Collusion Prevention....

[Teacon]

I'm reposting a reply to the thread that right now has 228 replies and I want to know if anyone does anything like this......

 

Henry, Chris WR CIN

Jacobs, Brandon RB NYG

Maroney, Laurence RB NE

Norwood, Jerious RB ATL

 

FOR

Droughns, Reuben RB CLE

Hasselbeck, Matt QB SEA

Houshmandzadeh, T.J. WR CIN

Taylor, Fred RB JAC

This is a $150 keeper league, you can keep up to 3 RB and 3 WR's . I have contacted both owners and the owner that is obvioulsy getting the far shorter end of the stick imo, says he's not going to be able to compete this season with Taylor and Droughns as his starters, so he wants to build for the future.

 

I feel this trade is not even close to being fair and i know if/when i process it, i'm going to get some MAJOR smackback. What should i do?

 

1. Process it and explain to the league i spoke with both owners and the owner getting you short end is well aware he's getting shafted.

 

2. Post the trade in our forum and allow other owners to make this guy a better offer.

 

3. Reject the offer and tell the owners it's far too lopsided and would make the league too unbalanced.

Please help, i do not like to rejects any trade in money leagues with competent owners, but this is a little different.

 

 

 

 

I did not read this thread other than your post, so if this suggestion has already been offered, I apologize in advance.........

We have a 48 hr counter rule in our leagues. Accepted trades are posted and all owners have 48 hours to send a counter proposal to EITHER participant in the trade. This provides a checks and balance system to prevent collusion. Any owner who wants to complain simply can counter. If a counter is accepted, the 48 hr period starts all over again.

If counters that are better are rejected, then we look at collusion, which in my 10 years in 4 leagues w/many of the same guys crossing over between leagues, has NEVER happened. The only negative is when two owners work for a long time behind the scenes negotiating a trade, the participant who gets left out in the cold when the other one accepts the counter sometimes gets upset. I don't think anyone has quit a league over though.

Edited August 20, 2006 by Teacon

[Bonehand]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

Edited August 20, 2006 by Bonehand

[McBoog]

Read it in that thread and really liked it. After 13 years of doing this, I like running into new things. I will incorporate this in my league... This year since the season hasn't started yet! This really does eliminate anyone from saying they didn't have a shot at certain players! Awesome Dude

 

I can do this because I am all powerful as a Commish. I don't deal with whining and sprained va-jay-jays. I let the players play. If they don't like the way I run the league (with suggestions and new ideas like this evaluated and incorporated all the time), bye-bye!

 

I have a core of guys who have been with me a long time and I have downsized my league this year to just them after almost folding it. I do everything at MY discression, no votes or any of that sh!t. After all these years, they trust me to do the right thing and I have an assistant commish that I consult with on almost everything before I do it. If it is IN SEASON and involves my team, I let him make the secision.

 

If you keep it fun, fair and challenging, then they will play.

[McBoog]

va-jay-jay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[theeohiostate]

I vote for #3 hands down

 

 

Why in the world would you allow others to beat an offer you seem unfair. How do you determine the trade is unfair for this process. Is this your opinon or something? What if your opinon differs from the two making the deal, and then you shed light on it for the entire league to see what kind of offers can be made.

 

Seems far too subjective for my taste. Just veto it and be done with it.

Edited August 20, 2006 by theeohiostate

[Muggsy]

you know, the thing about this deal is that it could look like a steal the other way as early as next year, team A is obviously playing for this year by getting Hass, Droughns, Taylor and Housh....BUT....the three RBs that team B is getting are young guys who are all playing behind RBs on the wrong side of age 30, Henry just seems to be a throw in and is not a factor. In a league where you can keep all three of these young guys team B should get the better end of the deal in the long run. If team B feels he probably isn't going to challenge for a title this year then let the deal happen, he might have a huge smile on his face in a couple years.

 

 

I hesitated to offer my opinion, but there it is.

[Teacon]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

 

Sounds to me like you are one of those owners who will beat a baby for its candy....

This prevents a$$holes from taking advantage of the rookies (like THAT doesn't happen... ). For the record, most trades aren't countered because the participants negotiating an original trade are aware that if it is extremely unbalanced, there is a good chance of a counter.

