Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Should one ever object to a trade with no collusion?


Los Gigantes
 Share

Recommended Posts

My gut instinct is no.

 

I'm still steamed that My trade of Calvin Johnson for Brandon marshall and a rookie 1st to a lions homer uncomfortable with Marshall's idiot risk was vetoed.

 

BUT

 

In another league, this one just came through:

 

LT and Randel El FOR Devery Henderson

 

I am tempted to object. Walk me off the ledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My gut instinct is no.

 

I'm still steamed that My trade of Calvin Johnson for Brandon marshall and a rookie 1st to a lions homer uncomfortable with Marshall's idiot risk was vetoed.

 

BUT

 

In another league, this one just came through:

 

LT and Randel El FOR Devery Henderson

 

I am tempted to object. Walk me off the ledge.

I'd be steamed as well, as for the LT trade I'd maybe ask the LT owner what his logic was before voting against it. LT's off to a bad start and is injured, never know what this person thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut instinct is no.

 

I'm still steamed that My trade of Calvin Johnson for Brandon marshall and a rookie 1st to a lions homer uncomfortable with Marshall's idiot risk was vetoed.

 

BUT

 

In another league, this one just came through:

 

LT and Randel El FOR Devery Henderson

 

I am tempted to object. Walk me off the ledge.

 

VETO - collusion or not. 100 times out of a 100. I'm a commish as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another league, this one just came through:

 

LT and Randel El FOR Devery Henderson

 

I am tempted to object. Walk me off the ledge.

 

I'd object to this and ask for an independent rationale from both owners to convince me that these teams aren't acting in collusion. If the explanations are reasonable & plausible (I have a very difficult time thinking of any argument that could be), I'd vote to allow the trade. If the explanations aren't reasonable & plausible, I'd vote to veto the trade and then put forth a motion that both owners be expelled from the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd veto that trade in my league. Even if it wasn't collusion, sometimes you have to protect the league from others stupidity.

 

You protect the league from others stupidity by inviting qualified owners. The fact that you approved boneheads into your league is, well, your own fault. When you invited them, did you also agree to manage their team for them?

 

No trade can be vetoed based on perceived "fairness".....period.

 

If Brandon Marshall beats up a woman next week, and is suspended indefinitely, are you going to pay the owner's fees since you kept him from picking up C. Johnson?

 

Suck it up, and if you are tired of pathetic trades in your league, make some ownership changes....and if you are worried about the integrity fo the league, then don't veto trades...that in itself affects the integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You protect the league from others stupidity by inviting qualified owners. The fact that you approved boneheads into your league is, well, your own fault. When you invited them, did you also agree to manage their team for them?

 

No trade can be vetoed based on perceived "fairness".....period.

 

If Brandon Marshall beats up a woman next week, and is suspended indefinitely, are you going to pay the owner's fees since you kept him from picking up C. Johnson?

 

Suck it up, and if you are tired of pathetic trades in your league, make some ownership changes....and if you are worried about the integrity fo the league, then don't veto trades...that in itself affects the integrity.

I agree that if you play for big money, you should make sure there are good owners in the league. This is a tough one. I have had a handful of leagues absolutely become nightmares because of stupid owners making stupid trades with good teams. A guy in my dynasty actually traded Shaun Alexander for Adrian Peterson last year. So, the other owner now has LT, AD, Portis, Moss & Fitz. There are no veto rules so I patiently waited for the season to end, took 2nd like I always do, and quit the league. I am tired of donating $10,000 to this guy every year. A veto rule would have made this league at least somewhat enjoyable. I believe there is more to fantasy sports than just pounding the worst owner in the league every day until he eventually caves in on your trade requests. How much skill does that take?

 

Also, in my big money basketball league, we had two brothers make another terrible trade. Greg Oden for Tim Duncan, Carmelo Anthony and Shawn Marion. Needless to say the older brother won that league as well.

 

In theory, there should be no veto rules without collusion. In reality, most leagues need some sort of veto system. Thats just the way it is.

Edited by Seahawks21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You protect the league from others stupidity by inviting qualified owners. The fact that you approved boneheads into your league is, well, your own fault. When you invited them, did you also agree to manage their team for them?

 

No trade can be vetoed based on perceived "fairness".....period.

 

If Brandon Marshall beats up a woman next week, and is suspended indefinitely, are you going to pay the owner's fees since you kept him from picking up C. Johnson?

 

Suck it up, and if you are tired of pathetic trades in your league, make some ownership changes....and if you are worried about the integrity fo the league, then don't veto trades...that in itself affects the integrity.

 

Exactly. Although I'm not 100% opposed to Pony Boy's suggestion depending on the situation.

Edited by Hugh 0ne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the league that I Commish, after a trade has gone through, the owners have 24 hours to raise a concern if they have one (hasn't happened yet by the way). If someone raises a concern, I would simply ask each owner to independently submit a short case for themselves, just a line or two stating why they wanted to make the trade for their team. If the reasoning is sound (whether I agree with it or not) then the trade is going to stand. If they can't provide any explanation, then at that point not only do you reverse the trade, but you have to be willing to call the owners out as cheaters and kick them out of the league.

