Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I am a little steamed right now...just to get that out there. I made a deal today in my local. One of the other teams has been without a starting QB for this upcoming week all week. His 2 QBs are Culpepper and McNair, and McNair went down last week. So, I sent the guy a message. I need some help at RB2 and he needs a QB going forward. Is he interested in trading me an RB for a QB. I have Bledsoe, Leinart, and Carr. The guy writes back that, since he doesn't think I'll want to trade away Bledsoe, what do I want for Leinart. Of course I respond that I would certainly be willing to trade Bledsoe. His Rbs that I am trying to get my hands on are Lamont Jordan, Marion Barber, and Kevin Jones. So I ask if Kevin Jones is available, and what his price would be. He responds that he will trade me Kevin Jones for Drew Bledsoe. :crickets: 'Okay...' was all I could say. I mean, what am I going to say? Should I tell him that it's lopsided towards me? I mean...the two players have equal production at this point, Bledsoe was expected to be a top QB, and KJ has been a broken down flop his whole career, but still I know it's lopsided towards me. SO I am doing tha happy dance. Until it starts. One owner mails the league about how he would have given up Vick for KJ and wonders why he can;t get a trade. Then another owner (who has done this to me more than once I might add) Starts on about how maybe we should consider changing the rules to keep bad trades from happening. Maybe once a trade is agreed, then other owners should have a chance to counter the deal. ( ) All I can do is respond that the rest of the owners in the league had as much opportunity as I did to notice that this owner needed a QB, or to assess the needs of any other owner, and in initiate their own trade discussion. I didn't do anything deceitful to accomplish this. I merely asked. Then, the coup de tat. One of the owners (the player commish) puts out to the league that there is a rule in place for this, and if seven owners vote against the trade it can be vetoed. Now, I am the assistant commish. I am not aware of this rule, and the Commish hasn't brought it up. It's nowhere in writing. So now it's just 'out there', with no back-up. Of course I am not going to directly make a stink out of it because it concerns me and I am obviously biased, but I want to see this published rule before a vote overturns my trade. I am all about this, though. I can say with relative certainty that if this deal gets vetoed or if there is a rules change to allow other owners to counter offer trades inplemented in the league in the offseason that I will not be returning next year. I am already considering it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I hate stuff like this....I'm commish in a local where someone traded (crap * 2) for (crap * 1 plus Kevins Jones) after Week 2. I have the right to veto "bad" trades, but I felt like I couldn't veto an ignorant trade (after 2 bad games by K. Jones, ignorant owner thought that he had little value). Can't legislate bad decisions.....obvious collusion is what I will void...but anyone who has a brain knows the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I'm the commish of a league with a bunch of newbs to FF. Guy traded Chris Cooley for Plaxico straight up. Very lopsided. But it's not collusion. You can't veto dumb decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 It was a very crappy deal. one that from looking afar you would wonder if it was not collusion. but if you guys(all of you from the local) know each other . ask them all to speak up and say whether they think you 2 were working together on the deal. if a majority says no then ask them how can you veto a deal if noone is cheating? Sounds like since they are bringing in rules that you (the co-commish) don't know about that it will end in a bad scene no matter what you tell them though. I would finish up the year there and just move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Sounds like since they are bringing in rules that you (the co-commish) don't know about that it will end in a bad scene no matter what you tell them though. I would finish up the year there and just move on. What he said. If it ain't written, it don't exist. And if they insist, you're done with that league post season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 That is total horseoh poopy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Time to leave this league. If you have a commish that makes up rules on the fly, time to leave the league now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I have to say, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have accepted the trade in the first place. It's clear the trade was going to cause controversy. If you're the asst. commish, you should've seen that coming. The fact that you paused and said you knew the trade was lopsided the second you were made the offer is evidence enough. I would've thrown in another player with decent upside who was wallowing on your bench. That way you would've avoided some of the controversy. C'mon, admit it. If you were one of the 8-10 other owners not involved in the trade, you would've been irate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 and KJ has been a broken down flop his whole career, but still I know it's lopsided towards me. This is his third year in the league... His rookie year he lit it up in limited pt. Last year Mooch destroyed the offense all together, this year Jones is turning into what he was supposed to. You sound like he's Lamont Jordan os something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Time to leave this league. If you have a commish that makes up rules on the fly, time to leave the league now. As always, Uncle Steve has the correct answer. The league is about