Owner Threatens To Quit The League

[Shakespeare 0]

So, let me give you some background...

 

The owner in question has 2 keepers: L.J. and Fitz. He also landed the #1 pick in this year's draft. So, I just want to point out up front that he's got a strong team heading into this season.

 

We have a very democratic league. Sure, we have a commish. But we put every rule change, every problem to vote. It's worked great for the past 6 years. This season, we had a major disagreement on the written keeper rules. Half the league saw them one way. Half saw them another. 50/50 split. And what made matters even worse was that voting on these rules in the middle of trading season forced owners to chose between what they thought was best for the league and what was best for their team. Can we say, 'Conflict of interest?'

 

Anyway, a solution was proposed where we all sat down and agreed on new keeper rules. Then, we throw everyone back into the draft pool and redraft. Certainly, the owner in question stood to lose the most. But he wasn't the only one. A lot of owners stood to lose a lot in terms of keepers and extra draft picks. EDIT: We even offered the owner the #1 pick in the draft*

 

We had 1/2 the league vote 'yes' to this solution. And before a few more owners could provide the majority votes, this owner wrote an email to the league threatening to leave if we continued with this idea. In the end, we have a lot of nice guys in our league and even though they agreed with the solution, they backed down out out of friendship. Essentially, they took the high road so that the owner in question wouldn't get so upset.

 

How do you guys feel about this? Is it ever okay for an owner to give the league an ultimatium? Or, do you think his response was appropiate considering his keepers? How would you respond if this happened in your league?

[ffdomino 0]

So, let me give you some background...

 

The owner in question has 2 keepers: L.J. and Fitz. He also landed the #1 pick in this year's draft. So, I just want to point out up front that he's got a strong team heading into this season.

 

We have a very democratic league. Sure, we have a commish. But we put every rule change, every problem to vote. It's worked great for the past 6 years. This season, we had a major disagreement on the written keeper rules. Half the league saw them one way. Half saw them another. 50/50 split. And what made matters even worse was that voting on these rules in the middle of trading season forced owners to chose between what they thought was best for the league and what was best for their team. Can we say, 'Conflict of interest?'

 

Anyway, a solution was proposed where we all sat down and agreed on new keeper rules. Then, we throw everyone back into the draft pool and redraft. Certainly, the owner in question stood to lose the most. But he wasn't the only one. A lot of owners stood to lose a lot in terms of keepers and extra draft picks.

 

We had 1/2 the league vote 'yes' to this solution. And before a few more owners could provide the majority votes, this owner wrote an email to the league threatening to leave if we continued with this idea. In the end, we have a lot of nice guys in our league and even though they agreed with the solution, they backed down out out of friendship. Essentially, they took the high road so that the owner in question wouldn't get so upset.

 

How do you guys feel about this? Is it ever okay for an owner to give the league an ultimatium? Or, do you think his response was appropiate considering his keepers? How would you respond if this happened in your league?

 

All for a democracy when a rule change is small like how many points for an INT but for major changes like that you need 100% agreement. People with week teams will agree with the change, not because they feel it is a good rule change, but because they might no longer have a crappy team.

 

Just me though, but I am smarter than you...

[akareckas 0]

So, let me give you some background...

 

The owner in question has 2 keepers: L.J. and Fitz. He also landed the #1 pick in this year's draft. So, I just want to point out up front that he's got a strong team heading into this season.

 

We have a very democratic league. Sure, we have a commish. But we put every rule change, every problem to vote. It's worked great for the past 6 years. This season, we had a major disagreement on the written keeper rules. Half the league saw them one way. Half saw them another. 50/50 split. And what made matters even worse was that voting on these rules in the middle of trading season forced owners to chose between what they thought was best for the league and what was best for their team. Can we say, 'Conflict of interest?'

 

Anyway, a solution was proposed where we all sat down and agreed on new keeper rules. Then, we throw everyone back into the draft pool and redraft. Certainly, the owner in question stood to lose the most. But he wasn't the only one. A lot of owners stood to lose a lot in terms of keepers and extra draft picks.

 

We had 1/2 the league vote 'yes' to this solution. And before a few more owners could provide the majority votes, this owner wrote an email to the league threatening to leave if we continued with this idea. In the end, we have a lot of nice guys in our league and even though they agreed with the solution, they backed down out out of friendship. Essentially, they took the high road so that the owner in question wouldn't get so upset.

