Just need unfair trade confirmation

[team sonnen 0]

I'm the commish for the league, it's a more relaxed, fun league, but one that still has money in it so people are still taking it a little seriously. The one guy who really isn't (never played ff before and just doesnt care about it) decides he wants to own the entire carolina panthers team. Whatever. In trying to acquire these guys, he offers the Rodgers owner D Williams for Rodgers straight up. The Rodgers owners accepts it, out of the 8 other people in the league, only 3 logged on during the trade veto time. All three vetoed, but we needed 4. It should be noted that the two people trading also live together.

During the trade veto time, I mentioned to them that it was completely unfair trade. The guy receiving Rodgers said "What? He wants D Will!" When I told him the trade was in no attempt to make the panther fan team better he responded "Fine, I'll just give him Bradford too, that'll be fair"

Now, I expect this from the panthers fan. He's a lying, low-life piece of crap who has no regard for any one but himself. But I was actually surprised by the guy receiving Rodgers, he actually usually has a bit of integrity and would normally not want to win like that.

I'm just trying to get confirmation this was a bad trade, and maybe what I should do about it. (As Commish, I don't like to veto any trade, but since no one logged on and saw the pending trade, it backfired this time)

EDIT Also, its a ppr league if that matters any.. And you start 2 qbs so they are more valuable

[Borat33 17]

This bored will say its a fair trade as long there is no collusion.

[team sonnen 0]

This bored will say its a fair trade as long there is no collusion.

 

Well my argument to that would be, Mason Crosby is my favorite player and I don't care about ff whatsoever, I just want to own my players. So I trade the Crosby owner Ray Rice straight up. That still shouldn't get vetoed?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Could be collusion, but it is certainly stupid. Once you start vetoing trades without the rest of the league backing you up, you are opening up a can of worms. I would probably hold up the trade for 24 hours and reach out to each of the other owners to have them vote directly.

 

Your job is to uphold the integrity of the league and this sort of thing affects that greatly. However, make sure that you have everyone on board with your actions since they are essentially going against the rules that you laid out (veto timeline).

[SameSongNDance 0]

Well of course it's unfair. In a 2QB league, Rodgers is by far the most valuable asset a team can have. Is it collusion? This is also a possibility. Should you do something about it? I'm not sure..this is why I don't ever want to be the commish.

[mobb_deep 919]

That trade is pretty uneven. I think I'd be forced to veto as well.

[Stewburtx8 67]

This is why you don't invite people in to your league that don't care about playing in your league. It's only Week 2 and you are already saying the guy doesn't care, so why did you ask him to join the league to begin with?

 

On top of that, you have a league vote veto process. I don't like this, but you have it. Yet you only had 3 people in your league care enough to log in to veto the trade. It doesn't seem like your league is that outraged or they just don't care themselves.

 

I think this sounds like a league issue as a whole. Yes, fantasy football should be fun. But if you are playing for money, you should at least have serious owners that care about the league and the integrity of the league. In that regard, it appears your league failed. I don't think there is anything you can do after the fact unless the two teams that made the trade are colluding together to try to create one "super" team. Do you think they are cheating? Getting him to throw in Bradford would certainly balance the trade out "a little bit."

[Bobbyn2022 53]

^^^ great point. I'd veto that trade in a heart beat. If u play with garbage owners they make garbage trades. Guys in my league would never offer a trade like that let alone accept it.

[team sonnen 0]

 

 

On top of that, you have a league vote veto process. I don't like this, but you have it. Yet you only had 3 people in your league care enough to log in to veto the trade. It doesn't seem like your league is that outraged or they just don't care themselves.

 

 

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. Only three people logged in and even saw the trade. It was only one day, and the other 5 people did not log in that day, so they did not even know about the trade. Every person who saw the trade vetoed it.

[Borat33 17]

Honestly the guy trading Rodgers doesn't even want to field a competitive team if he is only playing Panthers. Veto this trade, kick him out and make his team a ghost team. He sucks and should die as well.

[Pavlov 0]

Although I'm generally against non-collusion vetoes, this guy should just get kicked out of the league. It's a money league and deciding to build your team around a 2-14 record throws the competitive balance out of whack and gives people with Panthers on their roster a competitive advantage that has nothing to do with their analytical skills. Making a bad trade because you can't assess a player's value is one thing (and shouldn't be vetoed); making a bad trade because you've suddenly decided to have a gimmick team is another. It's a ###### move and shouldn't go rewarded.

[Kent 228]

He probably has Stephen Davis, so he doesn't need Rodgers.

[jerryskids 5,415]

Although I'm generally against non-collusion vetoes, this guy should just get kicked out of the league. It's a money league and deciding to build your team around a 2-14 record throws the competitive balance out of whack and gives people with Panthers on their roster a competitive advantage that has nothing to do with their analytical skills. Making a bad trade because you can't assess a player's value is one thing (and shouldn't be vetoed); making a bad trade because you've suddenly decided to have a gimmick team is another. It's a ###### move and shouldn't go rewarded.

