Some guys want this trade vetoed?

[michael_melhus 0]

Without giving you the details of each guys roster....

 

Team 1 (4-2) Trades

D. Driver

J. Addai

Jax D

 

Team 2 (3-3) Trades

C. Johnson

Baltimore D

 

I put the trade through, but a bunch of the guys are crying...

What are you thoughts? I will provide any other details you guys want...rosters, etc.

[AnaheimRams 28]

No veto...

 

and I didn't even read your post.

 

If nobody's cheating, never veto.

[pimptastic69 0]

What's the problem? Which team is getting screwed?

[rdrs4life 0]

Whoever is crying for a veto in your league, tell them to shut up, and if they don't, simply don't invite them back next year.

[NewbieJr 541]

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

The commish, nor any other owner, has a right to decide what is best for each team.

If someone wanted to trade Chad Johnson for Rex Grossman and Bernard Berrian after the draft, some overzealous commish may have been inclined to veto the trade. It would have turned out exactly the opposite of what everyone would have figured.

 

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

If an owner cannot be trusted to trade fairly and non-collusionally, he shouldn't be allowed in your league. Period.

 

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 38]

What are they saying the problem is because I don't see one. 15+ year Commish here.

[NMK 0]

sometimes you have to veto, but only in situations where the trade is extremely imballanced ex:Peyton Manning for Mike Vanderjagt. Im the commish in my league and my policy is that I allow any trade that is somewhat ballanced.

 

This one seems fine to me, the defenses almost cancel each other out and Chads upside is better than Drivers so throwing in Addai makes a bit of sense.

 

In every trade there has to be a winner and a loser in this trade team 2 wins because they got an extra RB that they could use to fill in bye weeks or whatever and Chad isnt that much better statistically than Driver.

 

Don't even bother posting the rest of the rosters. One argument that I hear alot is that if you have 2 great QBs you should accept lesser value in a trade just to fill in a hole. (ex: If I had PEyton and Grossman I should trade Peyton for Vanderjagt because I need a good kicker) That logic is a load of bollocks that kills many deals in many leagues.

[GettnHuge 1]

I think team 2 wins in this deal but it is fair, no veto

[Triumph 0]

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

The commish, nor any other owner, has a right to decide what is best for each team.

If someone wanted to trade Chad Johnson for Rex Grossman and Bernard Berrian after the draft, some overzealous commish may have been inclined to veto the trade. It would have turned out exactly the opposite of what everyone would have figured.

 

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

If an owner cannot be trusted to trade fairly and non-collusionally, he shouldn't be allowed in your league. Period.

 

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

Trade is fair. Vetos are lame unless it is a clear instance of collusion. Ask yourself how it is not? If both teams are gaining something everyone is pissed because they may lose more games.

[NewbieJr 541]

sometimes you have to veto, but only in situations where the trade is extremely imballanced ex:Peyton Manning for Mike Vanderjagt. Im the commish in my league and my policy is that I allow any trade that is somewhat ballanced.

Why do you get to decide what is balanced? Vetoes are just terrible, in general. Does your league have owners that would make trades that are not balanced? Are they trying to lose? If so, why are they in your league?

[urmother 0]

i'm not even sure which side is getting the better deal here. this isn't even close to a veto. we just accepted a mcgahee for portis trade in one of my leagues (idiotic, but not collusion OR ridiculously unfair.)

[Strike 4,120]

You should veto EVERY trade

[AnaheimRams 28]

sometimes you have to veto, but only in situations where the trade is extremely imballanced ex:Peyton Manning for Mike Vanderjagt. Im the commish in my league and my policy is that I allow any trade that is somewhat ballanced.

 

This one seems fine to me, the defenses almost cancel each other out and Chads upside is better than Drivers so throwing in Addai makes a bit of sense.

 

In every trade there has to be a winner and a loser in this trade team 2 wins because they got an extra RB that they could use to fill in bye weeks or whatever and Chad isnt that much better statistically than Driver.

 

Don't even bother posting the rest of the rosters. One argument that I hear alot is that if you have 2 great QBs you should accept lesser value in a trade just to fill in a hole. (ex: If I had PEyton and Grossman I should trade Peyton for Vanderjagt because I need a good kicker) That logic is a load of bollocks that kills many deals in many leagues.

 

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

As a commish (can I say, "15+ year commish here" like Big Dog does?), I'm embarassed that you would be lumped into the same group with me and every other decent commish.