to head down the slippery slope, and it appears to be loaded with whiners & second guessers. Get out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 I have to say, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have accepted the trade in the first place. It's clear the trade was going to cause controversy. If you're the asst. commish, you should've seen that coming. The fact that you paused and said you knew the trade was lopsided the second you were made the offer is evidence enough. I would've thrown in another player with decent upside who was wallowing on your bench. That way you would've avoided some of the controversy. C'mon, admit it. If you were one of the 8-10 other owners not involved in the trade, you would've been irate. Not true. I have been around many trades that were 'lopsided' in the years I have been playing FF. I have never once protested a trade except when 2 teams decided to trade some players on the contingency that one team would get his players back after the season (keeper league) with a draft pick. Clear collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I can say with relative certainty that if this deal gets vetoed or if there is a rules change to allow other owners to counter offer trades inplemented in the league in the offseason that I will not be returning next year. I am already considering it. Sadly, you answered your own question. This league is a waste of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 It's easy for us to say "quit the league" because of this supposed rule change but we are not as connected as you. I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are semi close to the group as assistant commish and don't really want to bail for this. 1st- A veto or vote policy should always be in place in any league to avoid trades of collusion (not saying this one is). Without it, you are inviting eventual anarchy. 2nd- I do agree you should have known a trade of this nature would cause a stir. I would suspect, if nothing in a "voting" nature was to occur, some other coaches would put together a doozy near the trade deadline just to see what would be done. This would finish off some owners and maybe the league. SEEN IT HAPPEN. 3rd- Let the vote go but I recommend communicating to the league that a veto vote should be used only if they think the trade stinks of collusion. An uneven deal or desparate move by a coach that is still in the hunt, should go through. Making a rule like this is not worthy of leaving the league if you otherwise like it. Question: What is the record of the team giving up Jones? If he's all but out, the trade should never have went down. Fantasy football should be fun and when the league gets turned upside down over a trade, that is no fun for anyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) That kind of stuff happens all the time. That's why what he should have done is put out a league wide notice "Look for QB for upcoming week, highest bidder gets KJ" or something like that. Sort of an "On the Block" post on the website maybe... ETA: The trade should by no means be reversed. Edited October 20, 2006 by Piranha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 It's easy for us to say "quit the league" because of this supposed rule change but we are not as connected as you. I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are semi close to the group as assistant commish and don't really want to bail for this. True. But I am still considering making an exit. 2nd- I do agree you should have known a trade of this nature would cause a stir. I would suspect, if nothing in a "voting" nature was to occur, some other coaches would put together a doozy near the trade deadline just to see what would be done. This would finish off some owners and maybe the league. SEEN IT HAPPEN. I just disagree here. I have seen some pretty ridiculous trades go down, and the most I have ever done is ask the owner getting the short end if he took his idiot pill that day. I am happy to explain to an owner why they got the short end of the stick. As for the owner trading for the better ned of the deal, I pretty much just feel like I wish I had been as diligent. 3rd- Let the vote go but I recommend communicating to the league that a veto vote should be used only if they think the trade stinks of collusion. An uneven deal or desparate move by a coach that is still in the hunt, should go through. I will not comment to the league on the situation further. Just as I am not going to complain about anyone else's deals, I am not going to lobby for mine in defense. It should be enough that the other owner has already come out and stated that he had his own reasons for wanting the deal, and is happy with his end. Making a rule like this is not worthy of leaving the league if you otherwise like it. For you, perhaps. Question: What is the record of the team giving up Jones? If he's all but out, the trade should never have went down. the bottom six teams in our league have a tournament to get the top draft pick in next year's league. It always behooves a team in this league to look to improve. Trading an RB for a QB that he could actually start in a game and score a lot of points gives him a better chance in either bracket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 That kind of stuff happens all the time. That's why what he should have done is put out a league wide notice "Look for QB for upcoming week, highest bidder gets KJ" or something like that. Sort of an "On the Block" post on the website maybe... ETA: The trade should by no means be reversed. And that's the thing...he didn't do that. I sent him a note, and he quickly agreed to a deal. It would have been smarter for him to do that, but I am not sure what bearing it has on what has occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 the bottom six