[Teacon]

you know, the thing about this deal is that it could look like a steal the other way as early as next year, team A is obviously playing for this year by getting Hass, Droughns, Taylor and Housh....BUT....the three RBs that team B is getting are young guys who are all playing behind RBs on the wrong side of age 30, Henry just seems to be a throw in and is not a factor. In a league where you can keep all three of these young guys team B should get the better end of the deal in the long run. If team B feels he probably isn't going to challenge for a title this year then let the deal happen, he might have a huge smile on his face in a couple years.

I hesitated to offer my opinion, but there it is.

 

 

I agree. The original thread I thought was flawed because it is a dynasty league. The young backs the guy is getting have alot of upside.

[Bonehand]

Sounds to me like you are one of those owners who will beat a baby for its candy....

This prevents a$$holes from taking advantage of the rookies (like THAT doesn't happen... ).

 

 

So you ask for an opinion, I give you my thoughts on your system, and you resort to personal attacks?

 

You are a SWELL Huddler, too bad we don't see you around more.

 

Unfortunately for me I guess, I make a point of playing against competent owners in my leagues, as opposed to the farm animals & small children that you seem to need to protect in yours.

[XFlash]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

 

 

Agree.

 

If there are issues with owners taking advantage of a rookie, then it is the commish's job to review and correct if necessary.

 

Otherwise, Bone hit it exactly.

 

The other than trying to make it a fair offer, your salemenship is another big part of it. Even if the players involved are not big name players, if the other owner is on the fence about a big name or non-big name, it is up to you to pitch the sale with potential, injury handcuff, schedule, type of system, keeper potential, etc...etc...

After all that, what should matter is that both owners agree.

 

I'm the commish in my league in my sig line. If it is obvious to be one sided I, let the owner know that maybe they should take another look. Normally I ask both owner is they are fine with the trade, maybe ask what the angle was. So far everything has passed with no issues.

 

After the hard work for the sales pitch and the owners finally agreeing, why would you put that up for the rest who are sitting on the butts to come in a make a counter? If you see someone you would like to have, sack up and make an offer.

 

Just remember that you can not always get everyone to be happy about all trades. What matter most are the owners involved. (barring the obvious lopside trade).

[Grits and Shins]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

 

 

Agreed.

[The Wolf]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

 

 

Right on the money. I put time into researching players and working trades. If someone wants to benefit off that, pay me. Otherwise, there's no chance I'd let a rule like this take all of my work and let someone else benefit from it.

[ghengis_chan]

Right on the money. I put time into researching players and working trades. If someone wants to benefit off that, pay me. Otherwise, there's no chance I'd let a rule like this take all of my work and let someone else benefit from it.

 

Not to mention the 3 Beers and 6 shots of Tequila that I bought for the guy in order to convince him that this trade is good for him!!!!!

Edited August 20, 2006 by ghengis_chan

[muck]

There are all sorts of reasons that an owner may trade "today" for "tomorrow," especially in dynasty-ish leagues.

 

And, if the league is a dynasty-ish league, then ALL trades should go through without question. If other owners don't like this, then require each owner to send in TWO years worth of dues so that they are already paid up for next year (thereby making collusion or 'player dumping' insane if you've already got next years' dues paid up).

 

For example, lets say in your "keep 3RBs and 3WRs league" you have the following two mythical teams (just to make my point):

 

TEAM 1:

Larry Johnson, Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon, Lamont Jordan and Deuce McAllister

Randy Moss, Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Chris Chambers and Plaxico Burress

 

TEAM 2:

Shaun Alexander, Michael Bennett and Correll Buckhalter

Torry Holt, Joe Horn and Reggie Brown

 

So...if TEAM 1 trades Corey Dillon, Lamont Jordan, Deuce McAllister, Chad Johnson & Chris Chambers ... in exchange for Shaun Alexander from TEAM 2...would that be a lopsided trade?

 

Absolutely it would. TEAM 1 would be giving up "way too much" talent for one single player.

 

However, both teams would be better off for having made the trade.

 

Why? Because by getting those three RBs, Team 2 no longer has to keep Michael Bennett or Correll Buckhalter...and he can upgrade from Joe Horn and Reggie Brown to Chad Johnson and Chris Chambers.

[McBoog]

This really seems to be almost a black & white issue. No middle ground?

 

I like it because after so many years of playing together, those of us who can sell snake oil to the gullible masses figure out who is who. We haven't had a significant trade in years! Lot's of proposals, but noone pulls the trigger

 

What I see this do, is that it makes everyone aware of the fact that certain players might be on the block that you would have thought, due to "years" of experience are not untouchable! That and the fact I put the Trade Bait module at the top of the home page might open things up a bit.

