Trades always objected

[mantooth 0]

Over half of the guys in my league object to every trade possible.

 

I have tried to explain that the only time to object is if you believe there is collusion.

 

It is NOW set to be my decision if there are enough objections. But I do not want to play the role of final decision maker on everything

 

Short of taking the objection process away, is there any thing I can do?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I have found that a couple of things help:

- Definition of when to object to a trade. It should be used for collusion or totally lopsided trades only. Not because you wish you were one of the participants or because you are playing one of the guys this week or because one of the guys is going to be the favorite to win it all now.

- Recommend that teams making trades provide a brief explanation as to their thinking of why they are making the trade

- Requiring people to explain why they are objecting to a trade. If you cannot rationally explain why you object to a trade, then you should not be objecting

 

If that does not work, then the league will not be nearly as fun as it could be.

[mantooth 0]

Thanks. Good idea.

 

The latest trade is Delhomme for Harrison.

 

Team A has T Green for QB and Chad Johnson as 2nd WR

.

Team B has Brees for QB and Calvin Johnson as 1st WR.

 

Pretty simple, one needs QB and the other needs WR. They both benefit.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Thanks. Good idea.

 

The latest trade is Delhomme for Harrison.

 

Team A has T Green for QB and Chad Johnson as 2nd WR

.

Team B has Brees for QB and Calvin Johnson as 1st WR.

 

Pretty simple, one needs QB and the other needs WR. They both benefit.

 

It is a bad trade, but I would not object (assuming there is no collusion) based upon my understanding of your rules. Sometimes, it is just a matter of explaining to owners that it is not their job to have every trade be equal, but just to make sure that two owners are not trying to steal their money.

[Belushi 9]

I appoint a 3 person counsel each year to determine if any trades should be over-turned, but only in the case of collusion. And the commish can't be on that counsel. Seems like an objective way to govern things, and leaves the commish out of it.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Thanks. Good idea.

 

The latest trade is Delhomme for Harrison.

 

Team A has T Green for QB and Chad Johnson as 2nd WR

.

Team B has Brees for QB and Calvin Johnson as 1st WR.

 

Pretty simple, one needs QB and the other needs WR. They both benefit.

 

Team B is just an idiot who is panicking over Brees' slow start. He'll be kicking himslef later, but this trade must go through.

 

You should keep all final decisions and only use your veto power if you sense collusion, but before you do make each side explain their rationale and see if it passes the smell test.

[mantooth 0]

Im sorry if I was not clear. ...

 

Team B is keeping Brees and giving Delhomme for Harrison as his WRs suck. and he is banking on Brees.

 

Team is giving Harrison, because his WRs are good (chad Johnson) and his QB is Trent Green.

 

Hope this helps. I agree with you guys 100%. It is just really starting to irritate me. Every time someone tries to better there team, these idiots object, with no better reasons than "I play him this week"!

[JackARoot 2]

Since the rules say you are the final decision maker, you are just going to step up to the plate and say the trade goes through. You can explain that you don't see collusion and that you hope this will set a precedent regarding their future objections.

[plasma george 52]

The latest trade is Delhomme for Harrison.

That is a very bad trade.

There's nothing on the WW for QBs ?...owners got give up his #1 pick for Delhomme ?

Delhomme's numbers are spiked from Steve Smith's big day...that will slow (I have Steve Smith too, but a realist)

There's 31 starting QBs. How many are on Rosters ?...this is why we have Roster limits, 2QBs per team, makes the WW more fun and available.

 

The rookie owner needs to be advised by some birdy, before he thows his season away, to play the QB shuffle until Brees starts rocking again, and aslo to learn some patience and have faith that we go up and down in FF, that #1 WR might just take him to the Playoffs !

A bonehead trade like that could have him watching WNBA in a few weeks.

Gee....didn't we just go back and forth how Trades are dangerous...

[mantooth 0]

Harrison was his 3rd overall pick from the #2 spot. SJAX, Chad Johnson, then Marvin.. It It may not be the best trade, but there is no collusion.

[steel827 2]

I think it's a fair trade. I, personally, wouldn't trade a wide for a QB, but in my league there isn't much left for WW QBs as we need to keep 2 on our roster. It can be frustrating to have a bad QB where you are losing 10 points to your opponent at that spot. That is also why it is important to keep as much depth as possible. If you are weak in an area you can get stronger.

