Azazello1313 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 i see it again and again in posts people make about trades in their league, "collusion is the only reason to void a trade". but is it? are there other reasons? what about trades where one guy gets high value for an inured player (presumably, the other guy doesnt know about the injury)? what if a guy made a mistake and thought he was getting chad johnson when he clicked 'accept' for chad jackson? or if keeper rounds had a guy confused about what draft pick he was giving up/getting? or trades that are just ridiculously unbalanced value-wise, even if the guy getting hosed isn't trying to cheat. i'm sure you can think of other possible scenarios. personally, i go back and forth on this. i mean, if someone is stupid enough to trade his first round draft pick for curtis martin so he can hold onto him in a keeper league, that's sort of his problem. maybe the remedy is not inviting him back next year, if you can get away with that. but what about the other guy? is it fair to let that windfall stand? should your league reward guys sloughing off damaged goods or otherwise taking advantage of another owner's stupidity? sorry for the rambling post, just wonder where others stand on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Ihave always thought there should be, but then, one year after just about the entire league lambased one owner for an apparently stupid trade, the guy he got went off and the guy he gave up was average at best (wish I could remember the players, I believe it was MArcus Allen in one of the Chiefs years for something like Jake Reed or someone) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Az, the only time I've ever seen a trade stopped that was not collusion was a guy out of the playoffs getting a WAY undervalued Vick and SSmith in exchange for LT and an overpriced, injured scrub. IIRC the guy getting LT was in possesion of SA and Holt at top-values, and his other QB was Hass in his first decent year (like I said, IIRC) and the rest of us in the playoffs raised all kinds of cain about that. It was a keeper league, and there was obviously no collusion from these two guys, but it was killed anyway (we pay like $7 a year for site fees - no money). The reason it was killed was it literally made the team getting LT invincible (I know, anything can happen, but...). And the commish reasoned it out fairly well, saying that's why there were trade deadlines and we should have set one (first year) so we set at like 10 or 11 and that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Proving collusion can be hard IMO. Some people around here seem to want to cover their eyes and ears and sing "la la la la la" when it comes to trades. I think some kind of vote challenge or approval sytem should be in place, but I've yet to see one I really like.. In one of my leagues we have a system where any owner can "challenge" a trade and put it up to league vote. You get one challenge per year. It must be seconded, and then the league votes without input from the voting parties. 7/10 remaining votes requred to void the trade. We've never voided a trade, but we have had a couple challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Az, the only time I've ever seen a trade stopped that was not collusion was a guy out of the playoffs getting a WAY undervalued Vick and SSmith in exchange for LT and an overpriced, injured scrub. IIRC the guy getting LT was in possesion of SA and Holt at top-values, and his other QB was Hass in his first decent year (like I said, IIRC) and the rest of us in the playoffs raised all kinds of cain about that. It was a keeper league, and there was obviously no collusion from these two guys, but it was killed anyway (we pay like $7 a year for site fees - no money). The reason it was killed was it literally made the team getting LT invincible (I know, anything can happen, but...). And the commish reasoned it out fairly well, saying that's why there were trade deadlines and we should have set one (first year) so we set at like 10 or 11 and that's it. Note to self: Never play in a league w/ westvirginia What a bunch of bulloh poopy. The guy made a legit trade to make his team better for the playoffs & the owners who would have gotten beaten by the strong owner force him to stay with the pack for no other reason that they don't want to lose. That sucks, plain & simple. This is exactly why the only reason to void a trade is collusion - although I would also include idiocy that affects the balance of the league. I'm not talking about the trade listed above, I'm talking about a Larry Johnson for Neil Rackers type of idiocy. And lofl @ Vick being "undervalued". That's like calling TO a team guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Let's see , i have played in big money leagues at Antsports and CBS and in both leagues a commish is assigned to run the leagues, not a player, but an admin from the hosting site. They have the final say on trades and last season at Antsports i accepted about 5 trades and ALL FIVE were rejected by Steve at Antsports, i'll never play in that league again. Same can be said for CBS ran leagues, the commishes there also reject trades ALL THE TIME. None were collusion, that i'm aware of considering nobody even knew each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I've seen two trades voided in my time. The first was collusion...the teams admitted they were making a very uneven trade because one guy had a bye week and after the bye, they'd trade back... The second was prior to the draft, one team had no info: cheat sheet, nothing. One owner traded the #10 pick for the #1 pick in exchange for a cheat sheet... Other than that, I have been fortunate to play with owners who are ethical, so we don't have any problems...knock on wood! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Let's see , i have played in big money leagues at Antsports and CBS and in both leagues a commish is assigned to run the leagues, not a player, but an admin from the hosting site. They have the final say on trades and last season at Antsports i accepted about 5 trades and ALL FIVE were rejected by Steve at Antsports, i'll never play in that league again. Same can be said for CBS ran leagues, the commishes there also reject trades ALL THE TIME. None were collusion, that i'm aware of considering nobody even knew each other. Not that's funny coming from YOU who have twice in the past took upon yourself to disallow trades in leagues for which you are the commissioner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 In one of my leagues we have a system where any owner can "challenge" a trade and put it up to league vote. You get one challenge per year. It must be seconded, and then the league votes without input from the voting parties. 