Jump to content



Photo

League Trade Vetod

league commish veto

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 dkhasidy

dkhasidy

    FF Rookie

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:22 PM

Am commish of a league. $600, 12 teams. one team 3-2, offered up this trade:

 

giving:

Calvin

Cruz 

Jacobs

 

Getting:

MJD

Colsten

Greg Olsen

 

The guy needed an rb, and TE, but also has fitz and another decent WR. 

 

The league erupted when that trade was proposed. the dude was giving up 2 top 10 receivers for MJD past his prime and some throw ins. Yes, colsten is a throw in. 

 

I vetod the trade. 

 

was i wrong in doing so? no collusion is suspected however. 

 

what do you guys think?



#2 Ray_T

Ray_T

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,788 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:37 PM

I think if there is no collusion you should leave him to make his own stupid mistakes.


3 keeper, 12 team league Standard scoring with QB getting -1 pt for an interception & fumbles 5 points for a defensive safety & 6 points for a defensive TD.

Start 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 Kicker, one Def/Sp Tms

 

 

 

Also expert Fly Fisherman and story teller.


#3 shorepatrol

shorepatrol

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,642 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:39 PM

I see one player worth a shiiit. Not a big deal

#4 madd futher mucker

madd futher mucker

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:51 PM

You were ABSOLUTELY wrong.  

 

Your job is to be the commissioner of the league, not be the judge of whether a trade is 'fair'.   As someone who has been a commissioner of more leagues than i care to count, I know JUST enough about the role of a commish and about fantasy football to know that trades don't have to be 'fair' to be valid.

 

I also know that I DO NOT have the ability to predict the future or judge the merits of a trade through the eyes of the trade participants.    

 

When and how did you get these abilities?


I retired from a 25 year marriage and a very brief sideline job as a Fantasy Football Analyst.  So now i only have my day job and my dog to keep me occupied. 


#5 Bobbyn2022

Bobbyn2022

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:56 PM

I'm so sick of people saying I don't see Collusion WHO GIVES A F#*K that trade isn't fair. What's the poi t of playing in a league with a dumb A$$ that would make that trade? Just because 1 owner is an idiot doesn't mean everyone in th league should suffer. The trade isn't even close. Since when is a trade not Vetoable if it isn't collusion. Calvin is hands down the best WR in the league and when has Cruz not finished in the top 10 since he's been in the NFL? MJD,Olson should be FAs LOL. I'm so glad I don't play with some of u that think trades like this should be allowed in a money league. U want to play with idiots go join a yahoo league. No commish who knows football and wants a fair league would allow this trade Period. I don't care what u reply with the trade is BS. Good job for vetoing that trade.

#6 weepaws

weepaws

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 18,604 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:57 PM

Am commish of a league. $600, 12 teams. one team 3-2, offered up this trade:

 

giving:

Calvin

Cruz 

Jacobs

 

Getting:

MJD

Colsten

Greg Olsen

 

The guy needed an rb, and TE, but also has fitz and another decent WR. 

 

The league erupted when that trade was proposed. the dude was giving up 2 top 10 receivers for MJD past his prime and some throw ins. Yes, colsten is a throw in. 

 

I vetod the trade. 

 

was i wrong in doing so? no collusion is suspected however. 

 

what do you guys think?

heck let them make the trade .. i never step in and stop a trade .. its fantasy never know whats going to happen .. nope i would have let the trade happen ...  


Godswillbedone Revelation 20:15. And who so ever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
All ways lead to God, everyone one will be judged and then sentence, but there is only one way to Heaven and thats though Jesus Christ Lord and Savior. God Bless

