Fishing for opinions

[Caveman_Nick]

Last night I was involved in a fairly heated offseason league meeting. It was heated because once again the subject of trades came up and how the league should deal with completely lopsided trades.

 

One of the catalysts for this discussion was a trade from this past season. Prior to the week 8 games, one of the teams in the league trades Reggie Wayne away for a 5th round draft pick in the next year's draft. This league requires teams to keep 2 players, and has a fairly elaborate keeper system to make certain that all the teams are getting strong keepers. It's a 12 team league. In essence, Reggie Wayne was traded away for the 82nd pick overall in the following year's draft, and while he started the season a little slowly, he ended up as the number 2 WR in FF last year.

 

Now, in the previous offseason, we had altered our commissioner's powers from his being able to veto a trade on suspicion of collusion to also allow him to veto a trade if a team was roster dumping players.

 

When this trade was brought to who needed to approve it, the answer given was essentially "You can't do that. Don't ask me to approve it, do something to make it legit". The suggestion was that the team receiving Reggie Wayne toss in a young, potential keeper RB into the mix, of which this team had several but would never keep. The owner brought it back to the first team, who coincidentally had refused to take the young keeper RB in the first place for some unknown reason (claimed he needed the roster spot), and who then coincidentally agreed.

 

Unfortunately, this got ugly last night as the two owners involved claimed that they didn't understand that this conduct had been considered at the time to be collusive, as we had agreed that roster dumping was equivalent to collusion whether by intent or neglect. They subsequently got bent out of shape and the neeting lost productivity for the rest of the night.

 

During the heated discussion, the subject of the commish approving or vetoing a lopsided trade for players was brought up, and a few of the folks there were trying to equate this situation to the trading of a player for a pick that wasn't remotely close to his value. So, I made the suggestion that the situation be handled similarly to the deal with Reggie Wayne for the 82nd pick. I suggested this:

 

• in the case of any trade where the commissioner feels that there is a problem, that he take the time to speak with the parties involved. He would be allowed to ask question regarding the negotiations and what players were offered, but would not be allowed to comment on the specifics of the agreement.

• If both teams presented an argument as to why they thought making the move that they were would imporve their team, and the commish didn't think it was a smoke screen, then he would approve the trade. • If he found that there was collusion or neglect on the part of one of the owners, then he would disapprove the trade.

• If one of the owners was just a knucklehead the commish would have to approve the deal, BUT If there was something offered in the negotioations that could still be on the table (found through talking to both parties) that the commish thought would not look so lopsided to the league, he would have the ability to suggest why sucha a deal would not be looked upon so poorly, but would not be able to force it if the parties involved insisted that they wanted the player they had traded for and did not wish to aler the deal.

 

The other options on the table were to

1) let the commish make value judgements on all deals (which I was against)

2) put all deals up for a league vote (which I would have no longer wished to participate in the league if to had come to pass)

3) have an appeals process where someone would be able to call a vote to overturn the commish ruling of approving a trade that was believed to be non-collusive (the only way a commish would currently deny a trade) (same as allowing the league to vote on trades as far as I am concerned)

4) Allow the commish to make value judgements on trades, but then to allow people with a denied trade to appeal to the co-commish and treasurer as having the ability to overturn the commish's ruling. (Don't like it, but it's better than 1-3 IMO)

 

 

Soooooo......

 

I have 2 questions for the Huddle Crowd:

 

1) Was the league officer that intervened in the Reggie Wayne for the 82nd overall pick justified in doing so under the roster-dumping provisions

 

and

 

2) Is the suggestion of allowing the commish to overturn player for player trades in the case of neglect as well as collusion, and having the ability to work with the parties to try to help things be more equitable strictly based on the negotiation points presented by the trading parties a viable suggestion. NOTE: the trustworthiness of the commish is a not a factor in this equation. Everyone in the league would consider him to be acting in the best interest of the league and the parties involved.