[shredhead 21]

this is why we have Roster limits, 2QBs per team, makes the WW more fun and available.

I absolutely HATE roster limits. It limits what you can do on the ww and trades!

[phan420 0]

Harrison was his 3rd overall pick from the #2 spot. SJAX, Chad Johnson, then Marvin.. It It may not be the best trade, but there is no collusion.

 

How many teams are in this league? I'm curious to see how the 1st 3 rounds went.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

Over half of the guys in my league are idiots ...is there any thing I can do?

 

Stop playing with idiots.

[Smashmouth 0]

How would you feel if you were doing very well in the league and then some bozo trades the #1 WR to a guy for a bottom tier starting QB? Sure there isnt collusion, but it unbalances the playing field. It doesnt weaken the guy giving up Delhomme a bit but it increases his team a lot. Not to mention, that if he would have offered Harrison to the league, he would have gotten a much better QB in return, so to an extent I feel it is collusion.

[boogaloobboy 0]

I would not play for money with these guys under any circumstance. That trade might not be collusion but I would be pissed also as it is beyond one sided. Delhomme isn't even a top ten fantasy QB he just came off what will probably be his best week and you trade him for Harrison? So now team A has Brees/Harrison/Megatron and none of these represent his first round choice so he has a good RB also? A trade that unequal ruins parity.

[plasma george 52]

I absolutely HATE roster limits. It limits what you can do on the ww and trades!

No it doesn't. Roster limits help keep a healthy WW.

This helps the owners at the bottom in maybe getting a second chance after suffering an injury or a bust, without whoring their team to the next vulture.

The fact of the matter is....if your first pick or second pick is a bust, you lose....you're not going to be able to recover from that, so don't fock the rest of the owners in the league by making stupid trades....at least not after 2 weeks.

 

No other owner is gonna give you a second chance, they're looking to take your lunch money and help their team in the process, friends or not, GREED is all powerful.

 

I am the Commissioner, and owners REQUEST a trade for my approval, and I'll bring in other owners from other leagues if I feel is bad. If it's a nervous owner being taking advantage of, giving a strong team MARVIN HARRISON....it very well may get vetoed.

Having an owner learn a lesson is fine ON GAMEDAY, helping dictate a Championship....owners will quit the league.

[mantooth 0]

Stop playing with idiots.

 

LOL. Life long friends, its a fun league.

[Mephisto 15]

Since the rules say you are the final decision maker, you are just going to step up to the plate and say the trade goes through. You can explain that you don't see collusion and that you hope this will set a precedent regarding their future objections.

 

That's the answer. Know that you'll have many people objecting to every trade. Step up, do your job, and if people don't like it they can quit the league. Then restart it with people who can trust you to maintain the league's honesty and integrity.

 

I've been the "final decision maker" the entire 11-years my league has existed and I've had no problems. Once you establish that you can be trusted (as well as the rest of your leaguemates) - there shouldn't be an issue. In your case, there will be some short-term pain but in the long run, you just eliminate everyone's ability to object and move on.

[mantooth 0]

How would you feel if you were doing very well in the league and then some bozo trades the #1 WR to a guy for a bottom tier starting QB? Sure there isnt collusion, but it unbalances the playing field. It doesnt weaken the guy giving up Delhomme a bit but it increases his team a lot. Not to mention, that if he would have offered Harrison to the league, he would have gotten a much better QB in return, so to an extent I feel it is collusion.

 

So what you are saying is that owners should offer players to the league as a whole and not go after a QB they want. You have to remember his starting QB is Green and he has started 0-2..

[plasma george 52]

That's the answer. Know that you'll have many people objecting to every trade. Step up, do your job, and if people don't like it they can quit the league. Then restart it with people who can trust you to maintain the league's honesty and integrity.

 

I've been the "final decision maker" the entire 11-years my league has existed and I've had no problems. Once you establish that you can be trusted (as well as the rest of your leaguemates) - there shouldn't be an issue. In your case, there will be some short-term pain but in the long run, you just eliminate everyone's ability to object and move on.

How can you be the final decision maker when you're an OWNER of a team ?....that may be in the same Division, or playing one of them next week.

Not a fan of another owner having that type of power, whether you've earned the trust or not....you have a vest interest.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

How can you be the final decision maker when you're an OWNER of a team ?....that may be in the same Division, or playing one of them next week.