Isaiah 12:2. Luke 14:23. Daniel 4:37. 2 Kings 17:39. Nahum 1:7. 1 Timothy 6:18-19. Psalm 9:7&8.
Psalm 34:18. Ezra 8:22. 2 Corinthians 1:3. Ezekiel 36:26. Matthew 7:24-25. Proverbs 28:21&27. 1 Peter 3.
1 John 3:16. Lamentations 3:25. Proverbs 10:27. Ephesians 6:13 Ezekiel 18:21-22. 2 Corinthians 10:5
Proverbs 15:29. Proverbs 18:12. 1 John 2:1-2. Ephesians 6:19. 2 Timothy 2:3-4. 1 Peter 4:14
Proverbs 23:12. Psalm 121:7-8. Ephesians 1:7. Deuteronomy 28:11-13. Romans 10:10. Romans 8:31
2 Peter 3:9. Isaiah 5:21. Proverbs 11:2. Matthews 5:16. Romans 12:14. James 1:8.
Psalm 58:11. Ezekiel 33:11-13. Hosea 14:9. Psalm 100:4. Romans 14:9. 2 Chronicles 32:8.
John 3:3-7. Philippians 2:11. Titus 2:11-14. Ephesians 4:2. Romans 11:33. Proverbs 12:1&26.
1 Timothy 1:15. Psalm 119:6. Proverbs 22:4. Psalm 46:1. Romans 12:17-21. 2 Chronicles 34&35.

#7 granta_05

granta_05

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 640 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:00 PM

I think if there is no collusion you should leave him to make his own stupid mistakes.

This.

 

It's not your job to manage their teams for them. People make stupid decisions in fantasy football, let them.



#8 IGotWorms

IGotWorms

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 52,326 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:06 PM

No vetoes unless collusion. Period.

#9 c.hammer

c.hammer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 137 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:24 PM

One of my leagues needs a majority vote to veto trades, commish just makes the announcement. It's easy and fair.

For now, I say let the trade happen but consider not inviting the person giving away his team back next season.

#10 Melvinbet

Melvinbet

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 969 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:08 AM

Many years ago in my first year playing FF, I traded the top RB in the league after he had 1 bad game for a flash in the pan WR who had a big game. I learned the hard way. Let this guy learn.



#11 ampheels

ampheels

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 494 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:37 AM

if there's no proof of collusion you let it go...hands off is the best policy commissioners should take, they tend to get too involved in big money leagues



#12 GreenTD

GreenTD

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:46 AM

I'm so sick of people saying I don't see Collusion WHO GIVES A F#*K that trade isn't fair. What's the poi t of playing in a league with a dumb A$$ that would make that trade? Just because 1 owner is an idiot doesn't mean everyone in th league should suffer. The trade isn't even close. Since when is a trade not Vetoable if it isn't collusion. Calvin is hands down the best WR in the league and when has Cruz not finished in the top 10 since he's been in the NFL? MJD,Olson should be FAs LOL. I'm so glad I don't play with some of u that think trades like this should be allowed in a money league. U want to play with idiots go join a yahoo league. No commish who knows football and wants a fair league would allow this trade Period. I don't care what u reply with the trade is BS. Good job for vetoing that trade.


So should the the other 30 owner's in the NFL vetoed the Trent Richardson trade a few weeks ago because they felt the Colts were pulling a fast one on the Browns? Who's to say that Colston/MJD/Olsen don't tear it up the rest of the season & outscore Megatron/Cruz/Jacobs? Or that Calvin's knee issue isn't problematic or Cruz gets hit by a bus leaving practice this week?

Like every other poster has stated already, the ONLY time a trade should be vetoed is if there's clear evidence of collusion. I think we can all agree on which team we think is winning the trade but it's not up to other owner's to decide the value of another owner's players. If everyone knew that the guy trading away Calvin/Cruz/Jacobs was a pushover, why didn't they offer up a trade first?

#13 chroniciguana

chroniciguana

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 997 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 04:27 AM

If nobody else is prepared to make a better offer, then the marketplace has spoken and this is best deal he can get. 



#14 BigDaddy808

BigDaddy808

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 212 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 04:56 AM

Typical case of a team in need and no one else is willing to make an offer. As a savvy owner you should always be checking out bottom teams and seeing what you can get from them as far as "buy lows". It's easy to say he made a bad trade but if he's desperate he felt he needed to do something. Instead of vetoing learn a lesson and make an offer yourself next time!

#15 $epphori$

$epphori$

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,526 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:34 AM

You were ABSOLUTELY wrong.  