 

If a trade is totally lopsided, and it's the result of an owner just being stupid (but not necessarily cheating) then I think you still let it stand, but you probably find a new owner the following season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I was involved in a vetoed trade once in my life. It was in a baseball league, I traded Pujols for Sammy Sosa ( this was back in Sosa's 50+HR days and it was also the year Pujlos became a star) there were some other players involved in the trade but that was the meat and potatoes of it. Anyway, the trade was overturned and by the end of the season all the owners that wanted that traded overturned sooo badly (which was pretty much the whole league) all ended up looking like a bunch of dumbasses. You just never know, you really don't. I bet there were a few like stories like this involving Ryan Grant last year. Overturning trades, especially this early in a season, can be very dangerous.

 

Besides all that, how do you prove collusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a trade is totally lopsided, and it's the result of an owner just being stupid (but not necessarily cheating) then I think you still let it stand, but you probably find a new owner the following season.

That is all well and good, but what would you recommend in keeper/dynasty leagues where a terrible trade can have long-term reprocussions that could cost the rest of the owners several hundreds of dollars before the trade runs its course?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means you're playing with morans.

 

Ok, That makes sense.

 

Now let's take this a step further.

 

Below is a quote from another post from someone else in this thread.

 

"That is all well and good, but what would you recommend in keeper/dynasty leagues where a terrible trade can have long-term reprocussions that could cost the rest of the owners several hundreds of dollars before the trade runs its course?"

 

If there were such a trade that could cause the above scenario, why would the owners who are losing hundreds of dollars while the trade is running it's course stay in the league?

Edited by Jrick35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's not collusion you can't reject it. Period.

 

For all you folks that think otherwise, you're wrong. It's not up to you to manage all the teams in the league. Just yours. It is up to you to make sure that there is no cheating going on. That is the extent of your powers as a commish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my local league, we changed the wording on VETO.

 

 

We no longer use the word collusion in our rulebook.

 

Our rule says, if a trade severly disturbs the balance of the league, a veto can be brought up. It takes 8 of 12 to veto a deal. Not counting the 2 involved. So it only takes 3 people to say let it go, to have the deal allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that you are talking about a formal commissioner veto. In certain circumstances, yes.

 

To begin with, you have to have a league rule in place, and it needs to be followed. I think that the rule should be clear that it is only to be used in significant or even severe circumstances. The veto should be followed by a vote. If a supermajority of the owners do not approve the veto, then the trade goes through.

 

This type of rule should eliminate the chance that a rogue or newbie owner does something dumb or devious. And unless you're in a league chock full of dickheads, nothing but the most egregious of trades will not go through. Hell, with a fair commissioner, only the most egregios of trades will ever be put to a vote.

 

With good oweners, will you ever need to invoke this rule? No. But if you don't know some of the owners in your league all that well or you get a couple of newbie replacement owners one year, you want a rule like this already in place.

Edited by Furd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd object to this and ask for an independent rationale from both owners to convince me that these teams aren't acting in collusion. If the explanations are reasonable & plausible (I have a very difficult time thinking of any argument that could be), I'd vote to allow the trade. If the explanations aren't reasonable & plausible, I'd vote to veto the trade and then put forth a motion that both owners be expelled from the league.

 

I essentially agree with this sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that you are talking about a formal commissioner veto. In certain circumstances, yes.

 

To begin with, you have to have a league rule in place, and it needs to be followed. I think that the rule should be clear that it is only to be used in significant or even severe circumstances. The veto should be followed by a vote. If a supermajority of the owners do not approve the veto, then the trade goes through.

 

This type of rule should eliminate the chance that a rogue or newbie owner does something dumb or devious. And unless you're in a league chock full of dickheads, nothing but the most egregious of trades will not go through. Hell, with a fair commissioner, only the most egregios of trades will ever be put to a vote.

 

With good oweners, will you ever need to invoke this rule? No. But if you don't know some of the owners in your league all that well or you get a couple of newbie replacement owners one year, you want a rule like this already in place.

 

 

assuming a rule is already in place, the question is more along the lines of when as an owner should you vote to overturn a trade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that if you play for big money, you should make sure there are good owners in the league. This is a tough one. I have had a handful of leagues absolutely become nightmares because of stupid owners making stupid trades with good teams. A guy in my dynasty actually traded Shaun Alexander for Adrian Peterson last year. So, the other owner now has LT, AD, Portis, Moss & Fitz. There are no veto rules so I patiently waited for the season to end, took 2nd like I always do, and quit the league. I am tired of donating $10,000 to this guy every year. A veto rule would have made this league at least somewhat enjoyable. I believe there is more to fantasy sports than just pounding the worst owner in the league every day until he eventually caves in on your trade requests. How much skill does that take?

 

Also, in my big money basketball league, we had two brothers make another terrible trade. Greg Oden for Tim Duncan, Carmelo Anthony and Shawn Marion. Needless to say the older brother won that league as well.

 

In theory, there should be no veto rules without collusion. In reality, most leagues need some sort of veto system. Thats just the way it is.

 

Wow. That is some kind of serious league to be in. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information