Commish needs your help on trade veto!

[untateve]

So what accomodations do you make to the vetoed owner if LT's toe keeps getting worse to the point where he becomes equivalent to a #3 FF RB, and Rice starts to soar after week 6 and becomes the equivalent to a marginal #1/#2 FF RB? Do all owners who voted to veto the trade evenly divide the amount and repay the wronged owner his FF dues, or is this just a unilateral commish decision that only the commish has reimbursement responsibility? Or do you feel comfortable royally screwing him over a second time in this scenario?

 

I would be interested in the answer to this question.

[Cunning Runt]

So what accomodations do you make to the vetoed owner if LT's toe keeps getting worse to the point where he becomes equivalent to a #3 FF RB, and Rice starts to soar after week 6 and becomes the equivalent to a marginal #1/#2 FF RB? Do all owners who voted to veto the trade evenly divide the amount and repay the wronged owner his FF dues, or is this just a unilateral commish decision that only the commish has reimbursement responsibility? Or do you feel comfortable royally screwing him over a second time in this scenario?

 

NOT, I repeat NOT a unilateral commish decision. I don't ever make these kinds of decisions on my own. Every so often a trade is made where I pretty much immediately get emails and calls from other owners asking what in the hell was going on. Only a couple trades have ever been overturned in our league in the 12+ years we've been doing it, so don't make the assumption it's the norm.

 

That said, to answer your question about Rice/LT - no chance in hell would anyone get reimbursed - by the commish or otherwise. Sh-t happens. Just the way it is. If the owner didn't like it, he's the one welcome to leave the league. When a clear majority think it's a bogus deal, as commish, I have a responsibility to serve the league's interests.

[Bronco Billy]

That said, to answer your question about Rice/LT - no chance in hell would anyone get reimbursed - by the commish or otherwise. Sh-t happens. Just the way it is. If the owner didn't like it, he's the one welcome to leave the league. When a clear majority think it's a bogus deal, as commish, I have a responsibility to serve the league's interests.

 

So you have no problem in running the guy's team for him and making decisions when you can't possibly know the outcome, yet you feel no obligation to be responsible in the least for those decisions? You didn't happen to be involved in the Congressional meddling that resulted in the current mortgage crisis, did you?

[Grits and Shins]

So you have no problem in running the guy's team for him and making decisions when you can't possibly know the outcome, yet you feel no obligation to be responsible in the least for those decisions? You didn't happen to be involved in the Congressional meddling that resulted in the current mortgage crisis, did you?

 

Yes it is amazing to me as well how many owners are willing to butt into the management of somebody else's teams making decisions they believe to be 'better' but when it comes to assuming financial responsibility for their decision to butt in they want none of that.

[Avernus]

Yes it is amazing to me as well how many owners are willing to butt into the management of somebody else's teams making decisions they believe to be 'better' but when it comes to assuming financial responsibility for their decision to butt in they want none of that.

 

once in a blue moon...a completely dogsh!t trade can ruin a league and affect the number of people returning the following year..

[Grits and Shins]

once in a blue moon...a completely dogsh!t trade can ruin a league and affect the number of people returning the following year..

 

The "dog - shitedness" of a trade can't be judged until the year has concluded.

 

I remember several years ago when trades involving Larry Johnson were shot down because Larry Johnson was a back up and a nobody and it was determined that in the interest of competitive balance and fairness no team should be allowed to trade a known player who may have once been a stud and could still be a stud for an unproven player that is 2nd on the depth chart. But when Priest Holmes went down all of the sudden LJ was gold.

 

It seems to me that commissioners do NOT have infinite wisdom and do NOT have the ability to predict future performance of all players. We all have different OPINIONS on how players will perform. I can think of ABSOLUTELY NO reason your opinion or the opinion of the other owners in my league should trump my opinion.

 

If you are worried about trades ruining your league then you should not allow trades.

[Avernus]

The "dog - shitedness" of a trade can't be judged until the year has concluded.

