened of Mixon for Zeke. Worse than the trade in our BGP league this year.