Bandit
RIP to the real Bandit
- 6,424
- 5,308
- 533
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Location
- Titusville, FL
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
So this was part of Matthew Berry's Love/Hate column today and it's always been one of his biggest pet peeves regarding vetoes. I happen to agree with him 100%, but it's a good read in case anybody ever asks if they should veto a trade.
www.nbcsports.com
It happened today.
It also happened yesterday.
It’s probably because it happens every damn day.
“Is this trade fair?”
“The league wants to veto this, are they right?”
“Help me settle a dispute, TMR…”
With Davante Adams going to the Jets, Amari Cooper being dealt to the Bills and sure, Cam Akers re-uniting with the Vikings, the NFL trades on Tuesday have me thinking about fantasy trades more than usual.
Just this morning, there was a trade in one of MY leagues and a private chat quickly started up among some non-trade partners of folks in the league, grumbling about the trade. In fairness, I was among those complaining. I personally thought it was a terrible trade for one of the people in the deal, and that the manager could have gotten a lot more for the star they were trading away had they just announced it to the league that this player was on the block.
But, while I was annoyed and shook my head as I texted away, guess what else I did?
Absolutely nothing.
Because the person who got the star player, well, good for them. They got to this other manager before I or anyone else in the league could, they negotiated a deal, they win. That’s the game we play.
Yesterday, I was a guest on a TV show, and I got the same question… this person traded this and this and got back this, and the league is tearing apart, and do I think it should be vetoed?
SIGH.
I’ve written my stance on this before, but it bears repeating. Honestly, I should do this every year. I feel like I do it often, but it never seems to be enough. Because the questions still come. Over and over again. The names of the players change, the settings, rules and context of the leagues change, but none of it matters.
Because it’s the same damn question, and the answer is always the same.
NO.
You shouldn’t veto. The trade should stand.
But you don’t understand---they interrupt.
The answer is no.
But let me just say this one other thing---
The answer is still no.
But guess what place the team trading the star away is in, and you don’t know that they already have a good---
The answer is always no.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS NO.
Like every hard and fast rule, there is one exception. ONE.
You (or rather, your commissioner) can veto if, and ONLY IF, there is a clear and provable case of collusion between two managers in which one manager is aware the trade is terrible and does NOT believe the trade will improve their team but is doing the trade anyways for different reasons that are NOT trying to improve the fantasy team.
If you find that out, then yes, you must veto the trade. And honestly? Kick the two people out of the league. But that’s another column.
Other than that, one specific example, every trade must go through. You hear me? Must go through. Must.
Look, I’ve been there. You see the email notification as it comes across your screen, and you roll your eyes. You smack your head. What was that person thinking?
But it doesn’t matter. Managers must be allowed to coach their teams.
Even if it’s done badly.
Look, part of the fun of fantasy football is that we all have different opinions on players. And no one can predict the future. A week ago, a trade of WR22 on the season, Rashid Shaheed, for third string and never used running back Sean Tucker would have drawn a crazy uproar. Today, Shaheed has a serious injury and might miss the rest of the season. And Tucker just went for $60 in FAAB in a deep league that I am in.
And before you say that even with that hindsight, a Shaheed for Tucker deal a week ago would still have been bad, sure. I agree with you. But it doesn’t matter. Because it’s not about whether the trade was good or bad, or was bad, and then turned good due to injury and changes in opportunity.
The only thing that matters is the two people doing the trade thought they were giving themselves a better chance to win by making the deal. Whether it turned out to be right or wrong is immaterial.
There is no gray area. You still don’t veto.
Because it’s not your job to manage someone else’s team. You don’t think he got nearly enough for his star quarterback? So what? Not your team, not your quarterback. He or she is allowed to run it any way they want, be it into first place or right into the ground.
Just like they are allowed to manage their team any way they want, so are you. That’s your job. Your only job. Worry about YOUR team. Period.
And understand this. The art of negotiation is a skill. It’s part of fantasy football, just like drafting, waiver wire pickups, making starting lineup decisions. It’s a skill and part of what you need to be a successful player.
And it should be rewarded, not punished or neutralized.
There’s a special place in Hell reserved for the people who veto just because it’s a deal that didn’t involve them or because, “it’s part of their strategy.” That’s not strategy, that’s being a jerk. It’s being a coward. It’s, frankly, not being good enough to win on your own. Someone beat you to a good deal. It is what it is -- part of the game, same as beating another player to the waiver wire or getting a win with the second-lowest score of the week because you happen to face the lowest scorer.
And if you are a commissioner and you don’t enforce this rule -- you allow vetoes to happen, or worse, you veto them yourself -- you wipe away any of the good you have done by being a commissioner.
Win on the virtual field, not in some technocratic loophole. And don’t argue with me about this because there is no argument. You’re wrong. A fantasy league is not an autocratic country. It is made up of individuals with free will to manage their teams as they see fit. And if you try to impede that, you’re a bunch of words I can’t print.
