Am I over-reacting

I’m not a fan of trade vetoes, but I gotta admit, that trade smells a little fishy. Then again, collusion in week 2 is unlikely unless someone really hated his draft.

I would not like that someone was dumb enough to make the trade and would be upset that I didn't find the sucker first, but I wouldn't veto.

As to your question of whether you are overreacting, it depends. Are these friends and family or is this a bunch of online strangers? If it is a friends/family league, yeah you're probably overreacting and a year or two later, you'll regret that you're no longer part of the league. If it's a group of strangers, who cares.

League votes on trades shouldn't be a thing. Should be up to commissioner discretion alone to snuff out collusion.

If you don't trust your league mates enough to not collude, then no you shouldn't be playing together.

Trade raping someone =/= collusion for the record

10 man league. It was a bad trade. I couldn't believe he accepted but it wasn't collusion. The guy just accepted a bad trade... but that's part of it. It shouldn't have been vetoed and everyone in the group knew it wasn't collusion. They just didn't want me to get that trade.

The overall loser has to pay for everyone's bar tab until they finish a 5k run. No one would collude and risk being the overall loser.

10 man league

1 QB
2 RB
3 WR
1TE
1 W/R/T
1 K
1 D

Not collusion. Just a bad manager. Some players vote based on how it impacts their team, so having a league veto sucks. With that said, commissioner reserves the right to ask both teams how the trade benefits their team if it seems sketchy. If commissioner is involved in trade, have a 3 manager vote.

In this league, you’re starting an extra wr, so there’s a slight uptick for Diggs who looked like the wr1 after the first 2 weeks. Also, the manager could think Bowers will struggle all year with that injury that sidelined him the first 2 weeks. In reality, he could’ve received much better for Bowers.

1000%

After the trade got vetoed he got offere T. Mclaurin and D. Shultz for Bowers and he took it. The league didn't veto that. That's what really ticked me off. Everyone thought it was hilarious and I was fuming.

quote:

---

The trade is pretty one-sided, but if it’s like an 8-team league or 2 qb league, this is potentially collusion.

---

I don’t understand this. It’s collusion if they colluded, otherwise it’s just a questionable trade. A lopsided trade doesn’t make it collusion unless they actually planned it.

quote:

---

don’t understand this. It’s collusion if they colluded, otherwise it’s just a questionable trade. A lopsided trade doesn’t make it collusion unless they actually planned it

---

Because you can’t prove collusion unless one of the managers admit to it.

In my example, If it’s an 8-team league and a 2 qb league, Goff and Bowers were the 2 best players by far in the trade and the others aren’t even starters. No manager attempting to win would make that trade, but without one admitting to it, how do you prove its collusion? Do you just let the trade go through?

Actually, based on the trade they pushed through right after, I don’t see them as being friendly or trustworthy. It seems to me they’re used to him doing well in the league and don’t want him to get an advantage via poor management.

In their format, I don’t think that trade is absolutely collusion, so I wouldn’t veto. But my answer wouldn’t change if it was a “buddies” league or random league. Thats where we differ

I read it as you being a manager in the league stating “OPs trade is getting vetoed.”

Completely agree. It’s very rare that there isn’t a winner and loser in a trade. I like giving the commissioner the power to veto with the expectation that they are only vetoing if they deem it collusion. If there’s a trade that seems sketchy, they can ask the teams involved how the trade makes their team better. If they aren’t satisfied with the answer, then bring it up to the league for vote. Should be extremely rare, especially if you’re playing with buddies.