Ezekiel traded for E Sanders?!

[erknjerk 4]

This trade came 1 day after news broke EzE wad recommended no suspension. I know both guys, so cheating isn't the fist thing that comes to mind. The dude that gave up EzE is just a flat out dumb homer. The original trade was offered as Sanders for Lacy. He kept Lacy for $61 when most had him valued at $10, so his counter was EzE instead. Not even trying to get more. I called this trade out as effed up to the Sanders owner. He finally buckled and proposed is the suspension gets changed to 3 or less games he'll swap Sanders for Cooks, still horrible right? The real effing kicker is that the Sanders owner is my co-commish. Wet have three brand new player that I'm afraid won't take to kindly to booty trades like this.

 

I'm trying really hard to only veto when colussion is evident, but this is pushing me to the limit.

[brotherbock 349]

Not insulting you personally, but are you playing with children?

[weepaws 2,460]

I would veto.

 

That's just a ridiculous trade.

[Donkey 34]

Well for Sanders obviously ridiculous, but Cooks was taken ahead of Zeke in a draft i did middle of last week.

[erknjerk 4]

EzE was drafted for $30 and Sanders for $14

[tanatastic 2,061]

Veto is used in cases on Collusion or Tanking. This trade would be considered tanking to me. That is the act of trading your players away at an extreme discount like a fire sale. If he wanted Sanders that bad why didn't he draft Sanders in rnd 3 or 2 or whenever he drafted Zeke?

[nobody 2,044]

The move is to let the trade go through and not invite the guy who sucks back.

[tanatastic 2,061]

If the trade is Cooks and Sanders, that's fine.

[erknjerk 4]

And Zeek has a $35 keeper tag next year were top RBs go for $60+

 

SMDH. A commish needs to be self aware of how the rest of the league sees his integrity.

[tanatastic 2,061]

The problem is that some FF players are not trying to be malicious, they just aren't wise to common and simple FF theory. Things like value, scarcity are lost on them, they don't see them like we do. The sad part is that it's often guys who have played FF for years but somehow still don't understand. It's like FF brings out the stupidity and and failure to adapt in some people.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

Do you manage all your friends teams?

 

Shitty players make bad decisions.

[brotherbock 349]

Do you manage all your friends teams?

 

Shitty players make bad decisions.

 

But clearly you can see the concern here, even if you don't think the trade should be vetoed. A commish is trying to grow his league, get new players involved, and the new players see what could for all the world look like collusion to them. I'm generally on the side of 'collusion only' as the veto policy. But I could easily think of times where I would consider vetoing when it wasn't collusion. Would you do nothing if it was a David Johnson/Dez Bryant/Tom Brady for Ifeanyi Momah trade? You'd just let the whole league suffer because one guy really really really wants Arizona's third string TE? I'd do something. That's clearly an extreme example. But it also shows that, at least for me, collusion isn't the only trigger for a veto. Commish has to look at the health of the whole league. If letting a trade happen leads to three or four owners not returning next year, what do you do?

[Flgatorguy87 160]

 

But clearly you can see the concern here, even if you don't think the trade should be vetoed. A commish is trying to grow his league, get new players involved, and the new players see what could for all the world look like collusion to them. I'm generally on the side of 'collusion only' as the veto policy. But I could easily think of times where I would consider vetoing when it wasn't collusion. Would you do nothing if it was a David Johnson/Dez Bryant/Tom Brady for Ifeanyi Momah trade? You'd just let the whole league suffer because one guy really really really wants Arizona's third string TE? I'd do something. That's clearly an extreme example. But it also shows that, at least for me, collusion isn't the only trigger for a veto. Commish has to look at the health of the whole league. If letting a trade happen leads to three or four owners not returning next year, what do you do?

No doubt I see the concern, but you have to hope people learn from this. You can't police the fair trades or you get into a slippery slope. If the guy getting Zeek has money on this your going to reverse it because it isn't fair? I tell the owner who got fleeced to nut up and do his homework.

 

Also if people are walking, then I tell the guy who got fleeced that he's out. He's clearly the weak link, or the others are just sour they didn't get the chance at the same deal. I mean that's the problem to me... you have an owner who is so deal with that. The trades will fix themselves after.

[JagFan 97]

You can't veto this trade...as stupid as it is. Say Zeke's 6 game suspension is upheld - If this manager is that reckless, who's to say he doesn't drop Zeke next Tuesday for whatever WR/RB/QB flashes as the WW darling week 1. Are you going to go put Zeke back on his roster??

 

Also, lets not forget the first F in FF stands for "fantasy". As stupid as it may look, making roster moves is part of the "fantasy". It is just a game after all.

