A listener to the Fantasy Football Weekly radio show that I co-host called in this past Saturday and asked about a seemingly unbalanced trade that went down in his league. He wondered whether we thought it should be vetoed. 

Whenever the topic of vetoing trades comes up, it gets me going. I admit that I get just as frustrated as any owner when a lopsided deal goes down in a league in which I am playing (and I am not the lucky owner on the good end of the deal). That said, I am adamantly opposed to trade vetoes unless and only unless some kind of under-handed intentions (e.g. collusion) can be proven. If two owners are in cahoots to try and build one championship team and split the money, there is not only grounds for veto, but also for kicking the offenders out of the league. In nearly every other case I can think of, vetoing is ill-advised.

The reason is that it opens up an ugly can of worms. Once you set the precedent that  trade can be vetoed, every other trade will be called into scrutiny. In light of the fact that almost no trades are completely fair and balanced, this will lead to chaos. Owners will want to veto trades that help their rivals, are the least bit unbalanced, or merely out of spite because one of their trades was shot down.

The bottom line is that you can't legislate against stupidity. Ill-informed, short-sighted, or lazy owners will make stupid trades every year; there is nothing you can do about it.  Besides, how many times has that "horrible" trade that made every owner in your league groan and complain turn out to favor the team that supposedly made the terrible deal? From my lengthy experience, I would say at least half the time. 

Veto the trade veto.