Not a fan of another owner having that type of power, whether you've earned the trust or not....you have a vest interest.

 

 

I am a commish and owner and have "trade approval" power, it can be done if people know you are a stand up guy. I have never vetoed a trade in the 10+ years the league has existed and don't expect that I ever will. I certainly would never let my team's best interest be a factor and if I did, then I shouldn't be commish.

 

There have been a few trades I thought were "stupid", but I let owners make their own decisions. League wide votes are what causes a league to fight and disintegrate as owners will "veto" a trade simply because its bad for "their" team not the teams involved.

[Underbruin 0]

A few thoughts -

 

1) Regarding the trade, it is pretty lopsided, even if positional needs are taken into account. There's a huge difference in talent here, and Marvin once again looks like a clear WR1. Delhomme might (read, -might-) eke into the top 12, but he's not going to put up significantly different numbers than a handful of other, readily-available QBs will, especially if you play the WW correctly. WaiverwireQBPuPuPlatter + CJ + Marvin is WAY better than Delhomme + CJ + WWCrapWR (wire WRs are much more of a crapshoot than QBs). As somebody earlier mentioned, correctly, team A could almost certainly receive much better value than Delhomme by shopping Harrison around the league, considering that he's usually drafted before almost every QB in the game.

 

2) Be cautious of taking an authoritarian stance of "this is how we're doing it now, I have veto power" in a league with friends that has been using a different set-up for some time now. You obviously like the people you're playing with or you'd have just left the league - if a bunch of folks are set in one style of play and you switch it on them, giving yourself all the power, and then make some decisions they don't like, it doesn't matter how just they may or may not be - it'll probably get under some peoples' skin. In a league with friends, it's just not worth it.

 

3) One league I was in a couple years ago was very bureaucratic, but the style worked surprisingly well. Everybody had 8 'majority veto' votes they could use throughout the season (10-team league, so 1 for every owner aside from you and a theoretical trading partner). If 5 'majority' vetoes were called (a majority of the non-trading players), a trade was killed. In addition, if every player in the league but the two traders voted to veto, then it didn't cost a 'majority' veto. This worked twofold: by limiting vetoes, it forced players to only go after trades they honestly believed to be collusion, or were nearly certain would receive a veto from every other owner. The 'every player' rule prevented two teams from throwing out a bunch of crap trades in the beginning of the season, getting them all vetoed to use up everybody else's votes, then colluding for the rest of the season (my question was, why couldn't the Commish just step in to prevent such blatant action, but I was told this protected against Commish collusion as well, technically true I suppose). Though it did create a sort of subgame within the season itself, as players treated their veto votes like coaches handle their Challenges. It was, at times, more fun than the season itself (of course, I started 0-4 in that league, so that might have just been for me, heh).

 

Not saying that's how it should be done - just noting that there are alternatives to either "COMMISH RULE ALL SMASH BWAHAHAH" leagues, or "Confederacy of Dunces" leagues. Though it might be hard to work out during the season, if you're really serious about keeping this league of friends going for a while, it could be worthwhile to sit down with the players (or conduct a discussion via email) and hash out an alternative solution that will allow trades to happen while keeping the conspiracy theorists ("EVERYBODY'S OUT TO GET ME WITH THEIR COLLUSION AHHHHHH") at bay.

[BirdBradyBobbyOrr 0]

We've removed trade objections. PERIOD! The commish can overrule if something is FISHY but there is nowhere that says you have to get fair value in return on every trade.

 

Look at the NFL, the Pats got Randy Moss for a 4th round pick. That's completely unfair, but Oakland needed to dump him and the Patriots took the risk. That's what trades usually are, teams taking risks.

 

Objections are outdated and for leagues that you can't trust the ownership.

[Smashmouth 0]

So what you are saying is that owners should offer players to the league as a whole and not go after a QB they want. You have to remember his starting QB is Green and he has started 0-2..

 

 

I am sure there are other QB's he would much rather have than Jake. He just didnt do his due dilligence in going to different people in the league and offering Harrison. If this kind of thing happened in my league, this would be the last year the jack ass who gave up Harrison would be in it. Its not like he is trading Harrison for say Romo or a QB of that level. He is just seeing where Delhomme threw 3 TD's to Steve Smith and that wont happen every week if at all again this season, just like Anderson wont throw 5 TD's again this year for the Browns. If he wants Delhome so much, he should have drafted him in the 3rd round like he did Harrison.