[BeeR]

To be honest this is way too long/busy-looking for me to read, but generally speaking I'll never get why anyone would use anything other than a majority rule vote for questionable trades. The commish should have no absolute or final say-so. As for possible collusion, the lack of tolerance for that should be stated in the rules and understood clearly by all up front.

[Caveman_Nick]

To be honest this is way too long/busy-looking for me to read, but generally speaking I'll never get why anyone would use anything other than a majority rule vote for questionable trades. The commish should have no absolute or final say-so. As for possible collusion, the lack of tolerance for that should be stated in the rules and understood clearly by all up front.

 

 

I'd never participate in a majority rule league. Owners vote trades based on self interest. If the precident exists that trades are only overturned on grounds of collusion or neglect, in plyaer for player trades or player for picks trades which can be interpreted as roster dumping, then that is the only type of "questionable" that matters.

[XFlash]

I agree with no absolute for the commish.

 

I am commish in one of my leagues; been in the league 11 yrs now; rotating commish's every few years.

 

I have approving authority as the check. The balance is a 75% vote of remaining owners to overturn a trade. This balance keeps everything civil. You can not always please everyone, someone will always disagree about a trade, but if the offended owners can not convience the majority to swing to the vote, then it stands and the offended owner(s) live with the sour grapes. No way for that person to complain anymore unless they are really a &*)&%$, then you just vote that person out of the league.

 

I have had a few trades where owners did not agree. I spoke to the other owners before I approved the trade just to hear their rationale. Their is a fine line between allowing owners to do what is best for their teams and what is in the best interest of the league, hence the check and balance.

[piratesownninjas]

In my auction/dynasty we have the commish, and then a consigliere... Basically Robert Duvalls character in the Godfather movies... Our league really doesnt have that problem though, as everyone wants to win too much in order to pull some non sense like that.

[Grits and Shins]

Trades are subjective. Everybody has their own opinion. So if you are going to allow owners/commissioners not involved in the trade to vote on/rule on whether the trade should be allowed then by definition almost everybody is going to have their own opinion. There will be those owners that vote against it because they don't like one particular team getting stronger, there will be those owners that vote against it because they vote against trades in general, there will be those owners that don't respond at all and then there will be those owners that vote against it because they feel like they made or can make a better offer.

 

Allowing owners to veto trades is a bad idea.

Giving the commissioner unilateral power to veto trades is a bad idea.

 

Things get even more complicated when trades for future picks are included .... and even more complicated when it is a keeper league.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

simple answer - if you think owners are cheating kick them out ,, if you do not think they are cheating the trade goes threw

[Dagger]

In our league in which I am the Commissioner, we purposely select a grievance committee of 3-5 owners that decide at a meeting with the owners in which the grievance has been filed on, to decide the outcome of such problems. Since we have gone to this format, we have never had 1 single problem and everything has been very upbeat!! Good Luck.

[Pope Flick]

Last season, around mid year in my local LJ was traded for Frank Gore. 2 teams rasied a HUGH stink about it because they thought Gore was average at best. Even as of last night, they still won't admit they were wrong and said the trade never should have gone down.

 

Lesson: some people want to be angry no matter what.

[untateve]

I'm too tired to read all of that. However, was each owner trying to better his team within the rules? If that's the case, why does anyone care? I took over a team last year in a dynasty league and had a fire sale for future draft picks. To be honest, if I was told I couldn't do it or was accused of cheating because of it, I would have only been in that league for one season.

[BeeR]

I'd never participate in a majority rule league. Owners vote trades based on self interest.

Only if you're in a league full of babies, or no-class losers, or people who for some other reason take FF way too seriously. In which case IMO it's time to find another league anyway. I've been in local leagues for 11 yrs now and only once did anyone raise a stink about a trade, and it was clearly unfounded so everyone else shot the whiner down immediately. We do this for fun and save the rants for our sucky players, not each other.

 

 

Allowing owners to veto trades is a bad idea.