 

I remember several years ago when trades involving Larry Johnson were shot down because Larry Johnson was a back up and a nobody and it was determined that in the interest of competitive balance and fairness no team should be allowed to trade a known player who may have once been a stud and could still be a stud for an unproven player that is 2nd on the depth chart. But when Priest Holmes went down all of the sudden LJ was gold.

 

It seems to me that commissioners do NOT have infinite wisdom and do NOT have the ability to predict future performance of all players. We all have different OPINIONS on how players will perform. I can think of ABSOLUTELY NO reason your opinion or the opinion of the other owners in my league should trump my opinion.

 

If you are worried about trades ruining your league then you should not allow trades.

 

 

so if someone trades their top 2 picks from the draft...not even a full week after the draft for someones 4th, 5th 6th and 10th round draft choices....

 

that's not dogsh!t?....

[Grits and Shins]

so if someone trades their top 2 picks from the draft...not even a full week after the draft for someones 4th, 5th 6th and 10th round draft choices....

 

that's not dogsh!t?....

 

In my local the owner that drafted Tom Brady and Larry Johnson with his top two picks would happily give you both his top picks for whomever you may have drafted in those draft spots.

 

The guy that drafted LT at 1.01 and Ryan Grant at 2.12 may very well want to turn them for these players:

4th - Reggie Bush

5th - Roddy White

6th - Laurence Maroney

10th - Mushin Muhammed

 

or these

4th - Roy Wililams

5th - Chris Chambers

6th - Chris Cooley

10th - MIN

 

Which of those trades would you veto?

[Avernus]

In my local the owner that drafted Tom Brady and Larry Johnson with his top two picks would happily give you both his top picks for whomever you may have drafted in those draft spots.

 

The guy that drafted LT at 1.01 and Ryan Grant at 2.12 may very well want to turn them for these players:

4th - Reggie Bush

5th - Roddy White

6th - Laurence Maroney

10th - Mushin Muhammed

 

or these

4th - Roy Wililams

5th - Chris Chambers

6th - Chris Cooley

10th - MIN

 

Which of those trades would you veto?

 

are you talking hindsight?....also even the biggest morans in my local didn't have LJ that high.....

 

I'm saying

 

team A gets - Brady /Edwards/Maroney

 

for

 

team B gets - Thomas Jones/Derek Anderson/Curtis/ Desean

 

after trading these players 2 days prior...

 

team A gets - Hasselbeck/Roy/McGahee

 

team B gets - Bryant Johnson/Deuce/Warner

 

 

this is the stuff that reeks of dogmess and an owner just being stupid enough to ruin the league...

 

you can say "you never know"...but players are drafted where they are for a reason....

[Grits and Shins]

are you talking hindsight?....also even the biggest morans in my local didn't have LJ that high.....

 

I'm saying

 

team A gets - Brady /Edwards/Maroney

 

for

 

team B gets - Thomas Jones/Derek Anderson/Curtis/ Desean

 

after trading these players 2 days prior...

 

team A gets - Hasselbeck/Roy/McGahee

 

team B gets - Bryant Johnson/Deuce/Warner

 

 

this is the stuff that reeks of dogmess and an owner just being stupid enough to ruin the league...

 

you can say "you never know"...but players are drafted where they are for a reason....

 

I can give you my league link if you like ... but the owner with the 12th pick did indeed draft Brady at 1.12 and LJ ad 2.01.

 

You lead me to believe that you thought any time an owner was trading his 1st and 2nd pick for somebody else's 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th picks that the trade was bogus and harmful to the league. So I imediately went to my league site and pulled the examples I listed above. Which of the trades I listed would you veto?

 

You simply can't judge players based on where they are drafted because lots of things change between when a draft occurs and when a trade occurs.

[Cunning Runt]

So you have no problem in running the guy's team for him and making decisions when you can't possibly know the outcome, yet you feel no obligation to be responsible in the least for those decisions? You didn't happen to be involved in the Congressional meddling that resulted in the current mortgage crisis, did you?

 

If that's how you choose to couch it, you're right - no obligations. And like I said, if the owner(s) don't like it, they're welcome to find another league of their own next year.