 

How do you guys feel about this? Is it ever okay for an owner to give the league an ultimatium? Or, do you think his response was appropiate considering his keepers? How would you respond if this happened in your league?

 

Who cares? Let him leave.

 

Or...if you need to satisfy his womanly moanings, just offer him the #1 pick in the new draft then hand him your man-badge and you're all set.

[Act 0]

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Owens threatens to quit the league"

[Shakespeare 0]

All for a democracy when a rule change is small like how many points for an INT but for major changes like that you need 100% agreement. People with week teams will agree with the change, not because they feel it is a good rule change, but because they might no longer have a crappy team.

 

Just me though, but I am smarter than you...

 

I wouldn't doubt your claims. The problem was, either way we weren't going to have 100% agreement. So, we had to go with the majority. A lot of GMs (myself included) voted yes to the redraft even though it hurt us. But that's the kind of league we have. Most of us are willing to give up personal gains if we think a rule is best for the league. Most... but not all.

[Cuse9 128]

The guy was right to say he was gonna quit.

 

If you run a keeper league the moves/trades you do during a season and at the draft are all based on keeping players. If you change the rules then you basically screwed the guy. He may have drafted or made trades totally different the year before. You establish rules and live by them. It's okay to tweek rules to make the league more competitive, but noway do you do what your league proposed to do. That's crappy! You need to have a commish with common sense run the league. Sounds like your league has too many chiefs and not enough Indians!

 

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like you have a good league. A good group of friends/guys. But you have to have one commish to run the show or you run into problems like you had.

 

Hope everything turns out okay for you.

[Shakespeare 0]

Who cares? Let him leave.

 

Or...if you need to satisfy his womanly moanings, just offer him the #1 pick in the new draft then hand him your man-badge and you're all set.

 

We offered him the #1 pick, actually. I edited my original post to reflect this.

[mobb_deep 917]

All for a democracy when a rule change is small like how many points for an INT but for major changes like that you need 100% agreement. People with week teams will agree with the change, not because they feel it is a good rule change, but because they might no longer have a crappy team.

 

Just me though, but I am smarter than you...

 

Completely agree. I'd be pissed also if I was him. Once the league is formed and the major rules are established that's that. Small tweaks here and there are understandable but nothing that would require all keepers going back into the pool.

 

How confusing can the rules really be anyways? Either you have keepers that cost a certain draft pick or you can't keep keepers drafted before a certain round, etc. There is only so many ways you can skin a cat, so I don't understand how you guys managed to mess it up so bad.

[Demon 0]

why would you have to throw every player back in the pool and redraft? Just say that starting next year, these rules will be implemented so all the owners can draft from the remaining pool accordingly and trade accordingly to help their team?

 

btw, what are the rule changes?

[Parja 0]

The guy was right to say he was gonna quit.

 

If you run a keeper league the moves/trades you do during a season and at the draft are all based on keeping players. If you change the rules then you basically screwed the guy. He may have drafted or made trades totally different the year before. You establish rules and live by them. It's okay to tweek rules to make the league more competitive, but noway do you do what your league proposed to do. That's crappy! You need to have a commish with common sense run the league. Sounds like your league has too many chiefs and not enough Indians!

 

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like you have a good league. A good group of friends/guys. But you have to have one commish to run the show or you run into problems like you had.

 

Hope everything turns out okay for you.

 

 

Certainly not the kind of clusterfock I'd want to be involved in.

[Ras66not99 0]

Fock Keeper Leagues.... too much Bull$hit as you can see by the constant whiny posts you read on here..... Make it a full fledge Dynasty League which shows true GM skills......or just do a redraft every year....

[pingpong 0]

Acreed witht he sentiment. You can't change the keeper rules after the season is done and it is time to declare keepers. Your best option would be to change the keeper rules for next year. Screwing the owner with the best keepers is total bush league and sounds like a crappy league. You can never implement a rule change that would immediatly help teams and hurt others.

[luckdogg17 0]

i think we could have a better idea of what the situation is if you could explain what you were voting on a little more. it's up to you. if it's too complicated or something, don't worry about it. just curious.

[Parja 0]

Long story. My real question is, is it ever okay for an owner to give the league an ultimatium? Should this be tolerated?

