Vetoed Fantasy Football Trade

Q:  I am in a 16 team keeper league in its inaugural season.  A trade was recently proposed (by a fantasy football rookie; call him Team 1) that would send Edgerrin James and Jeff Garcia to another team (Team 2) for Stephen Jackson.  This trade was accepted by both teams.  League rules allow the trade to be vetoed if six teams deem the trade to be unbalanced.  Within the 48 hour review period, six teams voted to veto the trade while three teams voted to allow the trade.  Other teams were not heard from.  Once the trade was vetoed, a post was made in our league message board from Team 2 stating…

“You have no business vetoing somebody else’s trade unless it’s clearly collusion (2 owners trying to help only 1 team win). I guess you didn’t feel like the other owner’s offer was fair, but what you really did was prevent me from getting a backup QB to cover my bye in week 8.

So I will be vetoing all your trades now, since I feel my trade was unfairly vetoed.”

I would like your thoughts on this.  Was this a valid trade that should have been allowed?

Also, as commissioner of this league, should I post any sort of rebuttal, say something face to face about this petty post, or just let it go?

A:  Thanks for your question.  First lets establish if the trade is fair.  Look at the stats from the first 5 weeks of the season:

S.Jackson: 229 yds, 0TDs, 57 yds receiving (3 games)
James:  442 yds, 3TDs, 68 yds receiving (5 games)
Garcia:  914 yds, 4TDs, 0INTs (5 games)

From this perspective the trade in question seems heavily favored towards team 2 (who receives James & Garcia).  Now step away from the stats and think about how great Jackson has proven to be in the past few seasons.  Exactly - it is still way too early in the season and if you look at the big picture, Jackson clearly has the most potential of the bunch.  Team 1 receives an absolutely stud RB1 (who is simply off to a rough start) and team 2 receives depth at QB and a decent RB2.  Different risk levels are involved for these two teams but this trade is absolutely fair. No questions.

I pulled this excerpt from one of my previous posts but I think it is very applicable here:

… you have to realize that there is a difference between an unfair trade (that should be vetoed) and an uneven trade (that favors one team but should still be allowed).  Uneven trades still stink, and can affect the balance of your league, but that’s why you hopefully limit the number of idiots in your league.

Now on to the “I will be vetoing all your trades” comment.  I love this comment because it accurately and honestly describes how 95% of all fantasy league participants think.  Everyone wants to believe that they can prevent their personal interest from affecting how they evaluate a trade.  I’m going to respectively call BS, everyone votes based on which scenario will benefit their team the most.  This is why trade vetoes are the single most disputed over issue in fantasy football.  This owner is trying to bring this subjectivity out into the open - he’s just not doing it tactfully.

Going forward, the most important thing to do as commissioner is to set a precedent that will allow you to rule fairly and swiftly on similar issues in the future.  You could back the current policy, regardless if malicious owners are vetoing trades simply for personal gain - at least you are adhering to the rules set forth by your league.  You could require all owners that veto to explain why and then make a final ruling based on whether their arguments have merit.  Or you could treat our decision (or that of a similar objective third-party service) as the final judgment.