 

That said, I don't think a couple trades overturned in 12+ years = running people's teams though. To me that shows considerable restraint in an effort to avoid that very thing.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Cunning Runt

[Bronco Billy]

If that's how you choose to couch it, you're right - no obligations.

 

I don't think a couple trades overturned in 12+ years = running people's teams though. To me that shows considerable restraint in an effort to avoid that very thing.

 

It's not the number or lack of number of trades that you've been involved in overturning. It's that you have usurped the rights of owners to run their own teams, feel that it is your obligation to do so, and feel that you should have no obligation to take even one iota of responsibility for your decisions would be my concern as an owner in your league. Not that you'd ever find me being an owner in any league you commished unless the bylaws specifically prohibited you from "saving" me from myself.

[Cunning Runt]

It's not the number or lack of number of trades that you've been involved in overturning. It's that you have usurped the rights of owners to run their own teams, feel that it is your obligation to do so, and feel that you should have no obligation to take even one iota of responsibility for your decisions would be my concern as an owner in your league. Not that you'd ever find me being an owner in any league you commished unless the bylaws specifically prohibited you from "saving" me from myself.

 

Your loss then. I'm an excellent commish. Gotta be in my book to keep a league together for that many years with pretty much no major uprisings.

 

And you say "you" way too much as if it's me unilaterally doing things. I simply do what the league wants. These kinds of things are not "MY" decision. In those cases a trade was overtruned, the league collectively determined that usurping (nice word by the way) an owner's decision was the right thing to do. Don't really care if you disagree but if you make a stupid fu-cking trade in our league, it's gonna get reversed.

[Avernus]

I can give you my league link if you like ... but the owner with the 12th pick did indeed draft Brady at 1.12 and LJ ad 2.01.

 

You lead me to believe that you thought any time an owner was trading his 1st and 2nd pick for somebody else's 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th picks that the trade was bogus and harmful to the league. So I imediately went to my league site and pulled the examples I listed above. Which of the trades I listed would you veto?

 

You simply can't judge players based on where they are drafted because lots of things change between when a draft occurs and when a trade occurs.

 

the question is.....why would he value LJ so high and then just give him away 4 days after drafting him at that spot?....especially after making a blockbuster deal 2 days prior with the same owner.....

[Bronco Billy]

Don't really care if you disagree but if you make a stupid fu-cking trade in our league, it's gonna get reversed.

 

And if I make what you think is a stupid fu-cking trade in your league and then it turns out by the results at the end of the season that it would have benefited my team greatly, 1) it proves that you are fu-cking stupid if you think that you can accurately predict performance in the NFL before it actually occurs, and 2) you & the vetoing owners would have at least a moral obligation to compensate me for at least my dues, since the trade could have placed me in a position to win post season money.

 

That you feel that you, 1) feel that you can accurately predict the outcomes of future events, and 2) have no moral obligation or responsibility in the event that your potentially poor judgement affects my team's ability to be better brings into question your assetion that you are an excellent commish.

 

You may think so, and your leaguemates may pat you on the back - and that's all that really matters as far as your league is concerned - but that doesn't make your assertion true.

[Cunning Runt]

And if I make what you think is a stupid fu-cking trade in your league and then it turns out by the results at the end of the season that it would have benefited my team greatly, 1) it proves that you are fu-cking stupid if you think that you can accurately predict performance in the NFL before it actually occurs, and 2) you & the vetoing owners would have at least a moral obligation to compensate me for at least my dues, since the trade could have placed me in a position to win post season money.

 

That you feel that you, 1) feel that you can accurately predict the outcomes of future events, and 2) have no moral obligation or responsibility in the event that your potentially poor judgement affects my team's ability to be better brings into question your assetion that you are an excellent commish.

 

You may think so, and your leaguemates may pat you on the back - and that's all that really matters as far as your league is concerned - but that doesn't make your assertion true.

 

Well see - you had to take a personal shot. Unnecessary.

