whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Consider this scenario...should this be vetoed. or allowed to stand? Our league is a keeper league, but you can only keep 1 player from each position (1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR) Owner A has been eliminated from the playoffs, despite a strong set of RBs. Bad h-to-h match-ups, poor starts, and the guy is saddles with a 3-7 record. He has both Sjax and LJ on his roster. He has decided he wants to keep LJ as his keeper, so rather than lose SJax at the end of the year, he traded Sjax to another owner for his 6th round pick next year. The other owner now has Addai & Sjax as his RBs heading into the playoffs, having given up almost nothing to add a stud RB. Is it fair to the league to allow this to happen? Obviously the trade benefits both teams, as the owner giving up Sjax would get nothing if he just released hima t the end of the year...a 6th rounder is better than nothing, right? But as a Commish, would you veto this deal, even though no collusion is apparent? I would no doubt nix that..I dont mind a guy getting value for SJax since he is keeping LJ but 6th rd is not value enough for SJAX .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I've asked this question before ... and people just don't get it. They want everything to be "fair" ... which makes me wonder why they play this game in the first place. If, before the season started, an owner wanted to trade SJax and Gore for Adiran Peterson and Marion Barber because he wanted a younger team many commissioners (like Avernus) would have vetoed this trade because it just wasn't fair to the owner getting Peterson and Barber. Had the trade been allowed to happen the owner getting AP and MBIII would have been vastly improved and IMO is due compensation from the bone-headed commissioner whose crystal ball was apparently broken. aww....you hold up arguments like a little girl.... you only listen to what you want to hear so it can support your argument... don't worry Grits...I won't put you on ignore....I'm feeling peaceful today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 When you vote for a commish it should just be for the guy who is willing to do the leg work to keep the league going . It should be for a person you trust will not do anything underhanded and a person who you have confidence in to make these types of decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I would no doubt nix that..I dont mind a guy getting value for SJax since he is keeping LJ but 6th rd is not value enough for SJAX .. I think that was a trick question.... if he can't keep SJax, he might as well get something for him.... but it would only make sense to make a deal like that in the offseason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 aww....you hold up arguments like a little girl.... you only listen to what you want to hear so it can support your argument... don't worry Grits...I won't put you on ignore....I'm feeling peaceful today Aren't YOU the one that IGNORED EVERY SINGLE response to your query telling you the trade should not be vetoed? You didn't get ONE SINGLE PERSON that agreed with you, NOT ONE. Then YOU said you vetoed the trade because he had not paid. Except that you allowed the trade to proceed anyway when they removed one of the players so YOU considered it to be more fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Aren't YOU the one that IGNORED EVERY SINGLE response to your query telling you the trade should not be vetoed? You didn't get ONE SINGLE PERSON that agreed with you, NOT ONE. Then YOU said you vetoed the trade because he had not paid. Except that you allowed the trade to proceed anyway when they removed one of the players so YOU considered it to be more fair. DID YOU NOT READ THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT PAY?... now read this next part....you seem to overlook this.....and it's a DOOZEY... HE PAID...4 DAYS AFTER THE VETO.....and the two teams made a trade... now...stop yelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 DID YOU NOT READ THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT PAY?... now read this next part....you seem to overlook this.....and it's a DOOZEY... HE PAID...4 DAYS AFTER THE VETO.....and the two teams made a trade... now...stop yelling Okay so HE PAID AFTER the veto. Then why wasn't the original trade allowed to go through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Okay so HE PAID AFTER the veto. Then why wasn't the original trade allowed to go through? because he didn't pay... and the fact that the owner dealing with him admitted to helping him out due to being a 1st time FF'er didn't help their case anyways....but I addressed this in an earlier post in the thread... and in another previous thread as well... edit: they put in a new trade excluding Welker....I guess he realized his retardedness? Edited November 16, 2007 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 because he didn't pay... and the fact that the owner dealing with him admitted to helping him out due to being a 1st time FF'er didn't help their case anyways....but I addressed this in an earlier post in the thread... and in another previous thread as well... edit: they put in a new trade excluding Welker....I guess he realized his retardedness? Yes, yes I can see you continuing to rationalize that your veto was correct. If the only reason you vetoed the trade was because fees weren't paid then once the fees were paid the original trade should have happened. I guess he realized that you weren't going to step back across the line you crossed when you vetoed the trade and