 

It's not your f-ing job to determine what's "balanced" and what isn't. If the guy in your league wants to trade Manning for Vanderjagt... wtf business is it of your to tell him he can't do it?!?! What do you do next week if Manning decides that he really loves Jesus and walks away from fotball to go be a missionary in Cambodia...? "Sorry man, my bad."??

 

And the fact that you think that EVERY trade has to have a winner and a loser is flippin' ridiculous. Trades help both teams get better... that's the point. In competitve leagues with knowledgable owners... I'd say that VERY FEW trades have winners and losers.

 

Where did you get your commish license from? I'm gonna write them a letter.

 

I'll state it plain and simple... no trade should EVER be vetoed. Ever. If teams are colluding, you kick them the ###### out of your league and keep their money... you don't bother with the trade.

[michael_melhus 0]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

As a commish (can I say, "15+ year commish here" like Big Dog does?), I'm embarassed that you would be lumped into the same group with me and every other decent commish.

 

It's not your f-ing job to determine what's "balanced" and what isn't. If the guy in your league wants to trade Manning for Vanderjagt... wtf business is it of your to tell him he can't do it?!?! What do you do next week if Manning decides that he really loves Jesus and walks away from fotball to go be a missionary in Cambodia...? "Sorry man, my bad."??

 

And the fact that you think that EVERY trade has to have a winner and a loser is flippin' ridiculous. Trades help both teams get better... that's the point. In competitve leagues with knowledgable owners... I'd say that VERY FEW trades have winners and losers.

 

Where did you get your commish license from? I'm gonna write them a letter.

 

I'll state it plain and simple... no trade should EVER be vetoed. Ever. If teams are colluding, you kick them the ###### out of your league and keep their money... you don't bother with the trade.

You might want read the end of my post...IT SAID I PUT THE TRADE THROUGH NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I JUST WANTED SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE BOARD. I get sick and tired of some the sarcasm....If you're so high and mighty why are you even on the site...you shouldn't need anyone elses thoughts.

[nadnewob 1]

No place for vetoes in fantasy football.

[AnaheimRams 28]

You might want read the end of my post...IT SAID I PUT THE TRADE THROUGH NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I JUST WANTED SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE BOARD. I get sick and tired of some the sarcasm....If you're so high and mighty why are you even on the site...you shouldn't need anyone elses thoughts.

 

 

Easy there grumpy!

 

Try readin' the post I quoted.

 

Hint: (it's not yours)

[Phurfur 70]

If someone wanted to trade Chad Johnson for Rex Grossman and Bernard Berrian after the draft, some overzealous commish may have been inclined to veto the trade. It would have turned out exactly the opposite of what everyone would have figured.

 

NEVER VETO A TRADE.

 

 

Great example.

[Little Big Head 6]

How can you commish a league and need help on this? I'm sorry, but it just seems like a fair deal.

[nicewolf64 0]

But a box of pacifiers and send one to each owner that complains.

[zedd 0]

You know it's an even trade when I'm having trouble figuring out which side the vetoers think is getting screwed. I would think the side getting Driver is getting the much better deal, but most vetos are done stupid name-recognition.

 

No collusion/owner apathy, no veto.

[Nichee 0]

this trade looks fine to me

[NMK 0]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

As a commish (can I say, "15+ year commish here" like Big Dog does?), I'm embarassed that you would be lumped into the same group with me and every other decent commish.

 

It's not your f-ing job to determine what's "balanced" and what isn't. If the guy in your league wants to trade Manning for Vanderjagt... wtf business is it of your to tell him he can't do it?!?! What do you do next week if Manning decides that he really loves Jesus and walks away from fotball to go be a missionary in Cambodia...? "Sorry man, my bad."??

 

And the fact that you think that EVERY trade has to have a winner and a loser is flippin' ridiculous. Trades help both teams get better... that's the point. In competitve leagues with knowledgable owners... I'd say that VERY FEW trades have winners and losers.

 

Where did you get your commish license from? I'm gonna write them a letter.

 

I'll state it plain and simple... no trade should EVER be vetoed. Ever. If teams are colluding, you kick them the ###### out of your league and keep their money... you don't bother with the trade.

 

Every league is different, you have your league, I got mine. The guy asked for advice I let him know my opinion. Simple as that.

