Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 alright... this is a work league. I felt that I needed to put some sort of mechanism in the league to protect new owners from being raped by skilled owners. So... we've a group of three of the most experienced owners who vote on trades. I just don't want the newbies to walk away with a bad taste in their mouth. In the other leagues I run - there are no votes. We are experienced and have the right to decide what is best for our team. I put a great deal of time into finding owners who I do not have to worry about. With a work league, its a different animal. There have been bad trades made all year - but nothing that has been voted down. Yesterday a losing team traded Peterson (MIN) for a kicker. It was rejected. This week is our trade deadline. My question is.... what do I do if another trade is made between them the benefits the same person? Making a bad trade is making a bad trade - but they have already shown themselves to be taking part in collusion. So... now a bad trade between the two carries more issues. Am I right to vote no to any other trade between these owners that benefits the owner who would have been recieving Peterson? Again, they've shown themselves to be underhanded - why would they not say... okay... lets benefit your team but make it closer? I am torn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 If they are colluding they should be booted from the league. Trades should never be vetoed or over-ruled unless there is collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gdawg Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Am I right to vote no to any other trade between these owners that benefits the owner who would have been recieving Peterson? Again, they've shown themselves to be underhanded - why would they not say... okay... lets benefit your team but make it closer? I am torn. A bad trade is a bad trade. Veto away without guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 If they are colluding they should be booted from the league. Trades should never be vetoed or over-ruled unless there is collusion. Can't say it any plainer than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 If they are colluding they should be booted from the league. Trades should never be vetoed or over-ruled unless there is collusion. I completely agree, but its a work league so there are other issues. I have no doubt that there is collusion. Peterson for a Kicker and all. Bad team to good team. I just don't know if I have the authority to kick them out as there is nothing in the rules about that and one team is making a playoff run. ((the team getting peterson)) He actually leads his division. And, the guy has been a Megan Fox all season through (going so far as demanding a scoring change in week 6) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I completely agree, but its a work league so there are other issues. I have no doubt that there is collusion. Peterson for a Kicker and all. Bad team to good team. I just don't know if I have the authority to kick them out as there is nothing in the rules about that and one team is making a playoff run. ((the team getting peterson)) He actually leads his division. And, the guy has been a Megan Fox all season through (going so far as demanding a scoring change in week 6) Have him justify the Peterson for a kicker trade. He won't be able to. He'll come across like an ass. Once this process is finished, tell him that every trade he makes going forward will be held up and reviewed or voted on because he can no longer be trusted, and because of this he will not be invited back into the league next year. I'd throw a few curse words into the conversation for good measure, and kindly thank him for trying to ruin the integrity of a league and subsequently the fun involved with it. A-hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 wish that rule was in place in one of my leagues...inexperienced, never-log-on-and-change-lineup type traded off Colston and Lynch to the experienced, waiver-wire-watcher for Crayton and LaMont Jordan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 which kicker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 which kicker? A good one, Folk, but kickers are kickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 If they are colluding they should be booted from the league. Trades should never be vetoed or over-ruled unless there is collusion. I almost 100% agree. There is this small part of my brain that doesn't mind there being a mechanism in place that keeps newbies from getting screwed, though. AP for a kicker? Either the person has absolutely no clue (probably not), or has decided that they don't care since they are out of it and will just give the player up to their pal (much more likely)....I think the original reaction was probably the right one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Have him justify the Peterson for a kicker trade. He won't be able to. He'll come across like an ass. Once this process is finished, tell him that every trade he makes going forward will be held up and reviewed or voted on because he can no longer be trusted, and because of this he will not be invited back into the league next year. I'd throw a few curse words into the conversation for good measure, and kindly thank him for trying to ruin the integrity of a league and subsequently the fun involved with it. A-hole. You are 100% right, except that in a work league this kind of handling of something can have repercussions. Not so much when you are the top dog, but when you aren't and there are folks at different levels of the work food chain involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Hugh, get stalked much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) Have him justify the Peterson for a kicker trade. He won't be able to. He'll come across like an ass. Once this process is finished, tell him that every trade he makes going forward will be held up and reviewed or voted on because he can no longer be trusted, and because of this he will not be invited back into the league next year. I'd throw a few curse words into the conversation for good measure, and kindly thank him for trying to ruin the integrity of a league and subsequently the fun involved with it. A-hole. I agree with Hugh, mostly. Do exactly what he says but don't be profane and don't mention that he is out for next year (but certainly don't let him back in), A) make him justify the trade after A is not satisfied, explain that every trade will be scrutinized 3) tell him that FF is for fun and that he is ruining it for everybody else Edited November 8, 2007 by chester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Hugh, get stalked much? Yeah, actually. Must be my gleaming personality. I think your boy Pig Devilz has a crush on me now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 If they are colluding they should be booted from the league. Trades should never be vetoed or over-ruled unless there is collusion. I've always wondered about this theory. I normally believe in this course of action as well, but there was an issue earlier in the year that put some question into this for me. There wasn't any collusion, but the trade was VERY one sided. This my old "local" league (I'm in FL but all my friends are in NY). Anyway, one of the guys (let's call him "Sucker") was being bugged all day by the other guy (let's call him "Sleazy") during his work hours. Sucker deals with finances and stocks which involved multi-million dollar deals, so generally during the day he's disgustingly busy. Sleazy continued bugging Sucker until he made a crappy trade for Holt (something to the effect of Holt for 