 

Finally, what if after 3 weeks Zeke is on IR, and Sanders is somehow a top 10 WR? Are you going to revers the veto?

 

You kinda have to let them play the way they want, or as was mentioned earlier...replace them as managers.

[brotherbock 349]

No doubt I see the concern, but you have to hope people learn from this. You can't police the fair trades or you get into a slippery slope. If the guy getting Zeek has money on this your going to reverse it because it isn't fair? I tell the owner who got fleeced to nut up and do his homework.

 

Also if people are walking, then I tell the guy who got fleeced that he's out. He's clearly the weak link, or the others are just sour they didn't get the chance at the same deal. I mean that's the problem to me... you have an owner who is ###### so deal with that. The trades will fix themselves after.

 

A possible slippery slope doesn't mean you have to let it actually become one. Whenever someone says "but where does it stop?!" you can always say "It would stop at this point" and then describe where you would stop it. The existence of grey areas doesn't preclude the drawing of lines.

 

The problem with saying "kick out the bad owner" is that the people may have already walked by then. So yeah, you might preserve the holiness of vetos or whatever, but you also might not have that league active again the next year if the new people don't like it and walk. And I'm not talking about jealousy, I'm talking about people new to the game who think "So, fantasy football is full of jerks screwing people over? Great."

 

You might end up with a Pyrrhic victory, for an arbitrary rule about how vetos should be used.

 

I mean, feel free to use vetos how you'd like. Generally I'm with you on the only for collusion point. But again, if the risk really was the league falling apart, then veto the *** out of it.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

 

A possible slippery slope doesn't mean you have to let it actually become one. Whenever someone says "but where does it stop?!" you can always say "It would stop at this point" and then describe where you would stop it. The existence of grey areas doesn't preclude the drawing of lines.

 

The problem with saying "kick out the bad owner" is that the people may have already walked by then. So yeah, you might preserve the holiness of vetos or whatever, but you also might not have that league active again the next year if the new people don't like it and walk. And I'm not talking about jealousy, I'm talking about people new to the game who think "So, fantasy football is full of jerks screwing people over? Great."

 

You might end up with a Pyrrhic victory, for an arbitrary rule about how vetos should be used.

 

I mean, feel free to use vetos how you'd like. Generally I'm with you on the only for collusion point. But again, if the risk really was the league falling apart, then veto the *** out of it.

I've been in a ton of league's and witnessed dozens of trades much worse. Hell my favorite league started with sh!t like this. I've never had a league disband because of one trade. I never understood the idea that FF is suppose to be fair.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Edit: also your one time veto doesn't make sense. Where is this line? Who gets to make it? Who used rankings to create it? So many question marks and so many times a trade like this gets everyone up in arms and then it's not even clear who won at years end.

[brotherbock 349]

I've been in a ton of league's and witnessed dozens of trades much worse. Hell my favorite league started with sh!t like this. I've never had a league disband because of one trade. I never understood the idea that FF is suppose to be fair.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Edit: also your one time veto doesn't make sense. Where is this line? Who gets to make it? Who used rankings to create it? So many question marks and so many times a trade like this gets everyone up in arms and then it's not even clear who won at years end.

 

The commish gets to draw the lines. That's the commish's job. It's like the speed limit. 55 makes no more or less sense than 54 or 56. So if you get everyone together and try to figure out the speed limit as a democracy, you'll get someone saying '55', and then someone else will say "well why not 56, it's a slippery slope, there's no reason to draw a line anywhere!" But there is a reason to draw a line--simply because a line has to be drawn, and 'no speed limit' isn't good. So you pick a number--55. Same theory in loads of situations in life, including this one. In fact in most places in life where lines are drawn, there aren't clear reasons to draw the line where it was drawn as opposed to somewhere else. It just got drawn. From state borders to outlawed drugs to lengths of skirts to drinking ages to how closely you can be related to the person you marry. There are things that are harmful to the league, 'harmful enough' that they cross the line. Who drew the line? The commish. That's the job of the commish. Even collusion, if you push hard enough, doesn't have a super distinct edge to it, particularly if you include something like a keeper league in the scenario.

 

A game that people are trying to enjoy should in fact be fair in a number of key ways. Everyone gets to show up to the draft, for example. Meaning the rules don't specifically exclude one person from attending. Fred doesn't get more points each week because he's blowing the commish. And if some clown were to get upset and dump his entire team at 3am, and one other owner happened to be awake to see it happen and grabs all the clown's stud players before the rest of the league is awake...you don't let that stand either. And people can say "well, anyone might have been awake, that's just life". But it's not, dumping your team isn't allowed by any league I've been in (except one I quit when I realized it was happening and was allowed). It's not 'collusion' in that the clown wasn't coordinating with anyone else. He's just an idiot, and an idiot shouldn't be allowed to have that much influence on the enjoyment of everyone else.

