Fantasy football trade etiquette question

[frapcap]

Morning fellas!
Hope ya'll had a good weekend with sunny skies. With these low temps, snow's a comin'!
Until we get there, I've occupied my time with some fantasy football.


Being that I'm not well versed (first year participating), I have a fantasy football etiquette question in regards to trades.
Our league is set up to have trade approvals. We are a 2 QB league, with 12 people. If less than 4 people oppose the trade (12 man league), then the trade goes through. But if 4 or more oppose, the trade does not go through. A trade did not go through this past week because one of the members would have been graced with 4 QB's. Some of the members are pissed about the rule, other look at it as a strategic option that they weren't going to allow (especially with Bye weeks coming up!).


My question to you guys is: is it common to give the other members of the league a vote in trades, or is it more common to let whatever trades happen, unopposed? Whats the standard?

(I'm the commissioner of this league and can make the change- and am also impartial to the scenario above, so feel free to speak unedited).

 

[Mullen]

Common practice is league votes, with commish getting the final say on the deal. I see lopsided trades all the time, and imo there isn't anything wrong with that, people's value perception is often different on players. Really the only reason to veto a trade is if it involves some sort of shennaigans or collusion. What is the trade exactly?

 

[frapcap]

The exact trade is a decent QB for a semi-decent WR. The perception value, as you mentioned, is null and void to on-lookers.
If the proposed trade were allowed to pass, one of the managers would have 4 QB's. Being that the league is a 2 QB league, having a reserve on the bench, regardless of how good he is, is a good game plan come time for Bye weeks. There aren't enough starting QB's for a 12 man, 2 QB league when the Bye weeks started coming. Those who voted down the trade probably did so because the guy was hoarding players and could force them to make trades for their good players (WR, RB, TE) so they don't go without a QB for 2-3 weeks (depending on rotation); some points are better than 0 points.

 

[Mullen]

Even in that situation I think I'd allow it. People hoard players for trade bait all the time, it's no different if it's quarter backs or running backs....running backs are going to look really shallow during bye weeks too, they already do. I don't see any collusion between those two owners. Just different strategies to managing. I wouldn't want the 4 qb team even for the trade bait, gotta be really shallow in other places.

 

[Savemeasammy]

It should be allowed. Unless there is clear collusion, the other owners should mind their own business.

 

[mriceyman]

unless it obvious that the trade is one sided then most trades go through even with the voting system

 

[MadMadWorld]

2 QB league with 12 teams is just asking for lopsided trades. That means at least 4 teams won't have a QB to cover bye weeks. And that's if the other teams don't hoard more than 3 QBs. I play in a 10 team - 2 QB league and there some lopsided deals in that so I can only imagine what your league is like. With that in mind, a trade should never be vetoed because it puts other teams at a disadvantage. It's a very smart strategy in my mind. I would have to know the players involved though.