 

You know what, in our league we have a pretty good system for vetoing trades. There is a 24 hour trade review window. Any manager can sent a complaint and as commish I consider it. If its unballanced (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt) I veto it. Just like in the US legislative system, a commish veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority of the managers. So its not just the commish that makes the decision, its everybody. The whole point behind a veto is to prevent collusion but also to make sure that no one gets taken advantage of, a smart manager can easily prey on a stupid manager and significantly improve his team a the expense of the rest of the league. Our veto system ensures that it is very difficult for this to happen.

The reason why we have this system is because our league is reletively new (3rd year). As a commish I needed to set a precedent for what can fly and what can't in the league. In 3 years and hundreds of trades I've only had to veto 1 trade so its really only to be used in extreme cases (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt). Maybe once we get to the 15 year milestone we won't need a veto cause everybody will know the deal, but right now sice our league is still nascent, we need it.

 

To say that there are no winners and losers is ridiculous unless both traded players get an equal amount of points (which begs the question, why bother even trading). There are always winners and losers. (ie: manager #2 who gets Driver, Addai and Jax or better yet the guy who would get Manning in exchange for Vanderjagt).

[parshall2marshall 0]

I don't see anything wrong with the trade. I'm in a league where a bunch of guys are B.S.ing over a completely fair trade: in both cases, the managers are just whining.

 

Never veto unless there's obvious collusion.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

The whole point behind a veto is to prevent collusion but also to make sure that no one gets taken advantage of, a smart manager can easily prey on a stupid manager and significantly improve his team a the expense of the rest of the league.

 

Erroneous. It's absolutely not your job as commish to try to judge the projected balance of a trade based on your subjective opinion. Would you have vetoed a trade of Shaun Alexander for Frank Gore and Bernard Berrian after Week One to "protect" that owner? If so, you screwed that guy's season. Would you also legislate a special rule to go back and enact the trade and recalculate the scores of the game when you see it would have been a fair trade? If you play with guys who trade Manning for a kicker, the problem isn't you need to protect anyone, it's that you play with idiots and/or cheaters. Obviously if a situation like that unexpectedly comes up (i.e. cheating), you have to intervene, but if you try to not play with idiots and cheaters, then you don't need to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room. Let people run their teams b/c the one time you are wrong about your perceived judgement of balance of a trade where both owners are legitimately trying to improve their team, you do exponentially more damage to the league than all the times your are right.

[NMK 0]

Erroneous. It's absolutely not your job as commish to try to judge the projected balance of a trade based on your subjective opinion. Would you have vetoed a trade of Shaun Alexander for Frank Gore and Bernard Berrian after Week One to "protect" that owner? If so, you screwed that guy's season. Would you also legislate a special rule to go back and enact the trade and recalculate the scores of the game when you see it would have been a fair trade? If you play with guys who trade Manning for a kicker, the problem isn't you need to protect anyone, it's that you play with idiots and/or cheaters. Obviously if a situation like that unexpectedly comes up (i.e. cheating), you have to intervene, but if you try to not play with idiots and cheaters, then you don't need to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room. Let people run their teams b/c the one time you are wrong about your perceived judgement of balance of a trade where both owners are legitimately trying to improve their team, you do exponentially more damage to the league than all the times your are right.

 

 

Actually, after week 1 I would have allowed that trade because Alexander had a bigger upside and Gore would be set to come to earth soo enough. (this is without the crystal ball knowledge that SA would get injured a few weeks later) So yeah like I said as a commish I only veto tades that are extremely unballanced. I think that is why most fantasy games have that as an option.

 

Again I come back to a few points

1) A VETO IS A RARE THING THAT YOU ONLY USE IN AN EXTREME CASE.

2) Our league is pretty new (3rd year) and we only have the veto as a safety valve to establish trading precedents in our league: eventually we may not even need the veto. But for now, i think its a good thing to have if you use it respoinsibly.

3) Every league is different, as long as it works for the managers inside the league, and they can all agree on it then its fine. I think our system works fine for our league, just as yours presumeably works fine for your league.

[madd futher mucker 36]

As a commish, when presented with a trade like this, you need to do just 1 thing.........let 'em whine!

 

There is no basis to veto this trade!

[Ras66not99 0]

What are they saying the problem is because I don't see one. 15+ year Commish here.

Same here .... nuttin wrong with that deal

[AnaheimRams 28]

Every league is different, you have your league, I got mine. The guy asked for advice I let him know my opinion. Simple as that.