Now go, trade, be merry and stop asking me whether a trade should be vetoed. Because the answer is no. Always. NO.
Matthew Berry's Love/Hate for Week 7 of 2024 season
Baker Mayfield, Kyren Williams, Jordan Mason and Brock Bowers headline the Love/Hate players for Week 7.
www.nbcsports.com
It happened today.
It also happened yesterday.
It’s probably because it happens every damn day.
“Is this trade fair?”
“The league wants to veto this, are they right?”
“Help me settle a dispute, TMR…”
With Davante Adams going to the Jets, Amari Cooper being dealt to the Bills and sure, Cam Akers re-uniting with the Vikings, the NFL trades on Tuesday have me thinking about fantasy trades more than usual.
Just this morning, there was a trade in one of MY leagues and a private chat quickly started up among some non-trade partners of folks in the league, grumbling about the trade. In fairness, I was among those complaining. I personally thought it was a terrible trade for one of the people in the deal, and that the manager could have gotten a lot more for the star they were trading away had they just announced it to the league that this player was on the block.
But, while I was annoyed and shook my head as I texted away, guess what else I did?
Absolutely nothing.
Because the person who got the star player, well, good for them. They got to this other manager before I or anyone else in the league could, they negotiated a deal, they win. That’s the game we play.
Yesterday, I was a guest on a TV show, and I got the same question… this person traded this and this and got back this, and the league is tearing apart, and do I think it should be vetoed?
SIGH.
I’ve written my stance on this before, but it bears repeating. Honestly, I should do this every year. I feel like I do it often, but it never seems to be enough. Because the questions still come. Over and over again. The names of the players change, the settings, rules and context of the leagues change, but none of it matters.
Because it’s the same damn question, and the answer is always the same.
NO.
You shouldn’t veto. The trade should stand.
But you don’t understand---they interrupt.
The answer is no.
But let me just say this one other thing---
The answer is still no.
But guess what place the team trading the star away is in, and you don’t know that they already have a good---
The answer is always no.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS NO.
Like every hard and fast rule, there is one exception. ONE.
You (or rather, your commissioner) can veto if, and ONLY IF, there is a clear and provable case of collusion between two managers in which one manager is aware the trade is terrible and does NOT believe the trade will improve their team but is doing the trade anyways for different reasons that are NOT trying to improve the fantasy team.
If you find that out, then yes, you must veto the trade. And honestly? Kick the two people out of the league. But that’s another column.
Other than that, one specific example, every trade must go through. You hear me? Must go through. Must.
Look, I’ve been there. You see the email notification as it comes across your screen, and you roll your eyes. You smack your head. What was that person thinking?
But it doesn’t matter. Managers must be allowed to coach their teams.
Even if it’s done badly.
Look, part of the fun of fantasy football is that we all have different opinions on players. And no one can predict the future. A week ago, a trade of WR22 on the season, Rashid Shaheed, for third string and never used running back Sean Tucker would have drawn a crazy uproar. Today, Shaheed has a serious injury and might miss the rest of the season. And Tucker just went for $60 in FAAB in a deep league that I am in.
And before you say that even with that hindsight, a Shaheed for Tucker deal a week ago would still have been bad, sure. I agree with you. But it doesn’t matter. Because it’s not about whether the trade was good or bad, or was bad, and then turned good due to injury and changes in opportunity.
The only thing that matters is the two people doing the trade thought they were giving themselves a better chance to win by making the deal. Whether it turned out to be right or wrong is immaterial.
There is no gray area. You still don’t veto.
Because it’s not your job to manage someone else’s team. You don’t think he got nearly enough for his star quarterback? So what? Not your team, not your quarterback. He or she is allowed to run it any way they want, be it into first place or right into the ground.
Just like they are allowed to manage their team any way they want, so are you. That’s your job. Your only job. Worry about YOUR team. Period.
And understand this. The art of negotiation is a skill. It’s part of fantasy football, just like drafting, waiver wire pickups, making starting lineup decisions. It’s a skill and part of what you need to be a successful player.
And it should be rewarded, not punished or neutralized.
There’s a special place in Hell reserved for the people who veto just because it’s a deal that didn’t involve them or because, “it’s part of their strategy.” That’s not strategy, that’s being a jerk. It’s being a coward. It’s, frankly, not being good enough to win on your own. Someone beat you to a good deal. It is what it is -- part of the game, same as beating another player to the waiver wire or getting a win with the second-lowest score of the week because you happen to face the lowest scorer.
And if you are a commissioner and you don’t enforce this rule -- you allow vetoes to happen, or worse, you veto them yourself -- you wipe away any of the good you have done by being a commissioner.
Win on the virtual field, not in some technocratic loophole. And don’t argue with me about this because there is no argument. You’re wrong. A fantasy league is not an autocratic country. It is made up of individuals with free will to manage their teams as they see fit. And if you try to impede that, you’re a bunch of words I can’t print.
Now go, trade, be merry and stop asking me whether a trade should be vetoed. Because the answer is no. Always. NO.