teams in our league have a tournament to get the top draft pick in next year's league. It always behooves a team in this league to look to improve. Trading an RB for a QB that he could actually start in a game score a lot of points gives him a better chance in either bracket. I think this means the record is not that good? To be clear with my thoughts, in the league I commish, I would have likely made the deal too if I felt the other coach was doing what trying to improve his/her team. He has 3 RBs and no QBs so something had to happen and it fell into your lap because you noticed it and made the contact. If the coach was savy, he would have floated the possibility out there and took the highest bidder. I would expect backlash from the league for sure but we have a plan in place for them to turn the deal down. Don't the reaction is quite predictable. I bet the rules are clear next year. Good luck with your situation. This is another clear example of: Rules should be clear and thorough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 You have every right to be steamed about this. They are totally screwing you. Not only that, but even if teh trade is somewhat lopsided, it is not so totally out of balance that anyone should consider a veto of it. The other owner involved inteh trade is a big boy, and if he perceives enough value in Bledsoe to fill an obvious hole in his roster, and is willign to give up KJ for him, then there is nothign anyone should be able to do about it. This is sour grapes from the other owners in the wrost possible manifestation. They should all be ashamed of themselves (I'm quite serious). I would never want to be in a league with people like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 You have every right to be steamed about this. They are totally screwing you. Not only that, but even if teh trade is somewhat lopsided, it is not so totally out of balance that anyone should consider a veto of it. The other owner involved inteh trade is a big boy, and if he perceives enough value in Bledsoe to fill an obvious hole in his roster, and is willign to give up KJ for him, then there is nothign anyone should be able to do about it. This is sour grapes from the other owners in the wrost possible manifestation. They should all be ashamed of themselves (I'm quite serious). I would never want to be in a league with people like that. This is how I feel about it. I made it clear that I would have traded any Qb on my roster, would have given negotiated more than the QB for K Jones if the other owner had asked, and would have traded for any of his RBs. Add in that Bledsoe is averaging more 2 PPG than Jones and that this will significantly help the other team's chances to win games every week over a line-up with no QB or one of the WW QBs, and it's tough to say that it doesn't make sense for the guy. The only part that doesn't is that he didn;t look to get more from other owners, and that's just not my fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 I think this means the record is not that good? I hesitate to bring this into the discussion because I don't think it matters. Neither team has a winning record. 'nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 That's bogus Nick. I mean it's a lopsided trade, but it's not so horrible that it shouldn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Then, the coup de tat. One of the owners (the player commish) puts out to the league that there is a rule in place for this, and if seven owners vote against the trade it can be vetoed. Now, I am the assistant commish. I am not aware of this rule, and the Commish hasn't brought it up. It's nowhere in writing. So now it's just 'out there', with no back-up. Of course I am not going to directly make a stink out of it because it concerns me and I am obviously biased, but I want to see this published rule before a vote overturns my trade. I am all about this, though. I can say with relative certainty that if this deal gets vetoed or if there is a rules change to allow other owners to counter offer trades inplemented in the league in the offseason that I will not be returning next year. I am already considering it. Don't let your position compromise your ability to run your team. If you cannot seperate the two, don't be a deputy next year. That being said, if it isn't in writing you sure as heck make a stink over it. begin with" "what other unwritten rules are we playing under?" and take it from there. Also, it should be a governing philosophy, not even considered a rule: you can't change squat after Week 1's kickoff, until the year is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Lopsided trades happen all the time. What happens when Strahan and Osi pummel Bledsoe ? Is there going to be an unwritten rule that he gets KJ back? (Sorry, ....Giants fan getting up for the game ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I can say with relative certainty that if this deal gets vetoed or if there is a rules change to allow other owners to counter offer trades inplemented in the league in the offseason that I will not be returning next year. I am already considering it. I think this decision should already be apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Time to leave this league. If you have a commish that makes up rules on the fly, time to leave the league now. This isn't directed at you personally, but I read comments like this and I have to ask myself - "do these people think leagues grow on trees"? It's hard to find a league with established owners that you have competed against for years or maybe are your friends/co-workers, etc... The answer is not to just up and leave (unless ths league has no meaning to you), but rather to work it out and ensure it doesn't happen again going forward. 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.