modified it to mollify you and because it was going to be the only way YOU would allow the trade to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I would no doubt nix that..I dont mind a guy getting value for SJax since he is keeping LJ but 6th rd is not value enough for SJAX .. I think that was a trick question.... if he can't keep SJax, he might as well get something for him.... but it would only make sense to make a deal like that in the offseason... Depending on the league setup and keeper rules, a 6th rounder may be more than fair compensation for SJax. And, also, depending on league rules, perhaps the trade could only have been made during the season, like for instance in leagues that do not allow post season trades until after keepers are declared. ETA: Also, as noted below with the owner now having SJax and Addai, it may make a lot more sense and generate a lot more value in trade to trade him while there is still some value in the current season. Whomper, the guy getting SJax already had Addai, so, in a sense from a keeper perspective he has either given up the 6th rounder for nothing (he has to release SJax to keep Addai) or he has given up the rights to Addai as well as the pick (he decides to keep SJax), granted, he does retain the services of both backs for the remainder of the current season. And, what if there is a pick cost assosciated with keeping the players as well. He may well now be forfeiting not just the 6th rounder, plus having to release one of the backs, plus may alse have to give up another pick in order to keep the player. ISMHO, it was premature of you to state that a 6th rounder was not enough for SJax when not having complete information surrounding the rules. Now, the SJax owner most certainly should have shopped him around to all of the teams in contention to find the highest bidder to see if he could do better than the 6th rounder, and he may well have done so, but he is not obligated to do so. Edited November 16, 2007 by Big Country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Yes, yes I can see you continuing to rationalize that your veto was correct. If the only reason you vetoed the trade was because fees weren't paid then once the fees were paid the original trade should have happened. I guess he realized that you weren't going to step back across the line you crossed when you vetoed the trade and modified it to mollify you and because it was going to be the only way YOU would allow the trade to happen. nope...you're just a dumbass..... that's all... like I said before... you argue like a girl....I stick by that.. you can put me on ignore now.... but I love you way too much to put you on ignore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Depending on the league setup and keeper rules, a 6th rounder may be more than fair compensation for SJax. And, also, depending on league rules, perhaps the trade could only have been made during the season, like for instance in leagues that do not allow post season trades until after keepers are declared. ETA: Also, as noted below with the owner now having SJax and Addai, it may make a lot more sense and generate a lot more value in trade to trade him while there is still some value in the current season. Whomper, the guy getting SJax already had Addai, so, in a sense from a keeper perspective he has either given up the 6th rounder for nothing (he has to release SJax to keep Addai) or he has given up the rights to Addai as well as the pick (he decides to keep SJax), granted, he does retain the services of both backs for the remainder of the current season. And, what if there is a pick cost assosciated with keeping the players as well. He may well now be forfeiting not just the 6th rounder, plus having to release one of the backs, plus may alse have to give up another pick in order to keep the player. ISMHO, it was premature of you to state that a 6th rounder was not enough for SJax when not having complete information surrounding the rules. Now, the SJax owner most certainly should have shopped him around to all of the teams in contention to find the highest bidder to see if he could do better than the 6th rounder, and he may well have done so, but he is not obligated to do so. yuup...the fact that the owner apparently did not shop SJax around just proves the owner is just an incompetent owner... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 ISMHO, it was premature of you to state that a 6th rounder was not enough for SJax when not having complete information surrounding the rules. Now, the SJax owner most certainly should have shopped him around to all of the teams in contention to find the highest bidder to see if he could do better than the 6th rounder, and he may well have done so, but he is not obligated to do so. Having never been in a keeper league I guess you are correct. .I just saw a 6th rounder next year going to a guy for the # 2 pick overall this year who should post great numbers now that he is somewhat healthy. I am not being sarcastic..Educate me..How does a 6th round pick compensate for SJAX who when healthy is a dominant RB ? Even if he is releasing him at the end of the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 nope...you're just a dumbass..... that's all... like I said before... you argue like a girl....I stick by that.. you can put me on ignore now.... but I love you way too much to put you on ignore I guess that makes EVERYBODY that responded your thread and told you that you were wrong a dumb ass? I guess the fact that your league has endowed you with god like commissioner powers has blinded you to your own idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Having