 

If it doesn't work, I change it back. After all,

 

 

 

I AM ALL POWERFUL!

[Bronco Billy]

 

I did not read this thread other than your post, so if this suggestion has already been offered, I apologize in advance.........

We have a 48 hr counter rule in our leagues. Accepted trades are posted and all owners have 48 hours to send a counter proposal to EITHER participant in the trade. This provides a checks and balance system to prevent collusion. Any owner who wants to complain simply can counter. If a counter is accepted, the 48 hr period starts all over again.

If counters that are better are rejected, then we look at collusion, which in my 10 years in 4 leagues w/many of the same guys crossing over between leagues, has NEVER happened. The only negative is when two owners work for a long time behind the scenes negotiating a trade, the participant who gets left out in the cold when the other one accepts the counter sometimes gets upset. I don't think anyone has quit a league over though.

 

 

This has to be one of the worst rules I've seen in a long, long time.

 

You aren't providing checks & balances, you're intentionally circumventing the trade process and managing everyone's teams for them. One or both owners in a trade work hard to make a trade happen, and then you throw it out to the league to begin a bidding war when the rest of the owners didn't do squat to engineer a trade? That's patently bullcandied yams.

 

And who exactly decides what counter offer is better? What happens in the trade above that you are referring to that Maroney & Norwood both become top 5 RBs next season, and Jacobs takes over as the Giants' #1 RB in a very, very strong offense? Then who exactly got the upper hand in the trade? Do you know that won't happen? No, of course you don't , but you're willing to make that judgment with no rational basis, aren't you?

 

That you & your league mates have the arrogance to think you are smarter than everyone else in the league, and can micromanage their teams for them while managing your own, as well as screw over an owner by opening up their trades to open bidding would have any rational FF owner running from it in a heartbeat. It sounds like the league is going well from what you state - maybe you all deserve each other.

[Men In Tights]

This has to be one of the worst rules I've seen in a long, long time.

 

You aren't providing checks & balances, you're intentionally circumventing the trade process and managing everyone's teams for them. One or both owners in a trade work hard to make a trade happen, and then you throw it out to the league to begin a bidding war when the rest of the owners didn't do squat to engineer a trade? That's patently bullcandied yams.

 

And who exactly decides what counter offer is better? What happens in the trade above that you are referring to that Maroney & Norwood both become top 5 RBs next season, and Jacobs takes over as the Giants' #1 RB in a very, very strong offense? Then who exactly got the upper hand in the trade? Do you know that won't happen? No, of course you don't , but you're willing to make that judgment with no rational basis, aren't you?

 

That you & your league mates have the arrogance to think you are smarter than everyone else in the league, and can micromanage their teams for them while managing your own, as well as screw over an owner by opening up their trades to open bidding would have any rational FF owner running from it in a heartbeat. It sounds like the league is going well from what you state - maybe you all deserve each other.

 

What he and Bonehand said.

 

if someone is screwing themselves than so be it. I don't understand the 48-hour time-frame as what do you do when the trade is accepted on Saturday. Does that mean the trade does not take affect until Monday, after the games have been played? If the trade goes through and some whining crybaby whines load enough (i.e. the team that lost because of the trade) is the trade reveresed and then what about the previous week?

 

I also don't understand the counter-offer idea, seems like someone does all the work and someone else can reap the rewards. I thought everyone was accountable to themselves and if someone wants to make a stupid trade they should be allowed to.

 

Let me add, this is in now way that far a lopsided deal as you make it out to be. LIke someone else pointed out all 3-RB's could be starting as early as next year.

 

To me, the people that complain the most about collusion are just jealous they didn't make the trade offer FIRST.

[PlayaHata]

NO, & I don't like that one bit.

 

If I, owner A, work hard to make a trade with owner B for player X, It would annoy me to no end if the system allowed an owner C to swoop in, & snatch the guy I worked so hard to get out from under me. Particularly if Owner C had no idea that he even wanted player X until he saw me trading for him!

 

AS AN OWNER, It's not my job to do Owner C's legwork for him, or to make sure Owner B gets maximum value. It is my job to make my team better, drive my opponents before me, & hear the lamentations of their women. And then, take their money. Sorry, but this system sucks.

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Exactly the reason that Bonehand is MY commish.