 

Well, either you give in or you don't. Your answer determines whether it's tolerated or not.

 

WTF? What happened to the post I replied to?

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

yes it should in a case like this. so it is ok for an owner to give an ultimatum when he gets completely focked in the A$$

[DToohey 0]

It seems like kicking all the keepers to the curb was the equivilent of throwing the baby out with the Bathwater. Perhaps a better solution would be to allow just one keeper. Would that work for all concerned?

[kilroy69 995]

If this is a money league I would quit in a heartbeat. This guy has put time into his team based on a set of rules and now you want to change them with simple majority vote? It should be 100% of the owners or no change.

[mobb_deep 917]

Well, either you give in or you don't. Your answer determines whether it's tolerated or not.

 

Exactly. Anyways we don't even really know what this rule change is and how it came about. I was expecting that explanation somewhere in the "background" section of your original post but you chose to talk about how great of buddies you all are instead.

 

If the rule change is totally lame then he has every right to say he's going to leave. Even if it isn't he has every right to say he's going to leave because It's his focking team and $$. If I'm in a league and I don't like the way it's going I'm going to leave. I'm not gonna throw my money into something I'm not into because I used to circle jerk with the rest of the league in high-school.

[Shakespeare 0]

Acreed witht he sentiment. You can't change the keeper rules after the season is done and it is time to declare keepers. Your best option would be to change the keeper rules for next year. Screwing the owner with the best keepers is total bush league and sounds like a crappy league. You can never implement a rule change that would immediatly help teams and hurt others.

 

I totally agree. The problem is, we were stuck at a place where owners were going to get screwed. The was no way around it. So, how do we make this as fair as possible? Most owners had good keepers and draft picks. In fact, most of the owners who voted yes to this rule change stood to lose.

 

The fact is, this owner wasn't the only one getting 'screwed.' I was giving up 2 picks in the 1st round, 2 picks in the 3rd round and Chris Chambers. So, before you guys go accusing me of trying to screw another GM, know that I stood to lose nearly as much.

[tiggo25 4]

In this case, yes it was ok for the guy to give an ultimatum. He got screwed. However, you also should not cave in to the ultimatum. Grow a sak and let him quit....or don't change the rules after the fact.

[akareckas 0]

In the end you should prolly just implement the rule next offseason.

[Parja 0]

Cases like this are why leagues can't be a democracy. You need a good, strong commish who is trusted by the owners and who is willing to make the tough decisions for the good of the league. You can't always please everyone, but if you have a situation where a decision had to be made that will make some of the owners unhappy, it's best to get them out of the way quickly and fairly so the league can move on.

[Texansfan 0]

Exactly. Anyways we don't even really know what this rule change is and how it came about. I was expecting that explanation somewhere in the "background" section of your original post but you chose to talk about how great of buddies you all are instead.

 

If the rule change is totally lame then he has every right to say he's going to leave. Even if it isn't he has every right to say he's going to leave because It's his focking team and $$. If I'm in a league and I don't like the way it's going I'm going to leave. I'm not gonna throw my money into something I'm not into because I used to circle jerk with the rest of the league in high-school.

 

This is what I was going to say. We need more background info. to make a determination. How and why was this "rule change" come about?

 

I'd be pissed too if I had LJ and Fitz as my keepers and then you change the rules. But then again I don't know all the background info.

[Cdub100 3,384]

I totally agree. The problem is, we were stuck at a place where owners were going to get screwed. The was no way around it. So, how do we make this as fair as possible. Most owners had good keepers and draft picks. In fact, most of the owners who voted yes to this rule change stood to lose.

 

The fact is, this owner wasn't the only one getting 'screwed.' I was giving up 2 picks in the 1st round, 2 picks in the 3rd round and Chris Chambers. So, before you guys go accusing me of trying to screw another GM, know that I stood to lose nearly as much.

 

I'm still wondering how you guys screwed this up. It's simple you either keeps guys or you don't.

[JGB_11 0]

You cannot change the rules of your keepers, after you have already started a league. I think that owner should leave...

[luckdogg17 0]

again. without knowing the specific situation.....it's difficult to say.

[Demon 0]

LJ and Fitz>Chambers and draft picks

 

again, what are these rule changes and why are you making everyone throw thier keepers back into the draft pool?

