Fatman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 This doesn't make any sense to me. You would rather have the decision in the hands of one man than 10 or 12? Seems to be that the chances of a veto being abused is greater. 7 votes of 12 to veto a trade (or 6 of 10) is a subtstantial hurdle, as it should be. With honest owners, all but the most absurd of trades will be allowed. Of course, if you're in a decent league, you'll never run across such a trade. And to answer your question about one man than 10 or 12, absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 In an "honest" league, the only types of trades that will be agreed to are ones that people believe will actually better their team - not colluding to make one team better. Most agree that the only reason that a trade should be overturned is collusion. If there is faith that the owners are all acting in their best interest, why should others vote on trades? Well, you can be honest and stupid. As I have said before, so-called "collusion" rules are meaningless. Unless you have a witness, or a tape recording, or a written agreement proving it, all you are going to have is a suspicion of it. I suppose that one could rationalize a trade such as Charles Rogers for Peyton Manning in a redraft league, if one owner honestly believed that Charles Rogers was going to fulfill his potential and have a Chad Johnson-type season. Such a trade unfairly effects the balance of the league, and benefits one team and one team only. There should be a mechanism for a veto of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 And to answer your question about one man than 10 or 12, absolutely. Seems silly to me, but to each his own. There's a reason that there are at least 6 people (12 in criminal cases) on a jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Well, you can be honest and stupid. As I have said before, so-called "collusion" rules are meaningless. Unless you have a witness, or a tape recording, or a written agreement proving it, all you are going to have is a suspicion of it. I suppose that one could rationalize a trade such as Charles Rogers for Peyton Manning in a redraft league, if one owner honestly believed that Charles Rogers was going to fulfill his potential and have a Chad Johnson-type season. Such a trade unfairly effects the balance of the league, and benefits one team and one team only. There should be a mechanism for a veto of it. I disagree. If an owner has paid his money he should be able to manage his team however he sees fit. If he is not smart enough to function on par with the rest of the league, he should be dropped and replaced. Harsh and tough to do sometimes, but for the best. The majority could be just as wrong on the "fairness" of a trade in a given moment than the person who is perceived to be getting the short end of the stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 There's a reason that there are at least 6 people (12 in criminal cases) on a jury. Two very different things. Juries are there to make an educated guess on past events. Trade review is about allowing two independent parties come to an agreement. The NFL doesn't object to trades on the grounds that one party is stupid because it assumes that each side is informed and acting in their own best interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Two very different things. Juries are there to make an educated guess on past events. Trade review is about allowing two independent parties come to an agreement. The NFL doesn't object to trades on the grounds that one party is stupid because it assumes that each side is informed and acting in their own best interest. Well, an NFL owner has just a little bit more oversight than an owner of a FF team, don't you think? Just about any comaprison between FF and professional football is flawed. Look. We have a fundamental disagreement. I say that you are going to get a better decision, one that is less arbitrary and capricious, when the decision is made by 6 of 10, or 7 of 12, than a decision made by one person. I don't understand the basis for you thinking that the opposite of true. You really haven't explained it, nor do I think that you, or anyone else for that matter, can explain it. But if you want to give just one guy the power to veto a trade, rock on. Edited August 30, 2006 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Well, an NFL owner has just a little bit more oversight than an owner of a FF team, don't you think? Just about any comaprison between FF and professional football is flawed. Look. We have a fundamental disagreement. I say that you are going to get a better decision, one that is less arbitrary and capricious, when the decision is made by 6 of 10, or 7 of 12, than a decision made by one person. I don't understand the basis for you thinking that the opposite of true. You really haven't explained it, nor do I think that you, or anyone else for that matter, can explain it. But if you want to give just one guy the power to veto a trade, rock on. In the same way that the jury comparison is flawed - two groups with a much greater investment than some people in a FF league. I think we've both beat this horse pretty thoroughly. One last thought, however - you're a Democrat, right? Clearly the majority isn't always correct... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 If I was the new guy, I'd demand a refund and quit. ...actually, I prolly would never have joined a league w/ a rule like that in the first place... That's a bad rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I think I have said this before, if my commish tried rejecting any of my trades I'd pop him in the grill. Same with any league fairies that want to tell me how to sail my ship. Grill poppin' all around! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 The previous ADP post should be the only argument. These two guys probably have very close ADPs and I bet Williams is even a little lower. Get out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 One last thought, however - you're a Democrat, right? Clearly the majority isn't always correct... If I am correctly guessing at the meaning of your obtuse reference concerning my political proclivities, the majority, in that instance, was correct. The Electoral College f*cked it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 In an "honest" league, the only types of trades that will be agreed to are ones that people believe will actually better their team - not colluding to make one team better. Most agree that the only reason that a trade should be overturned is collusion. If there is faith that the owners are all acting in their best interest, why should others vote on trades? That's what's SUPPOSED to happen, but all owners have a vested interest in winning. And they're not all going to be objective if a trade is proposed that threatens their ability to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 the majority, in that instance, was correct. The Electoral College f*cked it up. Please keep comments on this board in reference to fantasy football ignorance rather than roaming into areas of complete political ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 If I am correctly guessing at the meaning of your obtuse reference concerning my political proclivities, the majority, in that instance, was correct. The Electoral College f*cked it up. Nope, a far simpler comment on the fact that the majority of voting Americans