Ray's Ramblings - Veto A Trade?

Posted on 2017-05-19 14:40 by Ray Flowers




Trades are a huge part of the fantasy game. Seasons can often be won if you buy that piece at the right moment. Conversely, if you sell that part at the wrong time, right before he takes off, you might beat yourself up for months. Regardless of the side you find yourself on, trades are a ton of fun, and we all love trying to “win” the deal no matter how big or small the deal is. Sometimes though, trades go horribly wrong. I’m not speaking about the deal you make that doesn’t work – like your guy goes on the DL three days after you acquire him – I mean those deals that just don’t make any sense at all. What do we do in a scenario where the is simply an awful trade consummated? Should the commissioner of the league veto the deal? Should the trade be put up for a league vote to see if it should be overturned? Should you simply leave the deal in place thinking that folks are allowed to manage their squad any way they deem fit? We shall take a look at these questions in what follows.


Wednesday morning, before I headed off to the dentist for two hours (yeah that was fun), I posted a simple question in a Twitter poll that ran for a few hours while I was getting my teeth drilled out. Here is that question and the shocking results of those who voted. Note that this question was from a redraft league with no keepers.


Here are some of the responses that folks left.

I voted no but what I'd do is tell the party giving up Kershaw/Yoenis to seek mental medical attention.

If two owners agree to a trade without evidence of collusion there should never be a veto

No evidence of collusion = no veto

I wouldn't, but I'd probably would punch in the face the guy trading Kershaw

Lopsided trade, bad trade. But if there's no collusion or foul play I'd let it go through.

I don't believe in vetoing trades unless collusion is clearly involved

No. Is there obvious collusion? If not, trades should not be vetoed. Let the owners make the decisions they feel is right.

As you can see, the basic position was – as long as there is no collusion you have to let the deal go through. The Francisco Lindor for Yoenis Cespedes part of the deal, being fair depending upon which team needs, is easily understood and totally acceptable. So, let me get this straight then. It’s OK to deal Clayton Kershaw for Sonny Gray as long as no one was colluding? You realize that’s what you all are saying, right? That means you’re OK with dealing away the best pitcher in baseball for a guy who has a 5-12 record, a 5.45 ERA and a 1.47 WHIP since the start of last season (25 starts).

I’M STUNNED at how the vote played out. This trade is terrible, patently absurd, not remote equitable, fair or even defensible in any way, shape or form. I simply do not understand how in the world the voting played out the way it did. THIS DEAL MAKES NO SENSE, yet 41 percent of you believe it’s totally fine to allow it to move forward. How more 41 percent of you have no issue with this trade is just... insane to me. I’m not using that word willy nilly either. I think it is insane to suggest that this trade should be allowed.

Side note... how do you prove collusion in a deal? I don’t know if there’s an answer to that unless you have some sort of recording or email of both parties talking about how they are trying to cheat the league. Those pieces of evidence just won’t be available, so it’s really an unreasonable position to hold. Regardless, what do you call it when you deal the best starting pitcher in baseball and in return you get guy #75? Isn’t that collusion if you allow that trade to occur? I’m not talking just the two people in the trade, I’m talking about the whole league. You are ALL colluding to ruin your own season if you allow this deal to occur.



So, if you agree with me that this deal should have been vetoed, or if any deal should be vetoed for that matter, what is the best way to navigate this tricky scenario? Some thoughts.

1 – Be in a league with no trading. I doubt many would agree to participate in such a league, though there is no need to worry about anything tawdry in such a setup.

2 – Be in a league with people who can’t be taken advantage of like the above league. Make sure everyone is on the same playing field in terms of baseball knowledge.

3 – Require people to write out a brief trade review if the deal is questionable. In essence, ask the parties involved to explain why the trade should be allowed.

4 – Have a commissioner who renders a call on all trades.

5 – Allow the league owners to vote on the trade to approve/disapprove it. I’ve been in leagues with a lot of variation here, but I would suggest that if a third to half the league disapproves then the trade can be vetoed.

Let me be clear... I do not love the idea of vetoing deals. In fact, I haven’t been in a league in years that even has that as an option. Same time, I’m also not in leagues that would allow the above deal to occur because the owner that took the Gray side wouldn’t be allowed to participate in my leagues. It’s a tricky situation, vetoing a trade that has been completed, but sometimes owners have to be saved from themselves.


Ray Flowers can be heard Monday/Tuesday and Thursday/Friday, 7 PM EDT, Wednesday 8 PM EDT on SiriusXM Fantasy Sports Radio (Sirius 210, XM 87). You can also hear Ray Sunday nights at 8 PM EDT PM on the channel talking fantasy sports. Follow Ray’s work on Twitter (@baseballguys).