 

Your job is to be the commissioner of the league, not be the judge of whether a trade is 'fair'.   As someone who has been a commissioner of more leagues than i care to count, I know JUST enough about the role of a commish and about fantasy football to know that trades don't have to be 'fair' to be valid.

 

I also know that I DO NOT have the ability to predict the future or judge the merits of a trade through the eyes of the trade participants.    

 

When and how did you get these abilities?

 

 

THIS ^^^ hate playing in leagues where the commish thinks he has the hand of god.


Playing fantasy football is like betting on the horses on a carousel.

 


#16 heavy-set

heavy-set

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,176 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:40 AM

if you have a $600 entry fee, you shouldnt have trades.  that would prevent this from happening.

 

but since you have trades, you end up with this.

 

as for the trade, from an ADP Perspective, its prolly equal.

 

just cause you would want one aide of the deal and not the other, doesnt it make it a bad deal

 

 

 

 



#17 killersquids

killersquids

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,663 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:25 AM

It comes to a point where we just need to agree to disagree.  I believe you should let owners manage their teams and vetos should only be used if there is collusion OR if the trade is so lopsided it effects the competitive balance of the league.  In this particular trade, I would need to hear the owner's reasoning.  If he doesn't provide a sound explanation or I get the sense that he just doesn't care about his team or this year, then I veto.

 

For everyone that says "Do not veto unless collusion.  Period.", would you approve a trade of Peyton Manning for Roy Helu?  Here is the background:  The Manning owner believes that Peyton will not play much the week of the FF championship due to the broncos locking up the #1 seed.  He didn't spend much time trying to get the most for Manning, and likes Roy Helu's potential from here on out.  The owner getting Manning has a sick team, except for QB.  With Manning, he now has the best team by far in this league.  I'm sorry, but this is bull$hit.

 

Let me put it another way - people have lives outside of managing their fantasy team - kids, wives, jobs, etc.  Some owners just don't put that much time into their teams.  You can't compare them to an actual NFL GM, who gets paid millions of dollars to manage an NFL team.  If an owner is not in collusion, but just makes a horrific trade because they don't have the time or energy or smarts or whatever, I believe you veto the trade so the rest of the league doesn't suffer (competitive balance).

 

Please come and bash, but I hope I'm getting my point across.



#18 SexyRexy

SexyRexy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:32 PM

I'm so sick of people saying I don't see Collusion WHO GIVES A F#*K that trade isn't fair. What's the poi t of playing in a league with a dumb A$$ that would make that trade? Just because 1 owner is an idiot doesn't mean everyone in th league should suffer. The trade isn't even close. Since when is a trade not Vetoable if it isn't collusion. Calvin is hands down the best WR in the league and when has Cruz not finished in the top 10 since he's been in the NFL? MJD,Olson should be FAs LOL. I'm so glad I don't play with some of u that think trades like this should be allowed in a money league. U want to play with idiots go join a yahoo league. No commish who knows football and wants a fair league would allow this trade Period. I don't care what u reply with the trade is BS. Good job for vetoing that trade.


Disagree what if Cruz and Calvin suffer season ending injuries this week... Owner a will be up in arms....who is anyone to judge that unless it's collusion

#19 Bobbyn2022

Bobbyn2022

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

It comes to a point where we just need to agree to disagree.  I believe you should let owners manage their teams and vetos should only be used if there is collusion OR if the trade is so lopsided it effects the competitive balance of the league.  In this particular trade, I would need to hear the owner's reasoning.  If he doesn't provide a sound explanation or I get the sense that he just doesn't care about his team or this year, then I veto.
 
For everyone that says "Do not veto unless collusion.  Period.", would you approve a trade of Peyton Manning for Roy Helu?  Here is the background:  The Manning owner believes that Peyton will not play much the week of the FF championship due to the broncos locking up the #1 seed.  He didn't spend much time trying to get the most for Manning, and likes Roy Helu's potential from here on out.  The owner getting Manning has a sick team, except for QB.  With Manning, he now has the best team by far in this league.  I'm sorry, but this is bull$hit.
 
