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 This theme may be out of date.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

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...

 

Without knowing the rule, I adopt a position similar to Potter Stewart with pornography - I know it when I see it.

 

Your Calvin Johnson trade should never have been vetoed. I don't think that one could legitimately even contemplate a veto on that trade.

 

The other one? Although it pains me to do it, I would nuke it. A Randle-El - Henderson trade is fairly even. I'd rather have Randle-El, so, in my mind, the guy getting Randel-El is getting the better end of the deal straight up. But I wouldn't quibble with someone who'd rather have Henderson. Its close IMO. So Tomlinson is, as I see it, a throw-in. Having the unanimous #1 overall pick as a throw in, even with a bad toe, in unacceptable under any standard of which I can think.

 

So I guess that egregious is the standard for me. Unfair, really unfair, lopsided, really lopsided trades go through. Those that border on the ridiculous do not.

Edited by Furd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, I'm a fantasy football commissioner, not a private investigator. I'm not going to search through someone's trash for proof of collusion. LT for Devery Henderson is a trade so ridiculous that it has to be collusion.

 

That being said, I just approved a trade of LT, Palmer and Roy Williams for SJax, Housh and Garrard. I think the LT owner loses big in this, but I'm not going to stop him from torpedoing his team.

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.

 

ironic since your trade is far more reasonable. last one does sound like collusion.

 

But to answer the question - if definitely not collusion, no, no "veto" and sure as hell that should never be the commish's choice but a vote of all owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

A really savvy or really poor drafter can severely disturb the balance of the league. Do you veto their drafts, also?

 

How about a RB rich team agreeing to trade parts with a WR rich team that severely tip the league in both teams' favor? Your owners (excepting the traders) get to veto that trade, too?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really savvy or really poor drafter can severely disturb the balance of the league. Do you veto their drafts, also?

 

How about a RB rich team agreeing to trade parts with a WR rich team that severely tip the league in both teams' favor? Your owners (excepting the traders) get to veto that trade, too?

 

There is an idea ... at the draft all the owners can vote on each draft pick to ensure that it is a good and fair draft pick at that spot so as to maintain the integrity and competitive balance in the league.

 

I wonder how many of these leagues spouting about competitive balance and integrity have ever laughed as a fellow owner drafted a player that was hurt and out for the year. It is easy not to be so worried about competitive balance and integrity when that happens because it leaves another good player on the board that you get to draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

If one of the basic principles of our country's legal system is that 12 people who can know absolutely nothing about the law can hear a case that could determine dire consequences up to and including whether a person lives or dies, and then make a judgment of justice based upon the presentation of the case to them; then I am completely confident, based upon my FF experience, that given the arguments by the involved owners that I can determine the difference between cheating, stupidity, and keen out-of-the-box insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ran into a problem in my basketball league where every trade would get vetoed because teams didn't want other teams to improve themselves in any way.

 

If you are going to have vetoes, the most successful system we have found is that each owner can veto up to 3 trades per year, with 7 of 10 votes needed to revoke said trade. If a trade is vetoed, no player from that trade can be involved with any other players from that trade for one month, which keeps owners from pushing the same trade through four times if it gets vetoed.

 

Like I said.....in theory, there should be no vetoes for any reason other than collusion. In reality, veto rules simply have to be in place. Most of us play in leagues with our good friends, and we all have some friends that are complete idiots, and other friends who will call the complete idiot every day all season until they get their best player off them for a collection of garbage.

 

There should be more to fantasy football than calling the village idiot every day until he breaks. It may be "fair", but simply isn't any fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should one ever object to a trade with no collusion?

 

I didn't read the other posts. The answer is NO.

 

Every person pays there money and they should be allowed to run their team as they see fit. If an owner is an idiot who makes horrific trades, dump him/her at the end of the season.

 

The first time I'm ever in a league that vetoes one of my trades, I'm done with that league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the other posts. The answer is NO.

 

Every person pays there money and they should be allowed to run their team as they see fit. If an owner is an idiot who makes horrific trades, dump him/her at the end of the season.

 

The first time I'm ever in a league that vetoes one of my trades, I'm done with that league.

 

Note to self - find a way to get a trade vetoed in CORE :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be sure that while you are managing other teams that you set their line ups for them to ensure that everybody starts the best line up they can to maintain league integrity and compettive balance.

 

 

A really savvy or really poor drafter can severely disturb the balance of the league. Do you veto their drafts, also?

 

How about a RB rich team agreeing to trade parts with a WR rich team that severely tip the league in both teams' favor? Your owners (excepting the traders) get to veto that trade, too?

You guys need to just stick to the whole free will argument because your attempts at extending it to these are rather lame.