[akareckas 0]

LJ and Boldin>Chambers and draft picks

 

again, what are these rule changes and why are you making everyone throw thier keepers back into the draft pool?

 

Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh. This shark smells blood too. Make with the rule changes......I think we may be finding ourselves siding with the guy who had LJ.

[ffdomino 0]

I totally agree. The problem is, we were stuck at a place where owners were going to get screwed. The was no way around it. So, how do we make this as fair as possible? Most owners had good keepers and draft picks. In fact, most of the owners who voted yes to this rule change stood to lose.

 

The fact is, this owner wasn't the only one getting 'screwed.' I was giving up 2 picks in the 1st round, 2 picks in the 3rd round and Chris Chambers. So, before you guys go accusing me of trying to screw another GM, know that I stood to lose nearly as much.

 

But it sounds like this rule takes into effect too quickly. Something like a complete redraft needs to wait an entire season before taking effect or peoples strategies last year would be completely wrong and futile.

 

What is the written rule that requires a complete redraft? I highly doubt you stood as much to lose if the owner had LJ, Fitz AND a 1st round pick this year.

 

 

And did you give him KY before you bent him over?

[Hurricane Ditka 0]

LJ and Fitzgerald? If he leaves email me at oneals_home.com

 

I will take over his team.

[ratbastard 0]

sounds like a pretty piss poor league. You simply can't change a keeper league overnight, that's bush league. I would quit this league in a heartbeat. Listen Fantasy Football isn't rocket science, it isn't hard to create a league from scratch that works well with proven and time tested rules.

 

I find it hysterical that people think they need to re invent the wheel. Fair, well known, and consistent rules are the cornerstone of any league. If a league has been around 6 years and still hasn't managed this, it isn't worth consideration. Just my 2 cents

[luckdogg17 0]

yeah. considering that it involves LJ, i assume that he was drafted rather late last year (later than most keepers) so this guy would have been in an even better situation if he only had to give up a 6th rnd pick for him or something. please don't tell us that you're changing the rules because this guy's team is looking so good so far this year. i hope that isn't the case but am starting to worry.

 

ditka, i guess you haven't been reading to carefully. he had Lj and fitz. not anymore.

 

personally, i hate keeper leagues as well. i kind of see the point about not changing the rule until after this season because moves were made last year assuming keepers for this year. but couldn't the argument be made that you also made moves for 2,3,4 years down the road as well with your keepers?

[Dan 59]

I feel for you, Shakespeare, as I know almost exactly where you're coming from.

 

#1 - Major changes, such as the one you're describing, we've learned to position at the draft meeting or the Super Bowl meeting, and then the changes effected take place starting at the following draft, or off-season, whichever is appropriate. That way, we don't put someone in the ultimate unfair situation.

 

#2 - That said, when it comes to major decisions, you have to decide what your league is. It sounds like your league is a lot like ours. We value the relationship that is created, and the game that we play is our hobby and for bragging rights. We were at a juncture - our issue was recovering from expansion (dynasty, salary cap league, mistakes made, etc - long story). There was a contingent that felt the best way to handle the situation would be to re-draft and start over. We had a few owners who objected. One had a very good team, but said he would live with the decision, even if he disagreed. I myself had a very good team, and stood to be hurt by the re-draft, but felt that it would be better for the league to re-draft. We had one owner, however, who held the league hostage, threatening to leave the league if the vote went through. He had a very good team, and was "justified" according to some here.

For those of you who stand that way, I respectfully disagree. If the league is thrown off kilter, the teams won't matter, and then your turnover will increase anyway. I've always put the league first, because I want the league to remain competitive.

 

Shakespeare - He held the league hostage, and several owners swung their vote that way. We survived, and are doing very well. But the ramifications of such an act are that ultimately the commissioner (and asst. commissioner - me) have to put their foot down at some point in the future. Otherwise, this one owner will do it again.

 

Just my thoughts. Be encouraged . . . you'll survive it. But correct him now, and make it clear in no uncertain terms that he will not hold the league hostage again. Period.

[TD Ryan2 314]

yeah, I'm curious on the background here too...

 

WTF happens in a keeper league that you're seriously considering making a guy who's got LJ and Fitz throw it all away?

[Shakespeare 0]

I feel for you, Shakespeare, as I know almost exactly where you're coming from.