picked Bush last election, proving that the majority can indeed be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Nope, a far simpler comment on the fact that the majority of voting Americans picked Bush last election, proving that the majority can indeed be wrong. Shhh. You'll offend Billee's delicate sensibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 It is not the commissioner's or the league's responsibility to determine the "fairness" or "unfairness" of a trade. We all have different opinions of how individual players will perform meaning we have varying opinions of "fair" and "not fair". The commissioner/league is NOT tasked with managing all the teams in the league to ensure "fairness". The only reason a trade should be over-turned or not allowed is if there is collusion, period. Owners should be allowed to be stupid. I disagree with this. If the competitive balance of the league/integrity is compromised by stupidity, I believe it IS the commissioner's responsibility to act. Not unilaterally mind you, but after discussion with the parties involved and other owners. I know this flies in the face of what is prevailing thought on these boards, but in drafting our rules this year, I did add a "stupid trade" rule. Basically if I get a bunch of emails from other owners questioning an obvious stupid trade, it gets looked at. If the rationale given by the parties involved is weak, and yes, other people including myself determine what is stupid and what is weak, it's gonna get overturned. Simple as that. We all know a bad trade when we see it, regardless of someone's "hunch". Ain't gonna fly in our league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Nope, a far simpler comment on the fact that the majority of voting Americans picked Bush last election, proving that the majority can indeed be wrong. The selection of a Bush that matters here relates to Reggie, not W. But again, that wasn't the point. If one wishes to display political ignorance, there is an appropriate forum in which one can drop trou to their heart's desire. This is certainly not the place for whining about a political process of which Furd clearly has no comprehension, nor about the fact that he apparently supports a political party that couldn't produce a candidate in 2 elections that could beat someone as incompetent as W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 That is a horrible rule, especially if the parties concerned have no say in the approval. I'm not saying that the policy is good (which it's not), but presumably if one team proposed the trade and another accepted, then both would approve the deal. Hence why their votes get tossed out because they likely would be meaningless. IMHO it is actually benifical as if the team others thing is getting the raw end of the deal talks with his buddies and sees it their way, he might get "buyers remorse" and try to veto his own trade. Tossing out there votes prevents this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm not saying that the policy is good (which it's not), but presumably if one team proposed the trade and another accepted, then both would approve the deal. Hence why their votes get tossed out because they likely would be meaningless. IMHO it is actually benifical as if the team others thing is getting the raw end of the deal talks with his buddies and sees it their way, he might get "buyers remorse" and try to veto his own trade. Tossing out there votes prevents this. So this is to protect the stupidity of the owner? What about owners that make stupid draft selections or make bad roster moves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Very weak. Let the trade go through or time to find a new league. If you are going to play in a keeper you have to be able to deal with trades that don't seem fair (at least for the current year) and this one is arguably fair. Why bother playing a keeper league if people are going to grip about most trades? Edited August 30, 2006 by TDFFFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Part of the fun of fantasy football is ripping somone off in a trade. Owners shouldn't be protected from their own stupidity. Unless there is obvious collusion between the two owners making the trade, the other ownes should just have to whine amoungst themselves. Hardly anyone would collude on a trade before the season even starts. When you have to watch out for it is when one team has been eliminated from playoff (and/or payout) contention and another is in. If I'm in a league and I decide to trade Peyton Manning for a back-up kicker, that's my perogative. If anyone ever "vetoed" one of my trades, I'd be gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Part of the fun of fantasy football is ripping somone off in a trade. Owners shouldn't be protected from their own stupidity. Unless there is obvious collusion between the two owners making the trade, the other ownes should just have to whine amoungst themselves. Hardly anyone would collude on a trade before the season even starts. When you have to watch out for it is when one team has been eliminated from playoff (and/or payout) contention and another is in. If I'm in a league and I decide to trade Peyton Manning for a back-up kicker, that's my perogative. If anyone ever "vetoed" one of my trades, I'd be gone. I disagree. If you traded Manning for a back up kicker, then you’d either be in collusion or waiting for the short school bus to pick you up. This is gambling, and if one team gets stacked because of an obvious rip off, then that team will have a distinct advantage having given up nothing for something. The integrity of the league is compromised, and in that case it would (IMO) warrant a league vote. This trade is a fair deal, and while some of the owners may believe one side is making out, it’s really an opinion that could go both ways. When you find a league of owners that at least understand the game, this doesn’t happen because they’re all trying to win and have an idea of how to play the game. When a commish plays dictator and vetoes a trade he thinks is unfair, he’s making the decision that will change the outcome of the game. If he was wrong, and the team he assumed was being ripped off lost because of the veto, then the league integrity is compromised. A commish is one thing, but in this case where the trade was voted down by the league, then you must conclude this isn’t a league for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Juries aren't invested in the verdict. Fantasy football owners are vested in everything in the league that the percieve may impact their ability to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Juries aren't invested in the verdict. Fantasy football owners are vested in everything in the league that the percieve may impact their ability to win. And this is actually why I was tending to disagree with Furd in this instance. I quit a league because of this shucks. It happens to a couple people, then they are bound and determined to get revenge. Next trade coming through, they jump on it. It becomes a big cluster munition. Another thing we haven't even discussed for this, and that's relative worth. If the Manning owner has Hass and Palmer sitting on his bench at low auction values, and Manning is high-priced, and the guy has Portis at normal value but LJ as a dollar player, he can pick up cap space for more speculation, add a young, spotential stud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.