This is excerpted from a longer piece on trade veto principles I wrote in September, but given how often it’s come up in the [League, Commissioner, and Platform Issues] index thread in the past two weeks I wanted to lift up some parts for discussion as leagues approach trade deadlines and the playoffs, as the non-collusive reasons why a trade might be vetoed start to take center stage:

+ + +

It’s hard to define “collusion,” and it’s certainly hard to prove it if all you have are the names of the players involved and some sense of the relationship between the trading owners. Collusion is not as broad as “a trade I don’t like between people who know each other.” But it’s also not like people readily fess up or accidentally send self-incriminating texts around.

It’s helpful to be more specific. Here’s some examples that u/my_chat_account and I have identified:

• Any agreement, outside of the trade in question, that affects the trade in question. “Trade back” agreements, money changing hands, buying the other owner a beer, doing work for the other owner etc. Sometimes it’s hard to get concrete proof but usually you get some indication it’s happened. It can frequently be presumed based on family ties, romantic relationships and the like, but presumption is not proof, and owners should be allowed to justify their decisions before a deal is voided.
• Bench sharing/player loans. Even if the initial trade seems kosher, that tradeback is illegal. FF is supposed to force hard decisions, and one-week rentals are afoul of this. Any trade which cannot be completed in and justified by itself is sus.

But there are other Bad Things which are not “collusion” (which requires agreement as the term is normally understood), and at the same time still are bad enough to merit voiding the deal:

• Owner quitting league and unloading players
• Owner having nothing to gain, so unloading players. To be clear, this is apathy, not collusion, but it’s veto worthy. It happens most frequently at end of season in redraft leagues. Best remedy is an earlier trade deadline – 3 weeks before end of regular season? – as well as anti-tanking rules.
• Owner being pissed off about a result or decision, so making a spiteful trade

All of these examples above involve an owner who is not sincerely or rationally trying to improve their team. And before pursuing a veto you should always ask that wayward owner, the hell are you thinking?. To borrow a legal phrase, what you’re looking for is a rational basis for the trade. It doesn’t have to be correct, you don’t have to agree with it, but it at least needs to be at the level of “I understand your thinking, and I accept that you were trying to improve your team here in a non-absurd way.”

[On this, context helps. When you have a league with a mix of experienced and more casual players, consider being more aggressive in protecting noobs from rash or ill-considered deals, especially those based on a misunderstanding of league roster rules or when a $100 bill is being exchanged for three $20s and a pocketful of mumbles. Rather than by letting someone learn via suffering, stop them before it’s too late?]

While we’re at it, these things do not merit voiding a trade:

• “Sign and trade” deals. I see nothing wrong with an owner saying, “Hey, if you use your waivers priority/FAAB advantage on [Player X], I will trade [Y] to you,”
• Now for Later deals in keeper/dynasty leagues. If anything, that’s the point of these leagues. Yes, they can create mega-teams in the present season, but the places to address these questions are generally in your keeper and anti-tanking rules. You’re allowed to trade this year’s studs for next year’s high draft picks and possibilities.
• Trades which would have seemed crazy based on preseason valuations but do not seem crazy now. You want to trade Tony Pollard for David Montgomery? Go for it.

If you have any questions after today as to how to treat a trade in your league, go to the active [League, Commissioner, and Platform Issues] index thread. Folks will be happy to help.

One last thing: leagues should be consistent on trade processing times. If your commissioner ever expedites processing a deal so that players move before a Thursday night or Sunday afternoon game, then every owner is entitled to that same treatment. Got it?