 

#1 - Major changes, such as the one you're describing, we've learned to position at the draft meeting or the Super Bowl meeting, and then the changes effected take place starting at the following draft, or off-season, whichever is appropriate. That way, we don't put someone in the ultimate unfair situation.

 

#2 - That said, when it comes to major decisions, you have to decide what your league is. It sounds like your league is a lot like ours. We value the relationship that is created, and the game that we play is our hobby and for bragging rights. We were at a juncture - our issue was recovering from expansion (dynasty, salary cap league, mistakes made, etc - long story). There was a contingent that felt the best way to handle the situation would be to re-draft and start over. We had a few owners who objected. One had a very good team, but said he would live with the decision, even if he disagreed. I myself had a very good team, and stood to be hurt by the re-draft, but felt that it would be better for the league to re-draft. We had one owner, however, who held the league hostage, threatening to leave the league if the vote went through. He had a very good team, and was "justified" according to some here.

For those of you who stand that way, I respectfully disagree. If the league is thrown off kilter, the teams won't matter, and then your turnover will increase anyway. I've always put the league first, because I want the league to remain competitive.

 

Shakespeare - He held the league hostage, and several owners swung their vote that way. We survived, and are doing very well. But the ramifications of such an act are that ultimately the commissioner (and asst. commissioner - me) have to put their foot down at some point in the future. Otherwise, this one owner will do it again.

 

Just my thoughts. Be encouraged . . . you'll survive it. But correct him now, and make it clear in no uncertain terms that he will not hold the league hostage again. Period.

 

Dan,

 

I truly appreciate your words and it's clear your league is indeed a lot like ours.

 

I guess I take for granted that most people (as evidenced by the posts on this topic) simply care more about their teams than the overall health of their league. That's fine. That's human nature. I'm not putting anyone down for feeling this way.

[luckdogg17 0]

why don't you tell us WHY it is better for the league and maybe we'll agree with you.

[kilroy69 995]

Dan,

 

I truly appreciate your words and it's clear your league is indeed a lot like ours.

 

I guess I take for granted that most people (as evidenced by the posts on this topic) simply care more about their teams than the overall health of their league. That's fine. That's human nature. I'm not putting anyone down for feeling this way.

its not that we care more about our teams its that without any more info it looks like a snowjob for the owner who is saying he will quit.

[TD Ryan2 314]

This season, we had a major disagreement on the written keeper rules. Half the league saw them one way. Half saw them another. 50/50 split. And what made matters even worse was that voting on these rules in the middle of trading season forced owners to chose between what they thought was best for the league and what was best for their team. Can we say, 'Conflict of interest?'

 

I believe this is where we need some detail... what was the disagreement about keepers?

 

 

Also, the idea that a strong commish could have single handedly made a ruling and solved everything is off-base. You'd still have owner(s) angry and ready to quit whether it was one guy's ruling or a group's vote.

[mobb_deep 917]

Dan,

 

I truly appreciate your words and it's clear your league is indeed a lot like ours.

 

I guess I take for granted that most people (as evidenced by the posts on this topic) simply care more about their teams than the overall health of their league. That's fine. That's human nature. I'm not putting anyone down for feeling this way.

 

You're not putting us down, yet you make a back handed compliment as if our league's are somehow inferior to yours, because you guys care about "the health of your league" (whatever the hell that means). If your league was so healthy you wouldn't 1) be making a major rule change, or 2) be seeking the approval of a bunch of strangers so you can show the guy who's pissed off and he'll cave.

 

That is what you're doing right? You want us all to agree with you so the guy with LJ will fold in favor of "the health of the league".

 

 

20 bucks says this guy is the commish

[ffdomino 0]

Dan,

 

I truly appreciate your words and it's clear your league is indeed a lot like ours.

 

I guess I take for granted that most people (as evidenced by the posts on this topic) simply care more about their teams than the overall health of their league. That's fine. That's human nature. I'm not putting anyone down for feeling this way.

 

Wow there buddy. I care more about the league than my team. What you are doing though is destroying the league. You cannot simply change the biggest rule in your league overnight. Who is to say when you have another issue, you will just redraft all over agian next year?

 

The owner seemed to make very shrewed moves last year and now you are telling him it was all for naught. That is not fair.

 

 

Again...why are you so afraid to tell us the rule in question?