Let me put it another way - people have lives outside of managing their fantasy team - kids, wives, jobs, etc.  Some owners just don't put that much time into their teams.  You can't compare them to an actual NFL GM, who gets paid millions of dollars to manage an NFL team.  If an owner is not in collusion, but just makes a horrific trade because they don't have the time or energy or smarts or whatever, I believe you veto the trade so the rest of the league doesn't suffer (competitive balance).
 
Please come and bash, but I hope I'm getting my point across.


Agree 100 percent. Why play fantasy football then? From now on I'm gonna get some guy who knows nothing about fantasy football and have him play in my league and just rape him. It's not collusion he's just an idiot that doesn't know much. So I study and research and have a great draft just to suffer from some idiot that doesn't know Calvin,Cruz, alone are waaaay better. Lol the league I play in all vote on trades thank god. I'm glad I don't play in a league that allows one owner to rape another owner. Why play? If one team can make one lopsided trade and make their team way better then everyone else's.

#20 skinsrule05

skinsrule05

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,530 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:28 PM

If nobody else is prepared to make a better offer, then the marketplace has spoken and this is best deal he can get. 

 

This is very well said.  You can't veto the trade if no one is willing to make a better offer.

 

In this particular case there is strong reasons why a better offer won't be made.  I have been shopping Calvin and can't get much for him because of the injury scare.  The giants and Eli in particular seem to be mailing it in.  So how good is Cruz going to be?

 

There are always arguments to support each side. 



#21 Woble Eth

Woble Eth

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,258 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:52 PM

Trades are all about perceived value and the common sense or lack thereof of both parties involved.. In many cases, one party has the lion's share of the sense. That said, haven't we all low-balled in regards to a trade? Did you hope the low ball offer was accepted?? OF COURSE. 

 

Why offer your tip-top deal out of the gate if you don't have to? Maybe, just maybe the one team is misinformed enough (I am not talking peddling injured players - if that is the case, both owners deserved to be slapped) or has blind loyalty to a certain player and a deal, albeit maybe tilted is accepted. 

 

Team management is a key aspect of the hobby, without question.. if one owner lacks knowledge or common sense, if is not the job of the commissioner to set them straight - why was only one team smart enough to propose a trade to this rube? 

 

Blood in the water, man.. Blood in the water.. and you get dancing bananas.  :banana:  :banana:



#22 tecklc2112

tecklc2112

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,305 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:25 PM

You have no business being a commish if you veto trades just because you think they are lopsided. If there is no collusion, push it through & mind your own business. You have absolutely no business telling someone else in your league how to manage their own team.


"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

“Those are governed best who are governed least.” –President Thomas Jefferson

"Pain is just weakness leaving the body"


O-H-I-O...Go Bucks!

Go Browns!

#23 madd futher mucker

madd futher mucker

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:51 PM

It comes to a point where we just need to agree to disagree.  I believe you should let owners manage their teams and vetos should only be used if there is collusion OR if the trade is so lopsided it effects the competitive balance of the league.  In this particular trade, I would need to hear the owner's reasoning.  If he doesn't provide a sound explanation or I get the sense that he just doesn't care about his team or this year, then I veto.

 

For everyone that says "Do not veto unless collusion.  Period.", would you approve a trade of Peyton Manning for Roy Helu?  Here is the background:  The Manning owner believes that Peyton will not play much the week of the FF championship due to the broncos locking up the #1 seed.  He didn't spend much time trying to get the most for Manning, and likes Roy Helu's potential from here on out.  The owner getting Manning has a sick team, except for QB.  With Manning, he now has the best team by far in this league.  I'm sorry, but this is bull$hit.

 

Let me put it another way - people have lives outside of managing their fantasy team - kids, wives, jobs, etc.  Some owners just don't put that much time into their teams.  You can't compare them to an actual NFL GM, who gets paid millions of dollars to manage an NFL team.  If an owner is not in collusion, but just makes a horrific trade because they don't have the time or energy or smarts or whatever, I believe you veto the trade so the rest of the league doesn't suffer (competitive balance).

 

Please come and bash, but I hope I'm getting my point across.