Giving the commissioner unilateral power to veto trades is a bad idea.

 

? So your solution is to allow any trade of any kind?

 

Things get even more complicated when trades for future picks are included .... and even more complicated when it is a keeper league.

 

That's easy to resolve IMO. If you trade away future picks, you have to pay your dues for that future year (or years) up front to prevent any possible "the future is now and I'll bail out later" bit. Edited May 28, 2007 by BeeR

[Bronco Billy]

I believe that the way to deal with bad trades is to use collusion as the only criteria for overturning a trade, and then requiring a super majority to veto the trade (and consequently also kick the allegedly offending owners out of the league immediately, since if the trade is vetoed, they have also been found guilty of cheating the league), with owners voting knowing that they are not only voting to veto a trade but also to kick the offending owners out of the league. That usually will take the self-interest trade vetoing out of the equation since owners understand that if they overturn the trade they are also sending owners packing.

 

Without some kind of significant consequence attached to vetos, many owners will only act in their own self interest, use poor judgment, and veto relentlessly based upon their own value judgment of the trade -which can easily be proven to be wrong as the season plays out. I'd never play in a league like that. I'd also never favor one person making the decision on a bad trade (ie - the commish making the ruling)

 

Have some owner put forth why they think the bad trade is collusion, have the offending owners explain their positions & reasoning in the trade, and then let the owners vote - except the owners involved in the trade. Require something like 75% of owners voting collusion for the overturn to take place.

 

As far as roster dumping - apparently your league rules not only allow it, but also encourage it. The only advantage to roster dumping during the season is that the dumping owner ought to be getting better value, and obviously that didn't happen with Wayne. That not only affects the balance of the league in the current season, but also doesn't balance that effect with future significant impact. If your league is willing to impact the existing ongoing season (which is okay - it happens in pro sports all the time), then it ought to expect trades like this to happen and deal with it. If it doesn't like that, you all need to change the rule while it is the offseason. That's up to the owners in the league as to how they want to proceed.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Caveman_Nick]

As far as roster dumping - apparently your league rules not only allow it, but also encourage it.

 

 

 

How do you figure?

[Big Country]

Only if you're in a league full of babies, or no-class losers, or people who for some other reason take FF way too seriously. In which case IMO it's time to find another league anyway. I've been in local leagues for 11 yrs now and only once did anyone raise a stink about a trade, and it was clearly unfounded so everyone else shot the whiner down immediately. We do this for fun and save the rants for our sucky players, not each other.

 

 

? So your solution is to allow any trade of any kind?

 

 

 

BeeR,

 

You seem to answer your own question to Grits with your first statement. If you enter the league under the assumption that you are doing so with a group of class act owners, then there would be no need to overturn any trade, except, as Bronco Billy stated, in cases of collussion, which means that you are not in a league of class owners, and to vote against a trade would also be to call the owners involved cheaters and vote them out of the league.

 

Now, if you are not confident that your owners will act in the best interest of the league, while of course trying to better their own teams, then, as you say, it is time to find a new league.

 

To have to put in a rule that has trades getting a commish or owner vote approval means that you are not confident in the ability of your owners.

[Big Country]

How do you figure?

 

 

Well, while I wouldn't neccesarily say that your rules encourage roster dumping, and not knowing the make up of this wners team, I dont know that I could neccesarily call this a roster dump, but, in any keeper, you will have trades for future draft picks.

 

Now, in any limited keeper, such as this league where you can only keep two, it makes sense for owners that are not in the playoff hunt, or don't feel they are likely to be in the playoff/title hunt to trade away all but their top two players (or, to trade away their top two players if they feel the players they can keep plus the picks they get in trade warrant it) to better themselves for future years.