2 old/hurt guys). There was no collusion involved as I know Sucker is very honorable and would never do that. The commish jumped in (as there was no vetoing in place) and put the kibash on it. So would making a lopsided trade under duress warrant a veto/vote or is this just a case of "too bad, so sad"? I normally tend to go with the quoted theory, but this made me rethink that. What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I agree with Hugh, mostly.Do exactly what he says but don't be profane and don't mention that he is out for next year (but certainly don't let him back in), A) make him justify the trade after A is not satisfied, explain that every trade will be scrutinized 3) tell him that FF is for fun and that he is ruining it for everybody else +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 So would making a lopsided trade under duress warrant a veto/vote or is this just a case of "too bad, so sad"? I normally tend to go with the quoted theory, but this made me rethink that. What say you? Again - I am usually of a mind that people should be able to make mistakes. Nobody shouts when somebody puts in a bad lineup or when somebody makes a bad draft pick - I see no difference with trades. The big issue is having the 'right' people in your league - which I pride myself on. I go to great lengths to ensure this. In this league though - I just wanted to make sure that people were not taken advantage of. I did not want to leave the votes up to everybody, because I know that given the chance that - most people - especially people who have never commished before - will vote down a trade that they find a threat. I don't have that issue in my other league - but its because I have the right people. In a work league is the making chicken salad out of chicken just order the fish for goodness sake issue. blah... this guy is sure to get all mouthy too... but what can I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I've always wondered about this theory. I normally believe in this course of action as well, but there was an issue earlier in the year that put some question into this for me. There wasn't any collusion, but the trade was VERY one sided. This my old "local" league (I'm in FL but all my friends are in NY). Anyway, one of the guys (let's call him "Sucker") was being bugged all day by the other guy (let's call him "Sleazy") during his work hours. Sucker deals with finances and stocks which involved multi-million dollar deals, so generally during the day he's disgustingly busy. Sleazy continued bugging Sucker until he made a crappy trade for Holt (something to the effect of Holt for 2 old/hurt guys). There was no collusion involved as I know Sucker is very honorable and would never do that. The commish jumped in (as there was no vetoing in place) and put the kibash on it. So would making a lopsided trade under duress warrant a veto/vote or is this just a case of "too bad, so sad"? I normally tend to go with the quoted theory, but this made me rethink that. What say you? If you're an adult and you make a bad FF decision, it's not up to the others to look out for you unless they are putting a gun to your head or likewise. If you trade AD for a kicker...well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 If you're an adult and you make a bad FF decision, it's not up to the others to look out for you unless they are putting a gun to your head or likewise. If you trade AD for a kicker...well... Well, it's not just about looking out for the guy who got fleeced, it's also not skewing the balance of the league and making the other guy's team that much better because, unlike everyone else, he was unscrupulous enough to badger the other guy at work. Actually, as I write this, I can't understand why the busy person would ever cave. My reaction would be more along the lines of "Call me again about this and see what happens. Really, you don't want to find out, I promise." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 If you're an adult and you make a bad FF decision, it's not up to the others to look out for you unless they are putting a gun to your head or likewise. If you trade AD for a kicker...well... I am not so cut throat. Again - when everybody has the knowlege they need, maybe. Allowing vets to pray off first time owners though... I can't see anything good coming of it. It makes the bad teams worse giving the teams playing them wins they might not have. It makes sleezy teams better not only affording them wins they should not have but also other teams losses they should not have. In the end... the only person having fun is the sleezy guy - and - the newby is likely to walk away hating the hobby... that is the greatest crime. We've let a lot of questionable trades go through because I hate voting on trades, but there is a line to be drawn. Once again... you get the right people and you don't need to worry about this. You don't always have that luxery in a work league though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Well, it's not just about looking out for the guy who got fleeced, it's also not skewing the balance of the league and making the other guy's team that much better because, unlike everyone else, he was unscrupulous enough to badger the other guy at work. Actually, as I write this, I can't understand why the busy person would ever cave. My reaction would be more along the lines of "Call me again about this and see what happens. Really, you don't want to find out, I promise." I totally understand your point about keeping league balance. But you can't babysit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 and... this wasn't an issue of a newb and a vet. they were both vets - this was collusion. I am only explaining why we have voting rules. I hate having voting rules so I feel a need to defend my decision to have them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Do exactly what he says but don't be profane and don't mention that he is out for next year (but certainly don't let him back in), A) make him justify the trade after A is not satisfied, explain that every trade will be scrutinized 3) tell him that FF is for fun and that he is ruining it for everybody else +1 If he continues to be a d-bag, have your IT guys hack into his account, and fill his roster with Dolphins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gdawg Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 +1 If he continues to be a d-bag, have your IT guys hack into his account, and fill his roster with Dolphins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I am not so cut throat. Again - when everybody has the knowlege they need, maybe. Allowing vets to pray off first time owners though... I can't see anything good coming of it. It makes the bad teams worse giving the teams playing them wins they might not have. It makes sleezy teams better not only affording them wins they should not have but also other teams losses they should not have. In the end... the only person having fun is the sleezy guy - and - the newby is likely to walk away hating the hobby... that is the greatest crime. We've let a lot of questionable trades go through because I hate voting on trades, but there is a line to be drawn. Once again... you get the right people and you don't need to worry about this. You don't always have that luxery in a work league though I don't disagree with any of this. I guess I've never been in a league where I've worried about it. I've had a few lopsided trades this year in my local (I'm commish) and I never even thought about vetoing them but have asked the owenr what he was thinking afterwards. Never a hint of collusion, though. 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.