Yeah, it kinda puts a kink in that "only veto for collusion$#@!" mantra. Maybe we need to change it to "only veto for collusion and stoopid Panther fans$#@!".

 

It would be a more interesting discussion if the guy weren't on a stated mission to amass Panthers, but since he is, it definitely should be vetoed. Although... the DWill owner said he'd throw in Stafford, I'd say that makes for a fair trade. In fact, I can't believe he would offer Stafford so callously in a start 2 QB format.

 

ETA: Oops, it was Bradford. Still possibly passble though.

[team sonnen 0]

Yeah, it kinda puts a kink in that "only veto for collusion$#@!" mantra. Maybe we need to change it to "only veto for collusion and stoopid Panther fans$#@!".

 

It would be a more interesting discussion if the guy weren't on a stated mission to amass Panthers, but since he is, it definitely should be vetoed. Although... the DWill owner said he'd throw in Stafford, I'd say that makes for a fair trade. In fact, I can't believe he would offer Stafford so callously in a start 2 QB format.

 

ETA: Oops, it was Bradford. Still possibly passble though.

 

He also owns Vick, Bradford is now his #4 QB

[SameSongNDance 0]

He also owns Vick, Bradford is now his #4 QB

 

lol @ possibly having Vick and Rodgers in a 2QB league. Both are easy top 5 borderline top 3 picks.

[thesitedoc 5]

In our league, the rule is that any trade must be defend-able based purely on football reasons. I.e. you can trade for your favorite player but you must be trading near equal value. There is NO value in liking a player or a team. Therefore, trading for Dwill as a fan favorite is fine, but you must trade near equal value in return. If the logic for the trade is flawed then there is no trade.

 

I like player A because he plays for the Packers is FLAWED football logic.

 

However, I am a Packer fan and I like Greg Jennings and will trade you Calvin Johnson for him is acceptable. Especially if you argue that they are near in fantasy value and you just want to avoid the injury risk of Calvin (and his QB for example)

[Nate Burleson's Burly Son 0]

"Trade Veto" should be stricken from the FF lexicon. Nobody has any business meddling in how someone else manages their team or values players.

 

Too often, we hear about these particular travesties that occur with trading and the response is "quit the league". I disagree with that approach. Don't play with retards who are capable of these sorts of things (Rogers for Williams because someone wants to own all Panthers) in the first place. If this kind of crap goes down, kick 'em out.

 

Done.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Let it go through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and pick up every Panther you can on the WW

[WhiteWonder 2,222]

This is why you don't invite people in to your league that don't care about playing in your league. It's only Week 2 and you are already saying the guy doesn't care, so why did you ask him to join the league to begin with?

 

 

[madd futher mucker 36]

 

This must be one of them new IDC leagues.

[stonewall 647]

It should be noted that the two people trading also live together

 

[420allstars 13]

 

I agree, if you want to keep a balanced league you just cant have people with that much lower skill set for the game..unless its collusion how can u stop it? there is no rule in your constition against bad trades I assume?

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

 

Yet you only had 3 people in your league care enough to log in to veto the trade. It doesn't seem like your league is that outraged or they just don't care themselves.

 

 

This

[chroniciguana 13]

If you guys all know each other, just pull Panther Fan aside and tell him what's up. If this doesn't work, explain how expensive it's going to be to hire someone to start his car for him every morning.

[Traveler 2 0]

Been a commissioner for over 25 years and I've never vetoed a trade. Never had to because I only would veto due to collusion and I know my guys. I think there are several problems here.

 

1. By your own admission the guy is a crappy low life. Your fault for allowing him in the league. I know sometimes you can get desperate to fill a league, but that's no reason to bring someone on that you know isn't going to work.

 

2. If you are going to have veto voting 1 day isn't enough. It should be 2 or 3 because no matter what you think, everyone isn't on your league site daily. No one has the time to check in everyday. I see leagues that say must be active and check league multiple times a day and I just chuckle. I'm on everyday because I'm the commissioner and I keep track of things. My guys aren't and I don't expect them to be.

 

3. Since you were aware of this situation you should have e-mailed the league and asked them to log on and check out the trade.

 

4. As I see it, you don't have any good options. You can overrule the trade and risk the ire of the involved owners. You can lock the guy from making any more trades and tick him off. You can ask the owners if they could even out the trade some (he did say he'd throw in Bradford). You can boot him from the league and try to find a suitable replacement. You can change the veto process and the only person who can veto trades is you which is what I do.

 

Good luck with this situation, but all of this should be talked about before the season begins.

[SUXBNME 1,360]

How many posters here are in your league?

What good is our opinion gonna do for you?