[nicewolf64 0]

institute an objection fee. if someone objects without good cause, they are fined $1 or whatever.

[NAn 39]

How would you feel if you were doing very well in the league and then some bozo trades the #1 WR to a guy for a bottom tier starting QB?

 

I would feel that I should have had insight/forsight to reach that owner first and make a trade with him instead.

 

This is why many of us on the bored are against vetoing of trades by league members...b/c, aside from collusion, you shouldn't feel one way or another about it.

By allowing vetoing, many league members don't look at the collusion issue...just if it affects their vested interest in winning.

 

Trade is unbalanced, but they are each filling a need (which is beside the point anyway) and looks to be no collusion.

 

Trade should stand.

[NAn 39]

I am sure there are other QB's he would much rather have than Jake. He just didnt do his due dilligence in going to different people in the league and offering Harrison. If this kind of thing happened in my league, this would be the last year the jack ass who gave up Harrison would be in it. Its not like he is trading Harrison for say Romo or a QB of that level.

 

1. you mention Romo instead of Jake...that's another problem...owners opinions about players are subjective. You'd say you'd be okay with Romo...what if owner honestly feels that Romo had a nice run v easy d's and won't continue while he expects Delhomme to return to form of a couple years ago when he was a very good ff starter.

 

2. Related to above...none of us know the future. Harrison could get hurt and be lost for season...who 'won' trade then? I trade Mcnabb last year when he started to slow down from huge start for a solid but not stud RB (don't remember who, that's how significant a player he was) and a decent qb b/c I was desperate at RB. I got flack for trade but it went thru. 2 games later Mcnabb was gone for season.

 

3. So you'd kick a guy out for paying his money, so he assumed he would be allowed to manage his team (and in relation his money and opportunity for more money), how he saw fit?

[Dan 59]

Completely agree with NAn here. He has spoken very sagely, and you would do well to listen.

 

The people calling this a lopsided trade are people who are still pigeon-holing both players according to their ADP. It's transparent and befuddling. If everyone has to trade within prescribed limits, predetermined by some arbitrary consensus of value, then there is no point in doing anything beyond the draft.

 

Incidentally, those of you who are slamming this trade on its perceived value ought to consider a few things, since right now you're evaluating solely on name recognition.

 

1. You don't know the scoring system. QBs may be more valuable than WRs.

 

2. (Using my own league stats - PPR, full-score TDs and other perks and negs) Marvin Harrison is the #19 receiver in the league right now. (Not my opinion here, this is fact.)

 

3. Jake Delhomme is the #4 quarterback, and has put up similar points in two consecutive weeks (Romo, the QB that would have been okay, is #3).

 

Just curious . . . at what point do players stand on their own merit and what they currently doing? Week 3? 5? 8? When does your own opinion regarding someone else's trade mean less than the person making the trade? Just wondering.

[FlaHawker 24]

Over half of the guys in my league object to every trade possible.

 

I have tried to explain that the only time to object is if you believe there is collusion.

 

It is NOW set to be my decision if there are enough objections. But I do not want to play the role of final decision maker on everything

 

Short of taking the objection process away, is there any thing I can do?

Take the objection process away. I told my league mates that all deals will be accepted unless collusion can be proven. Thus far, no problems whatsoever.

[BirdBradyBobbyOrr 0]

Take the objection process away. I told my league mates that all deals will be accepted unless collusion can be proven. Thus far, no problems whatsoever.

 

 

100% correct. If you don't have a commish you can trust then join another league. Not trying to stand on a pedestal but why would you play in a league where you can't trust the commish.

[plasma george 52]

Completely agree with NAn here. He has spoken very sagely, and you would do well to listen.

 

The people calling this a lopsided trade are people who are still pigeon-holing both players according to their ADP. It's transparent and befuddling. If everyone has to trade within prescribed limits, predetermined by some arbitrary consensus of value, then there is no point in doing anything beyond the draft.

 

Incidentally, those of you who are slamming this trade on its perceived value ought to consider a few things, since right now you're evaluating solely on name recognition.