 

Saying there are non-collusion vetoable offenses makes as much sense as limiting it to collusion only. (Who decides whether it's collusion, who determines that the one team isn't benefiting, what rankings are used...the very same questions you're asking about my rules ) It's a choice. There is a person in the league who is supposed to make those choices. The choices get made.

[shutdown 40]

As a commish, I'm not going to let you screw up my league with bad decision.

 

Periodically we have owners who get busy with life and don't take a close look at bye weeks and injuries. I'll remind a guy after one mistake, but if he's not been back in before the next game, I'm setting his lineup for him. Why? Because that owner's lack of effort is potentially impacting the playoff spots by handing out free wins.

 

Same principal here, you cannot grow a league into a serious competitive money league if you have people upset the competitive balance of the league. My rule is that I have to see a trade the benefits both teams. As long as I can get a logical explanation from both owners as to why they did the deal, it usually goes through. But I've had deals that were so one sided an it was apparent that another owner was just smooth talked by his buddy that I've had to roll them back.

 

Now if it's just a group of friend playing in a fun or low money league, then I don't get terribly concerned with these things, but if my owners are going to invest $200 to play, they expect a scenario where they have a fair chance to win. Really bad trades (product of collusion or otherwise) don't give owners that re-assurance.

 

Also we don't do the veto thing. No owner can impartially evaluate a trade without considering the deal's potential to hurt his playoff chances. But that's a different debate.

[brotherbock 349]

 

 

Also we don't do the veto thing. No owner can impartially evaluate a trade without considering the deal's potential to hurt his playoff chances. But that's a different debate.

 

I like your points, I'll just point out that by 'veto', I only meant commish having a single veto. I don't like league voting, that's awful. And my own rules and lines drawn tend to be very much towards the 'collusion only' side, but not all the way over there. If I see a Zeke/Luck trade come up, I'm not questioning it for example. It happens. Now if another owner complains to me, I'll ask the guys then. But I think I have a pretty good handle on what's okay and what's harmful. So I made the calls as commish.

 

But your point about owners wanting a certain fairness is a solid one

[Flgatorguy87 160]

 

The commish gets to draw the lines. That's the commish's job. It's like the speed limit. 55 makes no more or less sense than 54 or 56. So if you get everyone together and try to figure out the speed limit as a democracy, you'll get someone saying '55', and then someone else will say "well why not 56, it's a slippery slope, there's no reason to draw a line anywhere!" But there is a reason to draw a line--simply because a line has to be drawn, and 'no speed limit' isn't good. So you pick a number--55. Same theory in loads of situations in life, including this one. In fact in most places in life where lines are drawn, there aren't clear reasons to draw the line where it was drawn as opposed to somewhere else. It just got drawn. From state borders to outlawed drugs to lengths of skirts to drinking ages to how closely you can be related to the person you marry. There are things that are harmful to the league, 'harmful enough' that they cross the line. Who drew the line? The commish. That's the job of the commish. Even collusion, if you push hard enough, doesn't have a super distinct edge to it, particularly if you include something like a keeper league in the scenario.

 

A game that people are trying to enjoy should in fact be fair in a number of key ways. Everyone gets to show up to the draft, for example. Meaning the rules don't specifically exclude one person from attending. Fred doesn't get more points each week because he's blowing the commish. And if some clown were to get upset and dump his entire team at 3am, and one other owner happened to be awake to see it happen and grabs all the clown's stud players before the rest of the league is awake...you don't let that stand either. And people can say "well, anyone might have been awake, that's just life". But it's not, dumping your team isn't allowed by any league I've been in (except one I quit when I realized it was happening and was allowed). It's not 'collusion' in that the clown wasn't coordinating with anyone else. He's just an idiot, and an idiot shouldn't be allowed to have that much influence on the enjoyment of everyone else.

 

Saying there are non-collusion vetoable offenses makes as much sense as limiting it to collusion only. (Who decides whether it's collusion, who determines that the one team isn't benefiting, what rankings are used...the very same questions you're asking about my rules ) It's a choice. There is a person in the league who is supposed to make those choices. The choices get made.

I disagree with almost everything you said. It's clear we aren't going to go anywhere with this.

[brotherbock 349]

I disagree with almost everything you said. It's clear we aren't going to go anywhere with this.

That's fine, dude I suspect both of us and our players will keep on being happy with our different rules. I just like discussing it. Peace.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

I like discussing and seeing different view points on players and strategy....couldn't care less about hearing ways of running a league. Never had any issues.

[brotherbock 349]

I like discussing and seeing different view points on players and strategy....couldn't care less about hearing ways of running a league. Never had any issues.

 

OK.