 

Our positions are not that far apart, really.   Mistake #1 on the part of that OP commissioner was not contacting the owner who traded away Calvin and Cruz and getting an understanding of his reasoning behind the trade.  At least he made no mention of having such a discussion.   Importantly, i believe that this is something that should always be done by phone , NOT by text.  You want to have a conversation where you can actually hear the answer.  IMO, you have no grounds to veto the trade unless you discuss the trade with the owners involved and hear it directly from them.

 

In all the leagues I have been commissioner, I've never had a case of collusion....ever!   But I have vetoed one trade and reversed another after I approved it (Interesting case - the very next day, the idiot dropped the only fantasy relevant player tat he traded for.  There was no 'foul play' involved.  He was just invited into the league (unfortunately by his trade partner, and was in completely over his head.  I'll give him credit - after I talked to him he messaged an apology to the league and voluntarily forfeited his $150 league fee and deposit ).

 

But my standards for vetoing a trade are more restrictive than yours.   The only reason other than probable collusion where I will veto a trade is where, in my opinion, the league would totally disintegrate if i would allow that trade to stand.   I have no problem dealing with pissed off owners, but if I truly felt that the league would fold because of that trade, then it is my responsibility to protect the league.   Unlike your Peyton Manning for Helu example, I don't believe that the above trade would rise to that standard.

 

Regarding someone's idea of not inviting the guy back next year, I come from a background of playing a pretty decent level of poker, and my question is this:  Why would you not want to keep some dead money in the league, even if you didn't happen to be the beneficiary of a lopsided trade?   I've also seen many a fantasy owner (including myself many years ago) who made some TERRIBLE trade decisions when they joined their first league, but then become quite skilled, learning by their mistakes.   Come to think of it, I still make my share of 'bad' trades where the other guy benefits much more than i did.   To again use the poker analogy, when I played online poker for money, I'd watch a table for a while before 'I took a seat'.  If everyone was a shark, I would look for a different table.   Why would i want to play for money where everyone was as good or better than I was?

 

Back to fantasy football - The cool thing about it is that player valuation is both fluid and subjective.   


I retired from a 25 year marriage and a very brief sideline job as a Fantasy Football Analyst.  So now i only have my day job and my dog to keep me occupied. 


#24 $epphori$

$epphori$

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,526 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:52 PM

You have no business being a commish if you veto trades just because you think they are lopsided. If there is no collusion, push it through & mind your own business. You have absolutely no business telling someone else in your league how to manage their own team.

AMEN!!!!


Playing fantasy football is like betting on the horses on a carousel.

 


#25 Matt Mueller

Matt Mueller

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 7,720 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 05:54 PM

I'm totally against vetos pretty much everywhere.  Let owners manage their teams.  That said I dabble in a small 10 team hockey league and a week into the season last year one of the vets gave away Teemu Selanne who started hot to one of the rooks for Daniel Sedin.

 

Sedin is a perennial all star and Teemu was one but is past his prime.  I can't think of a football analogy in terms of players but it might be like giving away a healthy 2012 Roddy White for Brandon Lloyd on his last tour after the first week.  

 

The trade went to a vote and was vetoed b/c it might upset the competeive balance of the league.

 

Sure enough Selanne fizzled the rest of the year and Sedin maintained form.  

 

 

 

The only ONLY time I can really understand vetos if an owner is somewhat new and unknowledgable and is possibly making a decision that 99% of the fantasy community would go the other way on and it possibly upsets the competitive balance of the league. 

 

If an owner has a reasonable knowledge of the game and can explain his thought process, even though he really shouldn't have to, I think you gotta allow everything. 



#26 dkhasidy

dkhasidy

    FF Rookie

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:54 PM

All, thanks for the comments and feedback. the competitive balance of the league would have been shifted materially with this trade, that was decision, which is quite fair. but thats why i asked all you people for feedback, as i had doubts on whether its ok to interject. i understand the various positions, i am not "god", but i am responsible for the league, and the 10 other league participants. competitiveness is important, thats why we have a $100 weekly award for highest scorer, to keep losing teams still interested. one other point, the guy offering the trade, just spoke to that team, never solicited other offers or tried to find the true value. 



#27 Matt Mueller

Matt Mueller

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 7,720 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:04 PM

 one other point, the guy offering the trade, just spoke to that team, never solicited other offers or tried to find the true value. 