never been in a keeper league I guess you are correct. .I just saw a 6th rounder next year going to a guy for the # 2 pick overall this year who should post great numbers now that he is somewhat healthy. I am not being sarcastic..Educate me..How does a 6th round pick compensate for SJAX who when healthy is a dominant RB ? Even if he is releasing him at the end of the year I can maybe make it easier ..I dont think a 6th rounder would be fair compensation if it was allowed to trade a 6th rounder in a redraft league the following year so why would a 6th round pick in a keeper league be fair compensation ? Again I am sincerely asking as I havent been in a keeper league (dynasty yes .keeper no) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think collusion is nearly impossible to prove.....but whos to say all trades should go through. What if an owner in a redraft is frustrated and just says fudge it and trades his stars cause he knows he's out of it. You all would stand for this.....and just accept it that the guy getting these good players just outsmarted you? BUMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can maybe make it easier ..I dont think a 6th rounder would be fair compensation if it was allowed to trade a 6th rounder in a redraft league the following year so why would a 6th round pick in a keeper league be fair compensation ? Again I am sincerely asking as I havent been in a keeper league (dynasty yes .keeper no) Let me flip this around on you: How do you set guidelines that determine what is fair for every player in your league? Because otherwise you are imparting an arbitrary value set of your own on a player, which BTW is at the very least subject to your own self interest unless you are the Mother Theresa of all commishes. Is there any equitable way to do this? I have been through this situation before and been told flat out that it is not my place to comment on the value of a player versus a draft pick in a trade. At the time there happened to be a rule about trading a player for a draft pick I was legally enforcing, but the sentiment rings true. The player does nothing to help the team that has them, and getting some value from next year for them helps their team more than getting nothing by releasing the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Hattrick ... most leagues have a rule stipulating that teams out of the playoffs can not make trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Let me flip this around on you: How do you set guidelines that determine what is fair for every player in your league? Because otherwise you are imparting an arbitrary value set of your own on a player, which BTW is at the very least subject to your own self interest unless you are the Mother Theresa of all commishes. Is there any equitable way to do this? I have been through this situation before and been told flat out that it is not my place to comment on the value of a player versus a draft pick in a trade. At the time there happened to be a rule about trading a player for a draft pick I was legally enforcing, but the sentiment rings true. The player does nothing to help the team that has them, and getting some value from next year for them helps their team more than getting nothing by releasing the player. 6th round seems like small potatoes to get SJAX for almost half of a fantasy season including a playoff run..I just dont know if 6th round in a keeper is drastically different then 6th rd in a redraft having never been in a keeper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I vetoed a trade because of a deadbeat owner who was involved with a lopsided trade that was pretty obvious to be collusion.... the owner who was "helping him out" admitted to this... but I got my head cut off here for it....which is fine... not rectifying the situation of an owner who hadn't paid up by week 7 was my fault..... but he paid up afterwards and a trade went through.... it's just fudged up that I had to veto a trade because of this....on top of the obvious collusion... You were wrong Consider this scenario...should this be vetoed. or allowed to stand? Our league is a keeper league, but you can only keep 1 player from each position (1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR) Owner A has been eliminated from the playoffs, despite a strong set of RBs. Bad h-to-h match-ups, poor starts, and the guy is saddles with a 3-7 record. He has both Sjax and LJ on his roster. He has decided he wants to keep LJ as his keeper, so rather than lose SJax at the end of the year, he traded Sjax to another owner for his 6th round pick next year. The other owner now has Addai & Sjax as his RBs heading into the playoffs, having given up almost nothing to add a stud RB. Is it fair to the league to allow this to happen? Obviously the trade benefits both teams, as the owner giving up Sjax would get nothing if he just released hima t the end of the year...a 6th rounder is better than nothing, right? But as a Commish, would you veto this deal, even though no collusion is apparent? that deal is FINE I think collusion is nearly impossible to prove.....but whos to say all trades should go through. What if an owner in a redraft is frustrated and just says fudge it and trades his stars cause he knows he's out of it. You all would stand for this.....and just accept it that the guy getting these good players just outsmarted you? its his team THIS YEAR...so yeah i would accept it and ask that he not be brought back as an owner the following year I think that was a trick question.... if he can't keep SJax, he might as well get something for him.... but it