keggerz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Thanks for playing...shall we continue cause this is fun I'll play - A bone-headed draft pick would not be rescinded. I see where you're going with this, but they are completely different. For one, no other team is involved. If this person consistently made stupid draft picks, he wouldn't be invited back in. but i digress...every team is involved and if ONE team drafts a crappy team then that does effect everyone else...what if you werent in that crappy teams division and someone made the playoffs because they got to beat up on said crappy team twice and you were in the hard division and missed out on the playoffs with a better record...and fwiw I am trying to play devils advocate but many many many of these deals that people come here and ask about just need to go thru and you handle it like you said YOU DONT INVITE THEM BACK As far as the kicker trade analogy...again, if a reasonable explanation is given, no, it would not be overturned. The scenario you described seems reasonable to me. It's not fair value for fair value per se, but to that team owner it is, so no issue. you might understand it but you dont think some owners from these leagues that have posted here wanted trades voided and such would be all up in arms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It is not the commish's job to police stupidity and why do these threads always turn into pissing matches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 No! Never! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It is not the commish's job to police stupidity and why do these threads always turn into pissing matches? It's a hot-button topic and it's all based on what people feel is an appropriate time for a commissioner/league to take action on a deal. Stupid trades can ruin some seasons but so can injuries. Where does a league draw the line? On only what you can control? If so, then what about dumb bids at an auction, or bad draft picks? How about benching a stud? IMO, keep the integrity of the league intact, have a mechanism in place in case of collusion, and don't have the commish have end-all, be-all power where interpretation is concerned. They make mistakes too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Yes. I would also include idiocy that affects the balance of the league Collusion is the most overused word in FF. It is virtually meaningless. You need some pretty good evidence - like a witness or a taped conversation - to to prove it. All you are left with is a suspicion, and hence, a judgment call. I am all for a rule to protect the balance of a league. In most of the leagues I am in, there is a certain amount of time for the owners of the league to object to a trade. If that time elapses without 7 or more owners objecting to the trade, the trade goes through. In practice, all trades go through all of the time. (I think that I have seen, at most, 3 owners object to any one trade.) This rules allows trading while leaving open the possibility of nuking a totally ridiculous deal - like policyvote trading an uninjured Chad Johnson to me for his homey Charles Rogers. Now, this rule works because I play in leagues with honest, adult owners who are not going to object to a trade merely because they think that it is unbalanced. If you got petty owners who are going to biitch about that kind of trade, this rule isn't for you. Perhaps a league like that isn't for you either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Now, this rule works because I play in leagues with honest, adult owners who are not going to object to a trade merely because they think that it is unbalanced. If you got petty owners who are going to biitch about that kind of trade, this rule isn't for you. Perhaps a league like that isn't for you either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Yes. Collusion is the most overused word in FF. It is virtually meaningless. You need some pretty good evidence - like a witness or a taped conversation - to to prove it. All you are left with is a suspicion, and hence, a judgment call. I am all for a rule to protect the balance of a league. In most of the leagues I am in, there is a certain amount of time for the owners of the league to object to a trade. If that time elapses without 7 or more owners objecting to the trade, the trade goes through. In practice, all trades go through all of the time. (I think that I have seen, at most, 3 owners object to any one trade.) This rules allows trading while leaving open the possibility of nuking a totally ridiculous deal - like policyvote trading an uninjured Chad Johnson to me for his homey Charles Rogers. Now, this rule works because I play in leagues with honest, adult owners who are not going to object to a trade merely because they think that it is unbalanced. If you got petty owners who are going to biitch about that kind of trade, this rule isn't for you. Perhaps a league like that isn't for you either. I agree with everything you said. Even in the absurd analogy of trading C.Rogers for C.Johnson, I really don’t think I’d object to that one. You could make a case for it, and in this scenario (unbalanced), if it happened now there’s really no way it’s collusion… just a dumb move. I don’t think it’s that far off that it stacks one team so much they are guaranteed the trophy either. What if you overruled this one and Chad Johnson sucked this year? The point being, that the trade would really have to have zero logic to even be considered for a veto. This gets more complicated and passionate when big bucks are on the line. If I were in a $500 league… I’d probably care a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 lots of interesting answers. seems like the prevailing answer is, basically, "collusion only...except for really bad examples which i can only define subjectively". here's another question...do you think trades should bear more league scrutiny in keeper/dynasty leagues where "unbalanced" trades can have a longer, deeper effect on the balance of power in the league? personally, i tend to think they should. not only because of the long term imbalance created, but also because there are more intricacies for a naive owner to be monumentally stupid about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 You’re so transparent Az … ok I’ll play. Take for example the trade I made this year. I get TO, W.Dunn and A.Brooks and I give up LJ, B.Jacobs and B.Johnson. With an 18 man roster the waiver wire is gonna be dry as hell, so I’d better score with the bunch I have. Jacobs was trade bait when I drafted him, and while tonight makes me re-think this, it is a preseason game. The team that I traded with also has LT. Next year, he’ll have LT, LJ, L.Jordan and Jacobs (three keeper)… but that’s next year. My logic… I now have: RB: Rudi/Perry/Dunn/C.Brown/L,White WR: TO/Wayne/Mason/Horn If Dunn stays healthy, I honestly believe he’ll be close to LJ. You won’t, but the cheatsheet koolaid is still half full in the glass. If TO is healthy, then I’ll probably have Horn on the bench week one. If McNair doesn’t pan out, I may be able to trade a WR for a better QB. This year, the team that traded for LJ is has less than stellar WR’s. We start three (count em’) three WR’s every week. Putting up the Cincy RB and Dunn is a dnam fine option at RB, and my WR’s will have enough depth to (hopefully) cover in case of injury at the worst, or have solid bye week fills and plays against the match ups. Did I screw you next year? …prolly. Would most people here agree that it was lopsided? …prolly. But that will only come true once the games begin. It’s not collusion and the league is cheap enough that it was worth trying, and if I own Ursa’s sig for a month it will be well worth it. Sink or swim, at least I took a shot at it... we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I wouldn't void any trades for reasons other than the trade looks really unbalanced, or there is collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 You’re so transparent Az … ok I’ll play. actually, no...that trade was not in my thinking at all. i actually have a sneaky hunch that trade could work out for you. of course, i'm pretty sure you still coulda got a lot better value for LJ, but that's your problem. 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.