 

As for the line-up: If a guy puts up a crappy line-up, he gives one team one win (maybe). Funny you bring it up because we've used the fact that a guy stopped taking his lineup seriously once he was out of contention as a reason for not allowing him back. So, in a way, the league should have some say over who you start. Maybe not then and there but over time.

 

In terms of the draft, a bad drafter allows good players to fall to everyone, not just allow one team to get stacked. Certainly, the guy picking right after him gets first crack at whomever he passed up. However, that simply means that he got a guy exactly one pick later than he "should" have. In order for someone to plummet long after he should have been taken, that means a bunch of guys needed to have passed on him.

 

If a guy trades a stud for nothing, he allows that team to have an advantage over every other team in the league. That is precisely why people are concerned about collusion. Which, of course, is nearly impossible to prove. Ultimately, a line needs to be drawn somewhere and people who join a league shouldn't be required to endure a wasted season simply because there was no documented evidence that the guy who traded his first 3 draft picks to another team for a bunch of waiver fodder.

 

Grits, seriously, where do you draw the line? I mean, if I trade Westbrook, Andre Johnson, and Drew Brees for Bryant Johnson,V Davis, and JT O'Sullivan, because "I'm a huge SF fan" do you say, "Well, it's your team, do as you like." or do you squash that right there and then. Do you have anything more than a strong suspicion that some money must have passed hands? Are you prepared to fight an uphill battle all season long against a guy who essentially got 2 players from each of the first 3 rounds and just walk at the end of the season? Or do you kick those two a-holes out right then and there.

 

Now, I think a league or commish should tread very, very lightly when it comes to vetoing trades but by the sound of some of you, anything should go unless you catch two guys on tape.

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.

 

Nope - sorry.

 

You sure can.

 

I guess that makes you wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I would ever get into a league without a veto system is if I knew every owner in the league had a good track record.

 

The key is that you need to limit the veto power. Owners shouldn't be able to veto every trade that gets accepted. That can lead to the opposite kind of collusion. Every league with questionable owners needs to have a way to protect the spirit of competition and overall fun factor of the league. Like I said, fantasy championships shouldn't be won by one owner badgering the weakest owner over and over again for their best player. Furthermore, if you limit the number of vetoes each owner can use, only ridiculous trades will get vetoed.

 

Last year in my local keeper, a rookie owner traded his first ever pick in the league, which would of course become Adrian Peterson, for Shaun Alexander. The guy that got Peterson already had Tomlinson, Portis, Moss & Fitzgerald. That same day, I announced that it would be my final year in the league. Had there been a veto system in place, I would still be in the league I grew up with, and wouldn't have had to hand over my $1,000 to the jerkoff that raped the newbie. I had the second best team, but with the trade, it would be years before anyone in the league was going to compete with the guy. It sucks watching football with my friends and not being able to talk about my team in their league, but I just couldn't keep donating in this stupid league anymore to get second place every year. Again, VETO RULES ARE A NECESSITY. That is the reality of the situation. I know it is wrong in theory, but there is just no choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I would ever get into a league without a veto system is if I knew every owner in the league had a good track record.

 

The key is that you need to limit the veto power. Owners shouldn't be able to veto every trade that gets accepted. That can lead to the opposite kind of collusion. Every league with questionable owners needs to have a way to protect the spirit of competition and overall fun factor of the league. Like I said, fantasy championships shouldn't be won by one owner badgering the weakest owner over and over again for their best player. Furthermore, if you limit the number of vetoes each owner can use, only ridiculous trades will get vetoed.

 

Last year in my local keeper, a rookie owner traded his first ever pick in the league, which would of course become Adrian Peterson, for Shaun Alexander. The guy that got Peterson already had Tomlinson, Portis, Moss & Fitzgerald. That same day, I announced that it would be my final year in the league. Had there been a veto system in place, I would still be in the league I grew up with, and wouldn't have had to hand over my $1,000 to the jerkoff that raped the newbie. I had the second best team, but with the trade, it would be years before anyone in the league was going to compete with the guy. It sucks watching football with my friends and not being able to talk about my team in their league, but I just couldn't keep donating in this stupid league anymore to get second place every year. Again, VETO RULES ARE A NECESSITY. That is the reality of the situation. I know it is wrong in theory, but there is just no choice.

 

Would you be saying the same thing if his first pick was Cadillac Williams from a few years ago?

 

Quitting a league based on a rookie draft pick that just happens to pan out is childish. Could it be that he turned down your offer? Of course the concept that Shaun Alexander would collapse was not the feelings about him at that time... as he was drafted first round in many leagues that year.

 

I am sure that if you had a record of all past transactions for the league, any league, and checked the trades made against the future talent of the selected players you would be surprised at the number of mismatches-in-hindsight.

 

Just because you ran into a example of unbalance, in hindsight, that occurred so quickly and so drastically, so soon... you quit? Quitter.