 

How the trade came about should be of 0 significance.    Can you post the owners roster making the trade?  



#28 dkhasidy

dkhasidy

    FF Rookie

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:14 PM

owner making the trade:

 

vick, alex smith

gore, mendenhall, jacobs, snelling, blount

calvin, cruz, fitz, austin, jennings, 

jeff cumberland

succup

saints d

 

the reason i mentioned that he only offered up this one iteration was because people said that was the best trade he had, which isnt true. 



#29 BigDaddy808

BigDaddy808

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 212 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:29 PM

If it was the ONLY TRADE offered to him then it IS the best trade, how do you not see that? It's the responsibility of other managers to attempt to buy low from bottom teams. I've made trades where other managers complained, saying they would have given better value after the fact. Guess what that's too late, now watch, someone else is going to trade for Calvin and Cruz right after your veto so you better veto those too!

#30 IGotWorms

IGotWorms

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 52,326 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 10:25 PM

Bullsh!t. Even if one owner is stupid or new and gets trade-raped easily, that just means you're competing with other teams to get him to take a stupid deal in your favor. It's like when Al Davis ran the Raiders. You don't think 30 other teams felt left out when the Bengals got a windfall in that retarded Carson Palmer deal?

#31 Ray_T

Ray_T

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,788 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:49 AM

if you have a $600 entry fee, you shouldnt have trades.  that would prevent this from happening.

 

but since you have trades, you end up with this.

 

as for the trade, from an ADP Perspective, its prolly equal.

 

just cause you would want one aide of the deal and not the other, doesnt it make it a bad deal

 

 

 

 

If you have a $600 entry fee, you should have people in the league who know what they are doing and the Job of the commish should be an easy one.

 

As for the trade.... a 3-2 team made a bad trade.   commish is certain no collusion was involved, so what is the big deal.  Let it go.

 

Now if an 0-5 team made that deal with a team thats ranked top 3 and you thought collusion may be involved, then I'd say it's time to investigate things.

 

That does not mean you veto the deal outright.  It means you ask the person you thought got the short end of the stick why they made the deal.   If the answer makes sense and uses some form of logic (even if you dont agree with the logic) you approve the deal unless you find evidence suggesting collusion (hard to prove)


3 keeper, 12 team league Standard scoring with QB getting -1 pt for an interception & fumbles 5 points for a defensive safety & 6 points for a defensive TD.

Start 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 Kicker, one Def/Sp Tms

 

 

 

Also expert Fly Fisherman and story teller.


#32 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,985 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:20 AM

A few years back I made a trade offer, one of those 4 for 2 deals, to a weak team in the league. I forget who I sent, but I was getting Randy Moss and Jamal Lewis in return.  Both were injured, the guy had a weak team, and he had no hope of making the playoffs without them healthy or without making a move.  I had a much deeper team and sent depth away for potential upgrades.  Of course the league got upset.  In the end it passed by 1 vote.  

 

I got a couple of other injuries on my squad and Moss and Lewis never returned to form, and my team sucked at the end of the season.  They guy I traded with got 4 decent players, a couple of lucky WW grabs and upset the #1 seed in the playoffs on the strength of the players from my roster.  None of us has that crystal ball, nobody knows what's going to happen.  Team owners should be free to manage their teams how they see fit and the commish should only veto trades he knows are colluded.  End of story. 



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#33 Gladiators

Gladiators

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,035 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:39 AM

You have no business being a commish if you veto trades just because you think they are lopsided. If there is no collusion, push it through & mind your own business. You have absolutely no business telling someone else in your league how to manage their own team.

 

This.

 

As long as it's not collusion, there's no reason to disallow a trade.  If other owners or the commish are going to decide whether trades are equal, then those league should run their drafts based on ADP and all starting lineups need to be approved each week too.  Take all the decision making out of it.



#34 IGotWorms

IGotWorms

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 52,326 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:40 AM

A few years back I made a trade offer, one of those 4 for 2 deals, to a weak team in the league. I forget who I sent, but I was getting Randy Moss and Jamal Lewis in return.  Both were injured, the guy had a weak team, and he had no hope of making the playoffs without them healthy or without making a move.  I had a much deeper team and sent depth away for potential upgrades.  Of course the league got upset.  In the end it passed by 1 vote.  
 
