IMO 4th place team is getting a better deal

Ya obviously I know that. But it shouldn't be vetoed, am I wrong?

To me, the main way in deciding to veto the trade is trying to think like the worst part of the trade.

In this particular trade, it makes no sense. Oubre is about to drop a little bit with the complete roster, but Green and Jokic can only go up. While on the other side Tobias is playing pretty well already, Porzingis is nice and Zeller is a flyer.

I think you could ask them what they were thinking, but, in a vacuum, I would veto it, even with all the bad implications of a veto.

So I have had instances similar in my leagues, both when I'm commish, and not. I believe pretty firmly that a trade shouldn't be vetoed as long as both teams are trying to be competitive ( with no Collusion) and both sides can reasonably defend their decision.

So yeah, I would defintely say it looks like your team is getting a pretty great deal... but im good with it if the 4th place team can explain why he thinks it makes his team better and still wants to go through with it. Just have him defend his decision on the league message board, and in my experience, it takes the pressure (and league ire) off you and centers it more on the other team. Because as a fair league commish, you cant be in the practice of canceling trades other people in the league really want to do, whether you are involved or not.

Hope this helps!

The last place team told everyone before the trade if someone can offer him something better to send an offer, but no one did. Now that he accepted a trade, everyones going nuts lol. But honestly, I went over the trade myself and I just can't find a reason to veto it. And I see NO UPSIDE for draymond. I think I am going to let it through.

If it’s not collusion it must go. Not your job to police bad decisions

Put trade through, thanks for the input!

No collusion = automatic accept

Only trades that should be vetoed are those suspect to collusion. Obviously the Jokic side is better, but as Dan says, you can't police bad decision-making. That's not the purpose of vetoing trades. Just like in professional sports, you can't overturn a trade or play because it's a bad move. If a quarterback threw a an interception to the other team when he had none of his receivers around, he doesn't get a do-over because it was a bad idea. Making a bad play is making a bad play. That guy will live and learn. If no collusion, no veto.

I hear all this "only when no Collusion talk" and I have to disagree a bit, i think the decision to veto or not is a bit more nuanced... especially (primarily) when it involves a top team trading with the last place team.

So for those of us that have been doing fantasy for 10-20 years at this point, we all have seen this scenario...in most typical leagues, the last place guy typically just gives up at some point and just stops even setting his lineup. Well when this happens (and it's obvious the guy has quit), I think the team needs to be frozen and (unless there are extenuating circumstances) be disallowed to make future trades or moves.

For example...Put yourself in this scenario, if you haven't already experienced something similar. 2 years ago I was in a friend's league and was battling a guy all year for top honors in that league and was currently first. It was around the all star break and the last 2 teams in the league hadnt even set their lineups since New year's - much to my chagrin because they both had some of my favourite "buy low" candidates but couldn't even be bothered to answer one of my trade requests. Well imagine my surprise when I get an email that the last place player is trading his best guy to my rival, the second place guy, for a bunch of poop scraps. What made matters look worse, those 2 guys were friends. They swore no collusion, and honestly both were stand up dudes and so I believed them. We let it stand, the last place guy continued not setting his lineup and my rival won the league. The whole thing bugged me, and I later asked that last place guy why he made that trade. He said 2 reasons: #1. He had stopped playing and really didn't care, so when a friend sent him a trade offer he thought, "sure why not, I'm not using this guy." And #2 he said if he was being completely honest, "I also just had a bad day and secretly wanted to create a little chaos."

So clearly, there was technically no collusion that occurred there. But we all take our fantasy sports pretty seriously, so are we honestly okay with the above happening? I agree, people should be free to make bad decisions, it happens in sports all the time, but not setting your lineup for 5 weeks is the opposite of making a decision. It's doing nothing, and doing literally nothing for 5 straight weeks will get you fired from every job, everywhere, everytime.

So with the above example of the quarterback, I get the sentiment, but even that doesn't hold up to my scenario. Again, if we are talking about consistent inactivity... that's like a QB receiving a shot gun snap and just standing there and doing nothing for 5 straight weeks while he is repeatedly bludgeoned. Well, if he decides he finally wants to make a decision and do something with the ball that 6th week...guess what? Too bad. He's already been benched,
likely fired and, in this case, possibly institutionalized. But the point is, if we want to make fantasy sports as realistic and fair as possible, there is absolutely a strong precedent for barring quitters from wrecking a league. Imagine what would to a coach or GM in the nba If he stopped showing up to work and doing his job for 5 weeks...

Anyway, if anyone actually bothered to read this, thanks for your patience and perseverance ha. And its early in the season so none of this may have even occurred yet with the original poster's question. But its Just something I would personally like added to the holy book of "Fantasy trade guidelines", so it doesn't burn me or any of you again! It would read like this:

"Trades should only be vetoed in instances when clear collusion can be proven or when consistent inactivity and negligence was present previous to (and preceding) trade approval."

Wish I could up-vote a reply... well done!

I would argue that example you gave fits the idea that there was collusion. He admitted he did it because it was his friend.

I guess it depends on your definition of collusion, but I think technically to "collude" with someone else there has to be 2 sided communication and some sort of effort to gain an edge or deceive. Or at the minimum, the communication atleast has an insidious nature to it. In my case, my rival just sent him a low ball trade request, as he had done to me and countless others in the league, and this one just happened to be accepted. But there was no communication between them plotting my rival taking over the league, which I think makes this scenario ineligible for collusion.

But I think it's okay to admit that being friends with someone increases your chances to potentially create a trade together,
without automatically resulting in something sinister taking place. I'm in a league with my brother (one of my best friends) and we swing trades all the time... it's much easier because we trust each other and aren't trying to win the league in one move like some guys are. We will swing balanced, even trades that just help each other out positionally or to beef up certain stats we are lacking. But nobody has ever even thought about complaining about us making trades and colluding and the common denominator is that we are both trying like crazy to win every week. But if you arent actually trying to win, then it probably means you aren't playing, and if you aren't playing? Then why should you be able to affect the rest of the league?

voting is the fairest way to judge a trade.