 

As for his present roster of LT, ADP, Portis, Moss, and Fitz: LT is not getting any younger and it looks like he may already be on his way down. Game to game, Portis is inconsistant. Moss has already lost a year with Brady, and he sure ain't getting younger. Now as for Fitz, he could be good as long as Warner is there, but what happens when the Cards are force to go to Leinart or someone else. So the man has a heck of a team, but this team is not going to be as good next year, and will lessen drastically the year after...

 

So anyways, I guess what I am trying to say is "Seahawk21" will only be in a league where he can build a dynasty team... and when he finally does, all the other owners can quit on him.

 

The purpose with a dynasty team is to build one that will last a few years on top... those on the bottom stay in the league in the hope that they will one day be able to build a stud-farm. The last thing a league needs are owners who will quit just because they don't have the powerhouse every year. If I was in that league I would be saying 'good riddance to a whiner'.

 

Von

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be saying the same thing if his first pick was Cadillac Williams from a few years ago?

 

Quitting a league based on a rookie draft pick that just happens to pan out is childish. Could it be that he turned down your offer? Of course the concept that Shaun Alexander would collapse was not the feelings about him at that time... as he was drafted first round in many leagues that year.

 

I am sure that if you had a record of all past transactions for the league, any league, and checked the trades made against the future talent of the selected players you would be surprised at the number of mismatches-in-hindsight.

 

Just because you ran into a example of unbalance, in hindsight, that occurred so quickly and so drastically, so soon... you quit? Quitter.

 

As for his present roster of LT, ADP, Portis, Moss, and Fitz: LT is not getting any younger and it looks like he may already be on his way down. Game to game, Portis is inconsistant. Moss has already lost a year with Brady, and he sure ain't getting younger. Now as for Fitz, he could be good as long as Warner is there, but what happens when the Cards are force to go to Leinart or someone else. So the man has a heck of a team, but this team is not going to be as good next year, and will lessen drastically the year after...

 

So anyways, I guess what I am trying to say is "Seahawk21" will only be in a league where he can build a dynasty team... and when he finally does, all the other owners can quit on him.

 

The purpose with a dynasty team is to build one that will last a few years on top... those on the bottom stay in the league in the hope that they will one day be able to build a stud-farm. The last thing a league needs are owners who will quit just because they don't have the powerhouse every year. If I was in that league I would be saying 'good riddance to a whiner'.

 

Von

Portis' last 5 games:

Week 15 2007: 126 total yds 1 TD

Week 16 2007: 124 total yds 1 TD

Week 17 2007: 97 total yards 1 TD

Week 1 2008: 84 total yds

Week 2 2008: 99 total yds 2 TDs

 

If that's your idea of inconsistent, you might need to lower your expectations.

 

Now, I'm not agreeing with everything Seahawks21 said. After all, in redraft leagues, Alexander was going in the 1st round last year (not that I wanted anything to do with him) and AP was going at pick 30-40. So, on the surface, it simply looks like a well played move by a guy trying to get younger. It just happens that he traded a guy that was about to break down. I mean, if we all knew AP was going to be as good as he turned out, he would have been going 1st round in re-drafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have clarified my situation a bit better.

 

I got into the league six years ago. When I got into the league, the owner already had Manning, Ricky Williams, SHaun Alexander, Portis, & Moss. My first year in the league, he scored 1000 more points than the next closest. I built and built and built and stayed patient, waiting for his team to get old so I could catch up. First, a newbie trades him LT for Manning. Then that owner quits, we get another newbie, and he trades Shaun Alexander for Adrian Peterson. Once you are in dynasty leagues for a long time, you would have known that Shaun Alexander should have been about a sixth round pick and Adrian should have been the first. Besides that, we are in Seattle. We all knew that Shaun was done. As a matter of fact, I made tons of money last year betting he would be terrible.

 

Ok. So I wait and wait and wait. Mind you, nobody has gotten withing 500 points of this guy since I have been in the league. I stay the course knowing that his team is getting older. Then, he gets Adrian freaking Peterson of all people. I spent most of my 20's patiently waiting to catch up. I'm not going to spend my entire 30's doing the same thing. So fantasy football will finally be fun when I'm 40??? No thanks. Especially at $1,000 per year. I got tired of hearing the guy brag all the time about what he was going to do with the $10,000. 4 of the 6 original owners that let the guy's team get so good have long been gone, and the rest of us have had to live with the mess they created.

 

Call me a quitter if you want, but you would have quit too. The league is not competetive or fun. All 10 other owners would have vetoed that trade if we had the chance. The newbie had no idea what he was doing, and the owner with the good team (commissioner), had him over to his house for the weekend of the draft. The rest of us all show up on sunday for the draft and heard the news that he had snaggled Adrian Peterson from the poor SOB. I quit that day. I didn't have a choice. I'm too competetive to take this crap anymore. Again, VETO RULES ARE A NECESSITY. That is all there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, VETO RULES ARE A NECESSITY.

