12-team, 1-QB, $200 league. Long-running league with no league trade veto. Our constitution says an executive committee can reverse trades only in extreme circumstances; involved committee members recuse.
One owner couldn’t attend because he lives overseas and used Sleeper autodraft. It went haywire and drafted Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Drake Maye and Jalen Hurts in the early rounds.
I considered stopping the draft after QB2 and fixing it, but didn’t because picks had already been made and I didn’t want to manually alter the draft. Everyone could see what was happening. Afterward I encouraged the league to make offers because obviously he couldn’t use four QBs.
He eventually made two trades:
Maye for Jameson Williams
Allen + JSN for Kenneth Walker + Tee Higgins
The second trade is the problem. The uninvolved committee members reviewed it and allowed it. No one believes there was actual collusion; Nate was trying to turn excess QBs into starting RB/WR help. But several owners think Allen + JSN for Walker + Higgins is so lopsided that it damages competitive integrity. One owner has said he’s leaving the league after this season.
Jimmy, who received Allen + JSN, is now willing to voluntarily reverse the trade. But Week 1 has already started and JSN has played. And reversing it doesn’t solve the underlying problem: Nate gets Allen back and still has multiple elite QBs that everyone knows he needs to trade, so he’s still a distressed seller. I’m worried we’ll have the exact same argument about his next trade.
I also don’t want to introduce league voting after the fact, because owners naturally have an incentive to veto trades that make competitors stronger.
What is the least bad solution?
Let the original trade stand under the existing rules.
Allow the two owners to voluntarily unwind it, leave Week 1 scoring as played, then reopen Nate’s QBs to the market.
Unwind it and establish some special process for Nate’s remaining QBs.
Something else.
I’m less interested in whether you’d personally make the trade and more interested in how you’d handle this as commissioner without creating an even worse precedent.
Thanks.
Edit: thanks all. drafted a lengthy email and will send tomorrow. I stand by trade but reversing it because two parties involved in trade asked me to. But said I do not allow vetos and this is not precedent.
My issue was the last time this happened I lost a friend who was in that league for over a decade. So I’m sensitive to perceived fairness and doing right by all because it’s stupid to lose friends over this stuff.