I got a couple of other injuries on my squad and Moss and Lewis never returned to form, and my team sucked at the end of the season.  They guy I traded with got 4 decent players, a couple of lucky WW grabs and upset the #1 seed in the playoffs on the strength of the players from my roster.  None of us has that crystal ball, nobody knows what's going to happen.  Team owners should be free to manage their teams how they see fit and the commish should only veto trades he knows are colluded.  End of story. 


Anybody who has played fantasy football long enough has a story like this. Nobody can predict the future and you never know with certainty what is going to happen :thumbsup:

#35 kilroy69

kilroy69

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 27,089 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:36 PM

I would come to your house, knock on your door and nutpunch you in front of your wife and kids. THE ONLY 2 reasons to veto a trade are collusion and a player dump. Seeing as how this was neither you would be soaking your balls in ice.


Its still not a hummingbird.

#36 killersquids

killersquids

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,663 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:58 PM

I have vetoed one trade in 6 years as commish.  I forget the players involved but it was atrocious.  It was a top 3 RB for the #65 WR, who had a total of zero catches his last two games.  I called up the owner who accepted the trade and asked his reasoning.  He admitted that he was out drinking and basically said ###### it, my team sucks, ok, let's trade.  If this kind of ###### happened again, he was going to be out of the league.  Note: there was no collusion involved.

 

 

Many of you would say to let this trade go as it was not collusion, and I respect that.  I just respectfully disagree.



#37 IGotWorms

IGotWorms

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 52,326 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:28 PM

I have vetoed one trade in 6 years as commish.  I forget the players involved but it was atrocious.  It was a top 3 RB for the #65 WR, who had a total of zero catches his last two games.  I called up the owner who accepted the trade and asked his reasoning.  He admitted that he was out drinking and basically said ###### it, my team sucks, ok, let's trade.  If this kind of ###### happened again, he was going to be out of the league.  Note: there was no collusion involved.
 
 
Many of you would say to let this trade go as it was not collusion, and I respect that.  I just respectfully disagree.


I'd classify that as essentially sabotage, which is a form of collusion.

#38 JT

JT

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,267 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:20 PM

 

Let me put it another way - people have lives outside of managing their fantasy team - kids, wives, jobs, etc.  Some owners just don't put that much time into their teams.  You can't compare them to an actual NFL GM, who gets paid millions of dollars to manage an NFL team.  If an owner is not in collusion, but just makes a horrific trade because they don't have the time or energy or smarts or whatever, I believe you veto the trade so the rest of the league doesn't suffer (competitive balance).

 

Please come and bash, but I hope I'm getting my point across.

 

Is your life devoted to the league, or do you have a life outside fantasy football? So why should your opinion matter more regarding player values?

 

Do you win the league every year? If not, you obviously have some holes in your player evaluation skills as well.

 

There's no justification for a commish vetoing a trade outside of collusion. If you've got a bad owner, well, you let him in. Learn from your mistakes and do better next year.

 

Let fee-paying owners do what they want, within the rules, with the entry they paid for.


To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

 

We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness. We are monkeys with money and guns. Tom Waits
 

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac (1758)

 

 


#39 killersquids

killersquids

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,663 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

 

Is your life devoted to the league, or do you have a life outside fantasy football? So why should your opinion matter more regarding player values?

 

Do you win the league every year? If not, you obviously have some holes in your player evaluation skills as well.

 

There's no justification for a commish vetoing a trade outside of collusion. If you've got a bad owner, well, you let him in. Learn from your mistakes and do better next year.

 

Let fee-paying owners do what they want, within the rules, with the entry they paid for.

 

So you would have no problem with a trade of Jamaal Charles for Jerricho Cotchery?  In my 12 years of fantasy football, there have been two trades vetoed.  There was no collusion, but the trades were as bad as this one.  I'm with the "Let the owners manage their teams as they see fit" crowd 99% of the time, but I would veto a Charles for Cotchery trade.