 

Let's say for instance that this owner definitely has two other keepable players, but, other than those two and Wayne, he was fairly weak. It makes a lot of sense for him to deal one for something, even if it is just a 5th round pick, as the other option is to continue to spiral in mediocrity this season and get nothing for the player for next season. By trading, he has created a decent advantage for himself next season by getting an extra 5th round pick (even after 2 keepers, you are still talking a likely starting player for his FF squad, which he now picks one round sooner than anyone else, not considering other potential trades). On top of that, 2 players is not a lot of keepers, so it is generally bit more difficult for a team to create a HUGH advantag through just 2 keepers.

 

Obviously not knowing full details of his roster, and these other rules you speak of to discourage dumping, it seems like a logical move to make if your team is not likely to make the money in the current year.

[Savage Beatings]

IMHO a Commissioner should allow almost all trades to go through unless there is some kind of allegation of cheating or tanking, in which case if it is proven that the owners are cheating/tanking, then not only does the trade get vetoed but the owners get the boot from the league (or at the very least get a firm and final warning to go along with the veto).

 

A Commissioner has to do what is necessary to maintain the integrity of the league. Since not every scenario can be foreseen and placed into the rule book, you have a guy that you all trust to make the right judgement call when it comes up. Is that a lot of power for one person? Yes. But that's what it oftentimes comes down to. If you don't trust your Commish to do what's right, tehn you should either try to have him replaced or you should probably walk.

[Bronco Billy]

 

Now, in any limited keeper, such as this league where you can only keep two, it makes sense for owners that are not in the playoff hunt, or don't feel they are likely to be in the playoff/title hunt to trade away all but their top two players (or, to trade away their top two players if they feel the players they can keep plus the picks they get in trade warrant it) to better themselves for future years.

 

 

 

BC = very smart man.

[Big Country]

I've got no problems with the earlier trade deadlines, but Iwould not play in a league that would allow some teams to make transactions and others not to, regardless of record. It is completely unfair. Either all teams can make trades, waiver moves, etc., or no teams can in a keeper league.

 

Non-keeper I can see arguments more for waiver moves during playoffs or if teams are eliminated if doing a straight 16-17 week league.

[Caveman_Nick]

Now, in any limited keeper, such as this league where you can only keep two, it makes sense for owners that are not in the playoff hunt, or don't feel they are likely to be in the playoff/title hunt to trade away all but their top two players (or, to trade away their top two players if they feel the players they can keep plus the picks they get in trade warrant it) to better themselves for future years.

 

 

Just to make a few things about this league clear...

 

- 2 keepers are required.

- only 1 player per position may be kept

- in June every year, teams are required to cut their roster to a maximum of 4 players and a minimum of 0 players.

- later in June, the league holds a supplemental draft from which teams are required to fill their rosters up to 4 players from the cut and rookie list

 

That helps define the keeper aspect a bit. And trading of draft picks for players is allowed, with the caveat that teams trading players for draft picks need to receive at least close to perceived 'market value'

 

The problem here isn't trading away a player for a draft pick, it was in the perceived value received (ie. the value of the player for the value of the pick). The #2 WR overall for the #80ish overall pick was not seen as equitable, and therefore he invoked the roster dump rule.

 

I guess the question is more one of the perceived value in determining if the league officer was within his charter in looking for the teams to rework the deal (bear in mind that the trade ended up going through with some small adjustment)

 

If it matters, the team's roster was:

 

QB: T Brady, M Brunell

RB: E James, L Maroney, F Taylor, M Morris

WR: R Wayne, A Bryant, D Gabriel, R Smith, M Muhammad

TE: G Wrighster, D Clark

PK: J Brown, J Elam

DST: D Chiefs, D Seahawks

 

As can be seen, the trading of Wayne left the team gutted at WR.

[Big Country]

Given his roster, and the one player per position rule, I could see how this was perceived as a roster dump. Now, had the player traded been Edge, I would be less inclined to call the roster dump rule as the owner still has a keepable RB (Maroney) and Wayne. I can only guess that the owner plans to keep one of the RBs and Brady, or to supplementally pick up a cut WR.

[Bronco Billy]

Just as you expect teams to not tank games for a better draft choice, they should be trying to keep winning in the current year. But when you're 1-6, it's hard not to think about the next year.

