Finally, some controversy. Some juicy IFL drama.
In case you somehow missed it, Nelson and Jackson had agreed to the following trade:
I vetoed the trade on the grounds of being egregiously imbalanced toward one team. Some league trolls feigned dissent, which ultimately led to this epic moment:
And then this poignant, instant documentation in history:
All of which brings to light the process of trade review in the IFL and the power of the commissioner to veto.
the current process
So what happens when an accepted trade comes across the commissioner's desk? Good question, whoever's writing this.
The first couple weeks of the IFL's existence, the league settings on NFL.com were set to "League Votes", but were then changed to "League Manager Veto" so that we could eliminate the lengthy processing time of trades, and because the process having league votes for accepting / vetoing a trade is very faulty. The league vote becomes so much about what the team's records are, if the involved party is your best friend or mortal enemy, whether you're jealous you didn't make the trade for that player yourself, or because you're the guy that always vetoes trades no matter what, and very quickly is no longer about whether the trade was actually imbalanced or not.
Since the very first trade of the IFL, I have reviewed all accepted trades to prevent collusion, illegality, and from a trade being too imbalanced toward one team.
In order to judge whether a trade is too imbalanced, I use several tools and checks.
One of these checks is a consulting panel that is made up of veteran fantasy coaches that represent multiple divisions within the IFL and are people that I trust to be unbiased. I present all trades to them and get their feedback on the relative balance of the trade.
I present this panel with the findings of FantasyPros.com's trade analyzer, which takes the Rest of Season rankings from the most accurate fantasy experts and averages them to get an accurate consensus ranking for each player and combines this with value over replacement player based formulas to give an analysis of the relative balance of a given trade. This gives a neutral basis for judging a trade's balance, from fantasy experts outside the league.
Each coach on this panel uses these findings along with their own deep knowledge of fantasy to come to their own opinion about whether or not the trade crosses the line of being too imbalanced.
After each coach has informed me of their opinion, I make the final decision on whether to veto a trade based on information from the trade analyzer, the consensus of the consulting panel, and my own knowledge of fantasy.
To be clear, I'm not looking for a perfectly fair trade, because that rarely exists, and if that were the criteria, every trade would be vetoed. What I'm fighting against is a trade this is deemed to be too one-sided.
This review process has only ever led to 2 vetoes in 24 accepted trades (including Nelson-Jackson trade) through 3+ seasons. The first vetoed trade came last year, the result of which being the trade was modified to be more balanced and then approved.
It was this very process that resulted in the veto of the trade between Jackson and Nelson, deemed to be too unbalanced in favor of Nelson. Naturally, Nelson was upset and adamant that the trade did not cross the line of unfairness.
Nelson's heavy lobbying for the trade to be re-evaluated led me to ask Jackson if he would accept the trade again, if Nelson were to offer the same deal. Jackson stated he would not take the same trade again. So I believe the veto was justified in this case. Jackson, who is in only his 2nd year of fantasy ever, playing against mostly guys that are approaching 10 years of fantasy experience, accepted a trade that in his very young mind, seemed fair. Upon further insight from peers, experts, statistics, etc., his re-evaluation was that he was wrong in his initial assessment of the trade.
However, had Jackson stated that he would still take the trade after the veto and he was convinced that he was the beneficiary of this trade, then I would have let the trade go through. To quote Ewoldt, "if two grown men agree on a trade it should be allowed. Plain and simple. Unless someone is clearly throwing away their roster." I agree. The point of a trade isn't about balance, ultimately. The point is both coaches think they're winning the trade deal when they accept, and at the end of the season, there is rarely an equally beneficial trade. That's the gamble coaches take on a trade. And we as league should encourage risks, however high in risk or ill-advised they may be.
I reserve my right to veto as commissioner. I will vigilantly fight against the league suffering from a team getting stacked, an inexperienced coach being taken advantage, or a hair-brained alcohol-influenced agreement.
The process will remain the same as written above, with one important addition. If a trade is worthy of a veto due to being too imbalanced, and it is not collusion, I will talk with the perceived "losing" party, present them with the opinions of experts, and coaches within the league, and if they are still convinced that the trade is equitable or in their favor, then the trade will go through. If their opinion changes when presented with this information, then the trade will be vetoed. Plain and simple.
Because it's never been an issue before, this is a league process that was never written into our league's constitution. I will therefore be writing it in as Amendment VIII, so that everyone remains on the same page moving forward.
Of course this entire process will remain open to discussion. Better ideas are always appreciated in this free entity that is the IFL.
Yours always.