Fantasy Football Trade Vetoes

Q: In our league, we are having problems getting trades to pass the veto vote. No one seems to agree on how to determine if a trade is \”fair\”. Points, avgs., Pos. rank are easy to determine but how do you weigh potential or upcoming schedule.Most recent veto is P Manning for K Warner and Calvin Johnson. Is this a fair trade?

A: We only recommend trades under two circumstances:

1.   The trade is an example of collusion
2.   The trade is extremely unfair – to the point that it is virtually impossible for one of the teams involved to argue that they are benefiting from the deal

Please note that we said ‘unfair’, not ‘uneven’.   In theory, all trades are somewhat ‘uneven’ as the value exchanged is almost never completely equal.    For example, Drew Brees and Tom Brady have almost identical statlines this season.   However, Brady has four more fantasy points than Brees.   Technically this trade is uneven.   Does that mean such a trade should be vetoed?  Of course not.   Because the fantasy points put up by Brady and Brees are comparable and it is reasonable to believe that either side of the trade could benefit depending on how the rest of the season plays out.

It is hard to quantify a trade because you have no insight into the future.    Looking at points and position rank is helpful, but it doesn’t say anything about how the traded players perform after the trade.   Is Randy Moss for Mike Sims-Walker a trade that should be vetoed?  You could argue that it is.    But it is also completely reasonable to think that Sims-Walker will outscore Moss throughout the rest of the season.

The point is, we recommend that you use your veto powers sparingly.   You have to let your owners manage their rosters.    We typically use position rankings and average points per game (to account for bye weeks) in our trade evaluations.   You are essentially trying to proove that one of the teams involved in a trade is not trying to improve their team.   If there is a chance (even a small one) that they gain an advantage from the trade, then it should be allowed to pass.

Based on this logic we would not veto the trade mentioned below (Manning for Warner/Johnson).    Moving from Manning (3rd ranked QB) to Warner (12th ranked QB) is definitely a downgrade.   But that team is picking up Calvin Johnson and though he is currently the 48th ranked WR he’s been injured and has the potential to be a dominant player down the stretch.   Is it reasonable to believe that the value added by Johnson at WR will more than offset the expected loss of value after the QB downgrade?   We think so.

One last point.   We would rather be on the Manning side of the trade.   But just because we favor one side of the trade over another doesn’t mean it should be vetoed.   Your opinion is subjective and should not be the basis of a veto decision.   Look at the facts, assess the value being exchanged in the trade and only veto as a last resort.