 

 

 

Actually, if the 1-6 team is trying to be competitive, the owner owes it to himself to trade away all but his top 2 players since he can only carry 2 into next season. He can't win in the current season, and the players beyond his top two are worthless after the season is over. The time they have maximum value is when he can trade them to teams still in the playoff hunt & trying to get an edge over others in the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

Considering the set-up of your league, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Wayne deal. Reggie Wayne is barely the 24th best player, if that. He has virtually no keeper value in a league with 24 keepers. Problems like this are inherent in a keeper league.

 

 

I agree, the deal ought to be allowed. So the Wayne for a 5th rounder is vetoed. But other owners now realize Wayne is on the block. Does the league then allow a trade by another team for its 4th rounder for Wayne? How about a third rounder? Do they keep vetoing until someone decides its a fair deal?

 

The league has created this mess for itself - if you can call it that - by allowing judgment of value by others to determine the "fairness" of a trade. That's inherently self-destructive to the league, and the two denied owners ought to be pissed off. Either allow all trades & understand that some teams will be playing for the short term & others will be playing for the following season, and that will change how teams match against each other in the playoffs as trades are made, or allow no trades of future draft picks for players until the season is over.

 

What your league has done is the worst possible option, and it was almost guaranteed that someone was going to get screwed.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[brownhelmets]

I commish a 14 team dynasty. If more then one owner have a legit gripe against a trade, we take it to a league vote, requiring 9 of the 12 remaining teams who aren't involved in the trade to veto. It works very well that way. We have guys rag on owners who make somewhat lopsided trades, but we have never had to go to a league vote.

[BeeR]

BeeR,

 

You seem to answer your own question to Grits with your first statement. If you enter the league under the assumption that you are doing so with a group of class act owners, then there would be no need to overturn any trade, except, as Bronco Billy stated, in cases of collussion, which means that you are not in a league of class owners, and to vote against a trade would also be to call the owners involved cheaters and vote them out of the league.

 

Now, if you are not confident that your owners will act in the best interest of the league, while of course trying to better their own teams, then, as you say, it is time to find a new league.

 

To have to put in a rule that has trades getting a commish or owner vote approval means that you are not confident in the ability of your owners.

 

Re. my statement your'e referencing, it was in response to Grits saying this (which was not a response to me):

 

Allowing owners to veto trades is a bad idea.

Giving the commissioner unilateral power to veto trades is a bad idea.

 

Was just wondering what he meant since it sounds like they allow all trades no matter how lopsided and never heard of such a set up.

 

My earlier comment that you also referenced was in response to nick saying "owners vote based on their own self-interest." ie implying all (or most) of them do. That kind of league would IMO suck.

 

More generally though, even if you know your owners well and the odds of this happening are slim, it still makes sense to have some kind of "CYA" rule on this, if for no other reason than what if someone new comes in the league that not everyone really knows, etc. So majority rule makes sense even in a "good" league because they're likely to allow any trade that is at least semi-reasonable, which IMO is how it should be.

[Caveman_Nick]

And when you say "perceived market value", are you only talking about the current year, or are you just judging whether the trade is in the best interests of both parties for both the current year and the future? I don't know, I feel bad for you having to worry about stuff like this. Why does it seem that everyone has a league that is so complicated? Simplicity is better with most things.

 

 

 

In making these judgements, it's very important to look at the whole picture. I believe this was done here.

[Caveman_Nick]

I wouldn't want to be in a league that would allow a trade that is totally lopsided, just as long it was stupidity and not collusion.

 

 

 

So in essence, you would not be in a league where an owner would be able to gain a real advantage through a trade?

 

Owners make bad decisions all the time. They make bad draft choices, bad FA choices, bad drops, insert bad line-ups, plan poorly for bye weeks, etc.. How do you police these things, if you are running a league with a stupidity shield that keeps owners from making dumb trades?