7/10 remaining votes requred to void the trade. We've never voided a trade, but we have had a couple challenged. Love this idea I will introduce into my leagues today, i hate being the one and only to send to a vote, this would take that ability from me, i could approve all trades and let others use their power to challege if desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Not that's funny coming from YOU who have twice in the past took upon yourself to disallow trades in leagues for which you are the commissioner. It is isn't it , but i can only think of one i've ever vetoed though, do you know more then i? The other issue i had was the Mike Bell issue which also plagued many leagues. Edited August 31, 2006 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Not that's funny coming from YOU who have twice in the past took upon yourself to disallow trades in leagues for which you are the commissioner. Could you describe both trades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It is isn't it , but i can only think of one i've ever vetoed though, do you know more then i? The other issue i had was the Mike Bell issue which also plagued many leagues. Pot meet kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Could you describe both trades? No, I don't remember them. I'm not in either of the leagues but he posted them both here and got blasted by everybody for rejecting the trades. I'm sure BJ can find them though. Edited August 31, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Proving collusion can be hard IMO. Some people around here seem to want to cover their eyes and ears and sing "la la la la la" when it comes to trades. I think some kind of vote challenge or approval sytem should be in place, but I've yet to see one I really like.. In one of my leagues we have a system where any owner can "challenge" a trade and put it up to league vote. You get one challenge per year. It must be seconded, and then the league votes without input from the voting parties. 7/10 remaining votes requred to void the trade. We've never voided a trade, but we have had a couple challenged. Curious about something here, what if the league has exhausted all it's challenges by two shady owners and by playoff time they are free of any league rules to trade whomever they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 No, I don't remember them. I'm not in either of the leagues but he posted them both here and got blasted by everybody for rejecting the trades. I'm sure BJ can find them though. one of them BTW, I had 2 BOTH leagues trades voided as they were "too much in my favor" and both of the trades were proposed by the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 BTW, I had 2 BOTH leagues trades voided as they were "too much in my favor" and both of the trades were proposed by the other side. Huddlers rejecting trades??? I thought Huddlers as a whole vowed never to play in leagues where trades were rejected (except for collusion...)??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 one of them BTW, I had 2 BOTH leagues trades voided as they were "too much in my favor" and both of the trades were proposed by the other side. Yeah, I remember seeing that thread. Theohiostate has no business being a commish. But hey, if the league tolerates him, who I am to say otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 To answer the original question, No. Collusion only, no other reason to veto a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Yeah, I remember seeing that thread. Theohiostate has no business being a commish. But hey, if the league tolerates him, who I am to say otherwise? .......and you BB have no idea of what your talking about If you played in a league with your three brothers and some employees , then you'd understand the madness here. Bottom line , i vetoed a deal i felt unfair, the league had it's chance to vote. They voted to accept the trade. The system worked. And a few people may have been paid or had some manangement pressure put onto them in the process, but since i don't have a video camera for you collusion theorists, i couldn't scream foul. Edited August 31, 2006 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Below was my response to the question posed in the Manning for Caddy thread - IMO there are definitely grounds to overturn trades other than collusion. 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...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Huddlers rejecting trades??? I thought Huddlers as a whole vowed never to play in leagues where trades were rejected (except for collusion...)??? Hypocricy i say!! They just like to jump the horse and cry foul, but in their own backyard it's different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I never have, but if I overturned a trade, it would accompenied with a invitation to leave the league. If not immediatley the following year. I said as much at the draft this past week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I have seen trades that were completely fair at the time they were made come back and rip a league apart because owners thought that the 'dynasty' that one team had accumulated in a keeper league was insurmountable. The other owners didn't want to be just giving their money away for the next several years. This is the problem with keeper/dynasty formats, and is tough to manage. Something that will destroy the league should at least be looked at by the commish. In a redraft league, I can't think of a circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Let's see , i have played in big money leagues at Antsports and CBS and in both leagues a commish is assigned to run the leagues, not a player, but an admin from the hosting site. They have the final say on trades and last season at Antsports i accepted about 5 trades and ALL FIVE were rejected by Steve at Antsports, i'll never play in that league again. Same can be said for CBS ran leagues, the commishes there also reject trades ALL THE TIME. None were collusion, that i'm aware of considering nobody even knew each other. Bottom line , i vetoed a deal i felt unfair, the league had it's chance to vote. They voted to accept the trade. The system worked. And a few people may have been paid or had some manangement pressure put onto them in the process, but since i don't have a video camera for you collusion theorists, i couldn't scream foul. Pot meet kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 The whole collusion argument really only plays out midseason. If some team starts out 0-5 and throws in the towel for next year, stuff like future draft slots can be used to justify an unbalanced trade. This is IMO collusion, but you’d be hard pressed to prove collusion before the season even starts. If the trade is undeniably unbalanced (Manning for a kicker), then a league vote should settle it. If a team has an outstanding daft and lucks into extra depth and wants to trade it, the veto argument that it makes one team too strong (even though the trade itself was fair) is just stupid. 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.