 

:wacko: You couldn't be more wrong. I'll thank you to manage YOUR team while I manage mine.

 

You quit your league because you didn't have the ability to manage somebody else's roster.

I will quit any league where somebody else does have the ability to manage my roster. I paid my entry fee NOT you.

Edited by Grits and Shins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Portis' last 5 games:

Week 15 2007: 126 total yds 1 TD

Week 16 2007: 124 total yds 1 TD

Week 17 2007: 97 total yards 1 TD

Week 1 2008: 84 total yds

Week 2 2008: 99 total yds 2 TDs

 

If that's your idea of inconsistent, you might need to lower your expectations.

 

Now, I'm not agreeing with everything Seahawks21 said. After all, in redraft leagues, Alexander was going in the 1st round last year (not that I wanted anything to do with him) and AP was going at pick 30-40. So, on the surface, it simply looks like a well played move by a guy trying to get younger. It just happens that he traded a guy that was about to break down. I mean, if we all knew AP was going to be as good as he turned out, he would have been going 1st round in re-drafts.

I was in two leagues where he DID go first round in redrafts, once by me. In a dynasty league, Shaun Alexander had ZERO value last year, and Adrian was probably second behind LT in terms of long-term value. In a dynasty league, he probably traded the 2nd best player for somewhere around the 100th. It just isn't fun to play fantasy football when the good teams get better by trying to find the weakest link and pick on him over and over. Just ruins the competetion. Sure, I could have had the guy over and gotten AD from him after badgering him all weekend, but that just isn't any fun for me. Maybe I'm in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko: You couldn't be more wrong. I'll thank you to manage YOUR team while I manage mine.

 

You quit your league because you didn't have the ability to manage somebody else's roster.

I will quit any league where somebody else does have the ability to manage my roster. I paid my entry fee NOT you.

So if you were in a league where one brother talked the other brother into giving him his five best players, and it cost you 1,000 dollars for the next ten years, you would be okay with that??

 

And I couldn't be more wrong? Like I said, in theory, vetoes are bad, I totally agree. In reality, they are a NECESSITY.

Edited by Seahawks21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you were in a league where one brother talked the other brother into giving him his five best players, and it cost you 1,000 dollars for the next ten years, you would be okay with that??

 

And I couldn't be more wrong? Like I said, in theory, vetoes are bad, I totally agree. In reality, they are a NECESSITY.

 

If there is collusion then you have the right to prevent collusion.

 

If you don't like the trade you don't have the right to disallow the trade.

 

Vetoes are NOT a necessity I will leave any league that feels it has the right to manage my roster.

 

So if you and the rest of your league mates felt collusion was going on and you had no recourse ... why the hell would you remain in that league in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have clarified my situation a bit better.

 

I got into the league six years ago. When I got into the league, the owner already had Manning, Ricky Williams, SHaun Alexander, Portis, & Moss. My first year in the league, he scored 1000 more points than the next closest. I built and built and built and stayed patient, waiting for his team to get old so I could catch up. First, a newbie trades him LT for Manning. Then that owner quits, we get another newbie, and he trades Shaun Alexander for Adrian Peterson. Once you are in dynasty leagues for a long time, you would have known that Shaun Alexander should have been about a sixth round pick and Adrian should have been the first. Besides that, we are in Seattle. We all knew that Shaun was done. As a matter of fact, I made tons of money last year betting he would be terrible.

 

Ok. So I wait and wait and wait. Mind you, nobody has gotten withing 500 points of this guy since I have been in the league. I stay the course knowing that his team is getting older. Then, he gets Adrian freaking Peterson of all people. I spent most of my 20's patiently waiting to catch up. I'm not going to spend my entire 30's doing the same thing. So fantasy football will finally be fun when I'm 40??? No thanks. Especially at $1,000 per year. I got tired of hearing the guy brag all the time about what he was going to do with the $10,000. 4 of the 6 original owners that let the guy's team get so good have long been gone, and the rest of us have had to live with the mess they created.

 

Call me a quitter if you want, but you would have quit too. The league is not competetive or fun. All 10 other owners would have vetoed that trade if we had the chance. The newbie had no idea what he was doing, and the owner with the good team (commissioner), had him over to his house for the weekend of the draft. The rest of us all show up on sunday for the draft and heard the news that he had snaggled Adrian Peterson from the poor SOB. I quit that day. I didn't have a choice. I'm too competetive to take this crap anymore. Again, VETO RULES ARE A NECESSITY. That is all there is to it.

 

Here's a better question--why would you ever let a newbie into a league that costs $1000? Clearly, if every seasoned owner knew that alexander was over and this newbie owner did not, who was the brain trust that said it was okay to let a complete novice into your league?

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