Why would a commissioner deny a trade, although both teams agreed to the trade?

It depends on what type of league you are in to be honest.

Im in a league that nobody is allowed to veto trades. It still happens, but its because we all know what we are doing and that if you want to make that stupid trade, then its your own damn fault.

I am also in a league that allows you to never have any say in the trade because they all go through the commish. The commish has the only say in the damn trade, and it pisses me off.

Some of the trades can be extremely hurtful to all teams in the league. You can at this point be trading like this….

You trade:

Bruce

Jacobs

Gomez

For:

Berkman

Utley

Santana

The trade needs to be fair for both sides and it needs to still keep up the competition. Most commishs have the feeling that some teams are trying to create an unfair enviorment when doing trades, but its really not.

I would suggest talking to your commish about why the trade was rejected by him, and then see if there is a way you can make it go through.

Good luck!!

There are really only 2 justifications for why this would happen. He may have seen the trade as being unfair, which even if both teams accept a trade it doesn’t necessarily mean a trade was fair to begin with. As I’m sure you know there is ALWAYS atleast one guy in every league whom doesnt really know what he is doing, and therefore can be ripped off fairly easily. I have to wonder if this was the case, because it seems like you would have posted the trade along with your question if you wanted someones opinion on it. The only other option would be that your commissioner is a cheater and thought the trade would give him less of an opprotunity to win.

Ah, welcome to Wide World of Trade Disputes.

Some leagues allow the commissioner final say in trades.

There are only a few valid reasons a commissioner SHOULD veto a trade:

1. Collusion between managers.

2. A team is dumping players intentionally, a “fire sale.”

3. An inactive team suddenly makes a blockbuster deal.

4. Any suspicious circumstance, or evidence of compensation outside the deal itself.

5. A horribly unbalanced trade, such that the competitive nature of the league is lost.

For the most part, the commissioner should stay out of it, if two teams agreed.

Commissioners are often noted for protecting their own self-interest, or not wanting “one team to get too good.”

Even bad trades, so long as there is no collusion must pass. Sometimes trades that don’t look great on paper work out, particularly if there are injuries involved.

Both owners need to make some noise on this.

It really comes down to this, if everyone was ethical with their trades, vetos wouldn’t be necessary.

I was in a league last year with a guy, his brother and his girlfriend. I suggested that the next time they play together, to let people know. I wouldn’t have played had I known.

They countered with the concept that people should want to play in that league more because brothers are always competitve.

Yah, right.

Pre season trade, Grady Sizemore for Ortiz and Santana.

The one brother said “well, I know my brother really likes Sizemore so he will trade anything to get him”. “Then why didn’t he take Sizemore with the 2nd overall pick then”

We tried to get that trade veto’d but not enough people were paying attention pre-season.

Another issue some commissioners have is that if you are trading a buy low candidate with a sell high, they may say that you aren’t actively looking for the most competitve deal.

Statistically, trading Cliff Lee for Johan Santana favours the person getting Cliff Lee, but realistically, we are aware that Santana is the better pitcher. Unless Lee demonstrates dominance over time, he can’t be considered in the same class.

I hope I’ve helped.

a million. i might look it up on the internet to be certain why. 2. Then, if i could no longer discover out, i might provide them the excellent element relating to the doubt. 3. in spite of the clarification, i might scream and yell at them (ordinarily internally) for greater or less 3 weeks. And growl and be frequently unhappy every time somebody suggested them for a pair years. i could no longer boycott them. i do no longer go adequate, and that i’m getting very few possibilities. I take what i will get. and that i would not opt to situation the GM. a lot of different individuals might. besides, the Twins are not stupid adequate to commerce Justin Morneau or Joe Mauer. P.S. All this may well be doubly intensified if it became into my admired participant.

They denied the trade if they thought the trade was lopsided, or one team was getting a way better deal.

If the trade is A-rod for J.D Drew, the commish is probably not going to allow it.

If its something like Santana for Peavy, most commishes would let that trade go through.

The simpliest answer is a balance of power. Whereas, “Ya’ll” may have said yes, the commish can put the kabosh on it.

The other answer is he’s being a horse’s patoot.

answer these questions and you be the judge

1. What place is the commish in?

2. If it is a 2 division league, who get the benefit from the trade and are they in his division?

If its a close league and this trade could “tip the balance”, then you should have expected a veto.

sorry. wish I had better answers, but, think on it.

There are many reasons to veto a trade. The obvious one being that the players involved in the trade does not have equal or near equal value.

For example, if I traded away C. Blake and got back A. Pujols in return…….well that trade would be denied because A. Pujols is a Billion times better than C. Blake.

Other reasons for a veto is collusion…….

They see the trade as a bad thing for them. Maybe the trade does not make any sense. ex. A. Rodriguez for J. Varitek

If you get traded a good player to help you against him.

he see’s that as a perennial threat to him.

he will veto anything that is not at his best interest.

even if it makes sense for both parties.

Jack

The commish can do this if it’s set up that way. Why don’t you just ask?

Most leagues have trade deadlines,, for example, although this seems early.