 

You know what, in our league we have a pretty good system for vetoing trades. There is a 24 hour trade review window. Any manager can sent a complaint and as commish I consider it. If its unballanced (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt) I veto it. Just like in the US legislative system, a commish veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority of the managers. So its not just the commish that makes the decision, its everybody. The whole point behind a veto is to prevent collusion but also to make sure that no one gets taken advantage of, a smart manager can easily prey on a stupid manager and significantly improve his team a the expense of the rest of the league. Our veto system ensures that it is very difficult for this to happen.

The reason why we have this system is because our league is reletively new (3rd year). As a commish I needed to set a precedent for what can fly and what can't in the league. In 3 years and hundreds of trades I've only had to veto 1 trade so its really only to be used in extreme cases (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt). Maybe once we get to the 15 year milestone we won't need a veto cause everybody will know the deal, but right now sice our league is still nascent, we need it.

 

To say that there are no winners and losers is ridiculous unless both traded players get an equal amount of points (which begs the question, why bother even trading). There are always winners and losers. (ie: manager #2 who gets Driver, Addai and Jax or better yet the guy who would get Manning in exchange for Vanderjagt).

 

1st. There is no good system for vetoing trades. That's not possible.

 

2nd. Your league being young/new only makes it worse. You're doing all owners a disservice by having a policy that will protect weaker/less knowledgable owners from guys who know what they're doing. Don't protect them, and they will learn faster. If they can't hack it, they shouldn't be playing.

 

3rd. It's not your job, or the job of any other owners to be determining the value of players involved in a trade. Unless you have some crystal ball, you can't know what will happen. You could easily ruin a guys season by refusing a trade in an attempt to protect him.

 

4th. Good trades do NOT have winners. That's silly. The players involved and their perceived value is totally and completely immaterial. If both teams get better... then it's a good trade and both teams win. If somebody trades a top producing back-up that will never start for a lesser player that will fill a void elsewhere on his roster, that's still a good trade. A great 4th RB is nice, but if you're leaving his points on the bench every week... what's wrong with trading him for a mid-level WR?

 

5th. It's NOT the commishes job to keep the league competitvely balanced. The ability of the owners should do that. If the cream rises, then so be it.

[benbadman 0]

Without giving you the details of each guys roster....

 

Team 1 (4-2) Trades

D. Driver

J. Addai

Jax D

 

Team 2 (3-3) Trades

C. Johnson

Baltimore D

 

I put the trade through, but a bunch of the guys are crying...

What are you thoughts? I will provide any other details you guys want...rosters, etc.

 

seems like a fair trade.

 

although i dont agree with the "never veto a trade ever" mantra espoused by most posters here, there are only a few kind of trades that warrant a veto.

 

basically the only trades that MUST be veto'd are 1 week trades and trade backs,which is sharing of rosters--say a guy trades a WR for a RB to fill a spot for a bye, then next week the same teams trade the RB and WR back. that's bs.

 

also, a really retarded lopsided trade. ex. Peyton Manning for DJ Shockley (the falcons 3rd QB). basically a fantasy superstar being traded for a backup, that's pretty obvious. i mean if it looks like the guy giving up the star and perceived to be getting the worse end of the deal is having a crapper ofa s eason, maybe he's 1-5 or 0-6 now.. and he is trading his good player to a team that is already 6-0 and getting nothing in return, it warrants investigation. at the same time, a team that is 1-5 probably should try to trade their 1 great player and get 2-3 good players in return b/c obviously their team isnt working out so far.

[OriginalMonkeyBoy 0]

Every league is different, you have your league, I got mine. The guy asked for advice I let him know my opinion. Simple as that.

 

You know what, in our league we have a pretty good system for vetoing trades. There is a 24 hour trade review window. Any manager can sent a complaint and as commish I consider it. If its unballanced (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt) I veto it. Just like in the US legislative system, a commish veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority of the managers. So its not just the commish that makes the decision, its everybody. The whole point behind a veto is to prevent collusion but also to make sure that no one gets taken advantage of, a smart manager can easily prey on a stupid manager and significantly improve his team a the expense of the rest of the league. Our veto system ensures that it is very difficult for this to happen.

The reason why we have this system is because our league is reletively new (3rd year). As a commish I needed to set a precedent for what can fly and what can't in the league. In 3 years and hundreds of trades I've only had to veto 1 trade so its really only to be used in extreme cases (ie: Manning for Vanderjagt). Maybe once we get to the 15 year milestone we won't need a veto cause everybody will know the deal, but right now sice our league is still nascent, we need it.