 

1. You don't know the scoring system. QBs may be more valuable than WRs.

 

2. (Using my own league stats - PPR, full-score TDs and other perks and negs) Marvin Harrison is the #19 receiver in the league right now. (Not my opinion here, this is fact.)

 

3. Jake Delhomme is the #4 quarterback, and has put up similar points in two consecutive weeks (Romo, the QB that would have been okay, is #3).

 

Just curious . . . at what point do players stand on their own merit and what they currently doing? Week 3? 5? 8? When does your own opinion regarding someone else's trade mean less than the person making the trade? Just wondering.

Nice post Dan....but it's week 2....those ADPs are pretty good.

Where does LT rank ?

Also, like I posted, I agree owners are subjective, so I get another Commissioner with ZERO interest and bounce it off him...if he pukes and laughs than there's a problem....this hasn't happened in a while.

Fortunately our guys are all seasoned FFers, and this trade would be laughed at by the Harrison owner.

[JackARoot 2]

How can you be the final decision maker when you're an OWNER of a team ?....that may be in the same Division, or playing one of them next week.

Not a fan of another owner having that type of power, whether you've earned the trust or not....you have a vest interest.

 

He's the final decision maker and the owner because his league chose to set it up this way. If they don't like it, they can choose another method next year.

[Dan 59]

Nice post Dan....but it's week 2....those ADPs are pretty good.

Where does LT rank ?

Also, like I posted, I agree owners are subjective, so I get another Commissioner with ZERO interest and bounce it off him...if he pukes and laughs than there's a problem....this hasn't happened in a while.

Fortunately our guys are all seasoned FFers, and this trade would be laughed at by the Harrison owner.

 

I know it's week two. But your assumptions, and those of many others, are last year. It may be week 2, and make you reluctant to do this, but that doesn't make it bad. Sorry. You can't change that.

 

Delhomme has previously been a top five QB. What if last year was a fluke? Before you start laughing, consider that someone in this thread has already stated that Harrison for Romo would be equitable. Why? Romo has had half a good season, and 2 games this year. But because he was drafted higher, you think it's fair? Bunk. You say those ADPs are pretty good, but I'm not sure I agree with you. Maurice Jones-Drew averaged going at the end of the 2nd round. So does he need to be traded with another 2nd rounder? Chad Johnson? Steve Smith? How equitable would that trade be?

 

How about this: Ronald Curry for Jones-Drew . . . or how about Thomas Jones? People might cry fowl on that one too, but the difference is that the edge would belong to the lower pick. How are you measuring the value of that trade?

 

Commissioners can puke and laugh, but it doesn't make them right. There are too many examples of players starting well and, despite the naysaying, continuing the success throughout the season. Nixing a trade on opinion is foolhardy, and only leads to hurt feelings and loss of trust.

 

 

 

By the way, I am a Harrison owner, and wouldn't make the trade. But the point still stands.

[Dan 59]

By the way, ADPs are only a representation of the highest evaluation of a given player.

[GobbleDog 822]

At CBS Sportsline, owners decide on trades by clicking that "Accept" or "Object" button.

 

In all my years of fantasy football I've NEVER seen a trade that didn't get at least 3 objections. I think some people just like clicking buttons.

[NAn 39]

Nice post Dan....but it's week 2....those ADPs are pretty good.

Where does LT rank ?

Also, like I posted, I agree owners are subjective, so I get another Commissioner with ZERO interest and bounce it off him...if he pukes and laughs than there's a problem....this hasn't happened in a while.

Fortunately our guys are all seasoned FFers, and this trade would be laughed at by the Harrison owner.

 

1. His agreeing with me aside:

to Dan for use of the term 'sagely'

to Dan for use of the term 'sagely' with the knuckleheads on this bored.

 

2. PG, thing is ADP's are subjective to a degree too. Remember it's Average Draft Position...so you could be looking at as much as a round difference. Some loved MDJ in mid-2nd, others wouldn't consider touching him til mid-3rd. Same could be said of Edge/Portis/Benson/Jones. But to take things further Some liked Jordan 5th-7th...others wouldn't touch him unless he somehow fell to the teens (if that). There's still other players that some had on their 'no draft' list, who would take them if they fell considerably, but those players wouldn't fall that far b/c other owners were in love with them: Jordan would qualify, I'd add Moss, J-lew.

 

You say it yourself: ADP is not definitely good, not positively good...but pretty good.