would only make sense to make a deal like that in the offseason... but what if you cant deal after the season ends Having never been in a keeper league I guess you are correct. .I just saw a 6th rounder next year going to a guy for the # 2 pick overall this year who should post great numbers now that he is somewhat healthy. I am not being sarcastic..Educate me..How does a 6th round pick compensate for SJAX who when healthy is a dominant RB ? Even if he is releasing him at the end of the year 6th>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing fwiw I think the guy is nuts to keep LJ over SJax but that is another story I can maybe make it easier ..I dont think a 6th rounder would be fair compensation if it was allowed to trade a 6th rounder in a redraft league the following year so why would a 6th round pick in a keeper league be fair compensation ? Again I am sincerely asking as I havent been in a keeper league (dynasty yes .keeper no) if you were in a redraft league and were not going to make the playoffs and could get an extra 6th rounder in next yrs draft you wouldnt take that? well you should because you are getting something for nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 6th round seems like small potatoes to get SJAX for almost half of a fantasy season including a playoff run..I just dont know if 6th round in a keeper is drastically different then 6th rd in a redraft having never been in a keeper It's not the point of how the value correlates directly. The point is that in keeper leagues teams are allowed to gain advantage from season to season by keeping players and trading draft picks. I don't participate in a redraft league that allows teams to trade picks from next year for players this year. Redraft leagues should reset 100% at the end of the season. I would not participate in one that was otherwise. It's the whole point of redraft. In keeper leagues, owners spend picks to get better keepers and they spend picks to win this year at the cost of some of their success next year. This is a very difficult thing to try and put a value on, since any value received for next year is better than no value. There are all kinds of variations on how keepers work, what they cost to keep, etc. Everyone is trying to either win now or improve their futures in a keeper league, or at least any owner worth having. If you start drawing lines on how they can improve those futures, than you had better have some pretty definitive lines...certainly more than "I don't think that's enough value", because you are messing with teams ability to adjust and keep up from season to season. You have to think of it this way....whatever team had LT as their keeper going into this season had what was perceived to be an imbalancing advantage. Why is that any more or less fair than a team trading away a player for an extra pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 6th round seems like small potatoes to get SJAX for almost half of a fantasy season including a playoff run..I just dont know if 6th round in a keeper is drastically different then 6th rd in a redraft having never been in a keeper it isnt any different but it is getting something for nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Hattrick ... most leagues have a rule stipulating that teams out of the playoffs can not make trades. In keeper & dynasty leagues, much less redrafts? I have not found your assertion to be the case in any redrafts that I've participated in or seen the rules of, and in keeper & dynasty that's downright counterproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 It's not the point of how the value correlates directly. The point is that in keeper leagues teams are allowed to gain advantage from season to season by keeping players and trading draft picks. I don't participate in a redraft league that allows teams to trade picks from next year for players this year. Redraft leagues should reset 100% at the end of the season. I would not participate in one that was otherwise. It's the whole point of redraft. In keeper leagues, owners spend picks to get better keepers and they spend picks to win this year at the cost of some of their success next year. This is a very difficult thing to try and put a value on, since any value received for next year is better than no value. There are all kinds of variations on how keepers work, what they cost to keep, etc. Everyone is trying to either win now or improve their futures in a keeper league, or at least any owner worth having. If you start drawing lines on how they can improve those futures, than you had better have some pretty definitive lines...certainly more than "I don't think that's enough value", because you are messing with teams ability to adjust and keep up from season to season. You have to think of it this way....whatever team had LT as their keeper going into this season had what was perceived to be an imbalancing advantage. Why is that any more or less fair than a team trading away a player for an extra pick? well put....and what if that owner at draft time is able to package their 2 6th round picks and 5th rounder for a 3rd and 8th rounder...that would give them 4 picks in the first 3 rounds which could be a big advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 You mean they aren't even owed their league dues when they can't run their team as they see fit and it costs them money? The injured owner should yap about it continually - to ensure no trade is ever vetoed again without evidence of collusion -- but compensation will come only in the form of a mental sammich. 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.