 

To say that there are no winners and losers is ridiculous unless both traded players get an equal amount of points (which begs the question, why bother even trading). There are always winners and losers. (ie: manager #2 who gets Driver, Addai and Jax or better yet the guy who would get Manning in exchange for Vanderjagt).

 

 

Your league is in it's third year, and you've already had hundreds of trades?? Let's see, a minimum of 200 trades ("hundreds"), 13 week season X 2, plus 6...carry the one....let me see, that's roughly 6.25 trades per week!!??

Of course, my math could be wrong...it's still early in the morning here.

 

Does your league have a waiver wire? Our league goes through spurts where we'll have two to three trades in one week, then nothing for a week or two. Some leagues can't get anyone to trade at all, and you're getting 6 a week? That's one helluva active league you got there.

 

seems like a fair trade.

 

although i dont agree with the "never veto a trade ever" mantra espoused by most posters here, there are only a few kind of trades that warrant a veto.

 

basically the only trades that MUST be veto'd are 1 week trades and trade backs,which is sharing of rosters--say a guy trades a WR for a RB to fill a spot for a bye, then next week the same teams trade the RB and WR back. that's bs. <---More than that, it's collusion

 

also, a really retarded lopsided trade. ex. Peyton Manning for DJ Shockley (the falcons 3rd QB). basically a fantasy superstar being traded for a backup, that's pretty obvious. i mean if it looks like the guy giving up the star and perceived to be getting the worse end of the deal is having a crapper ofa s eason, maybe he's 1-5 or 0-6 now.. and he is trading his good player to a team that is already 6-0 and getting nothing in return, it warrants investigation. at the same time, a team that is 1-5 probably should try to trade their 1 great player and get 2-3 good players in return b/c obviously their team isnt working out so far.

 

 

Both of your examples are collusion, and I think everyone that has posted has said not to veto UNLESS it's collusion.

[The Next Generation 10]

I think it's pretty high-and-mighty to tell others how to run their leagues. Not every league is as competative as hard-core fantasy owners would like. I think some leagues have trouble keeping enough owners around to even have a league yet there may be 5-6 hard-core owners. So, the 5-6-8 whatever, make allowances just to have the league. I know in my work league we have to make allowances, but it's worth it so we can trash talk a little @ work and at least have a league.

 

BTW, nothing wrong with that trade.

[NewbieJr 541]

seems like a fair trade.

 

although i dont agree with the "never veto a trade ever" mantra espoused by most posters here, there are only a few kind of trades that warrant a veto.

 

basically the only trades that MUST be veto'd are 1 week trades and trade backs,which is sharing of rosters--say a guy trades a WR for a RB to fill a spot for a bye, then next week the same teams trade the RB and WR back. that's bs.

 

also, a really retarded lopsided trade. ex. Peyton Manning for DJ Shockley (the falcons 3rd QB). basically a fantasy superstar being traded for a backup, that's pretty obvious. i mean if it looks like the guy giving up the star and perceived to be getting the worse end of the deal is having a crapper ofa s eason, maybe he's 1-5 or 0-6 now.. and he is trading his good player to a team that is already 6-0 and getting nothing in return, it warrants investigation. at the same time, a team that is 1-5 probably should try to trade their 1 great player and get 2-3 good players in return b/c obviously their team isnt working out so far.

Trade backs should be against the rules. Period. It's not a veto situation.

 

As far as lopsided trades go, I've been the commish of my league since 1992. There has never been a Manning for Skockley-type of trade. If there ever was one, we would be in the market for a new league member.

The problem with vetoes is that you're preventing two teams who are trying to improve their teams. Just because a commish doesn't think it's a fair trade, doesn't mean it won't turn out to be. The best commish in the world can't accurately predict future performance.

 

One reason (the main reason, actually), that people cry about other owner's trades is because it's making a team stronger, sometimes two teams. No one wants to see their competition getting better.

 

If I said that someone traded McNabb for Burress, it would sound like a horible trade. The fantasy MVP for a WR2. But if owner number one also had Manning, but was forced to start Josh Reed, because he was weak at receiver, it was an excellent trade.

 

Bottom line is, trust your league's owners. If they're just bad owners, they'll either get better, or get tired of donating money every year. If they are bailing because they don't have a chance that particular year and helping out a friend, kick them out and find a new league member.