 

An excellent commish IMO is one who organizes the league, makes sure everyone gets paid, keeps the league together, resolves disputes in a manner by which the decisions made are done with the input of the league and also do not cause people to walk and they come back year after year.

 

So ya - I'm a freakin' suh-weeeet commish.

 

Look - I dunno what to tell you. You're not gonna change how our league does things and I'm not gonna change your take. I get it. But seriously - ya gotta call me f'ing stupid because I don't subscribe to your train of thought? I think the same of your argument but I don't come out and say it.

[Bronco Billy]

Look - I dunno what to tell you. You're not gonna change how our league does things and I'm not gonna change your take. I get it. But seriously - ya gotta call me f'ing stupid because I don't subscribe to your train of thought? I think the same of your argument but I don't come out and say it.

 

Take offense all you want - you went there and got it thrown back at you. I call it as I see it, and anyone who thinks they can know with enough certainty how players will perform in a season before the season actually takes place, enough so that they take it upon themselves to insert themselves into another team's personnel decisions while not having to take any responsibility if proven to be wrong by actual performance, and then boasts about it publicly, earns some derision.

 

You're right, we won't ever come into agreement on this. I don't hold any personal animosity towards you and in fact greatly respect your opinion in most FF discussions, but your position on this issue is unconscionable in my opinion. Take it for what it's worth to you, which I am completely confident is very, very little.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Cunning Runt]

you went there and got it thrown back at you.

 

Where did I go exactly to have you call me f-ing stupid other than disagree with you?

[detlef]

What I don't understand with regards to the line of thinking that says you should research your league very carefully before plunking down your cash and then just suck it up and bail next year if some shady business goes down is this. Now, keep in mind, I'm no talking about those who think that vetos should be only used in very extreme cases, rather those that think they should never be used at all.

 

First off, this isn't finding an insurance plan or a mortgage, it's joining a league to play a game. Are you supposed to run background checks on every player in the league your buddy invited you to join? What the hell. OK, so it turns out that two of the guys are overcome with greed and decide to team up. As has been pointed out, there's simply no way of proving this outside of determining that there's simply no rational reason for both parties to agree on a trade other than the fact that one of them is hooking up the other on purpose. Of course, that's a slippery slope but not one you can simply avoid entirely without running the risk of ruining a season.

 

So, what's the harm in very, very conservatively employing the right to veto a trade that simply can't be justified? Why be a martyr and just wait it out until you can quit at the end of the season? For those that say, "first time any of my trades gets vetoed, I'm out of there. Great, don't try and get LT, Wayne, and Brees for Ray Rice, Hank Baskett, and Matt Ryan and we've got no troubles.

[Scourge]

IBTL

 

By the way... I think Billy is right.

[Bronco Billy]

Where did I go exactly to have you call me f-ing stupid other than disagree with you?

 

Weren't you the one who claimed to be capable of determining that trades by other owners were f-ing stupid - in short, to be capable of accurately predicting the outcome of future events? Let me check...

 

 

Yep, you sure did.

[Avernus]

What I don't understand with regards to the line of thinking that says you should research your league very carefully before plunking down your cash and then just suck it up and bail next year if some shady business goes down is this. Now, keep in mind, I'm no talking about those who think that vetos should be only used in very extreme cases, rather those that think they should never be used at all.

 

First off, this isn't finding an insurance plan or a mortgage, it's joining a league to play a game. Are you supposed to run background checks on every player in the league your buddy invited you to join? What the hell. OK, so it turns out that two of the guys are overcome with greed and decide to team up. As has been pointed out, there's simply no way of proving this outside of determining that there's simply no rational reason for both parties to agree on a trade other than the fact that one of them is hooking up the other on purpose. Of course, that's a slippery slope but not one you can simply avoid entirely without running the risk of ruining a season.

 

So, what's the harm in very, very conservatively employing the right to veto a trade that simply can't be justified? Why be a martyr and just wait it out until you can quit at the end of the season? For those that say, "first time any of my trades gets vetoed, I'm out of there. Great, don't try and get LT, Wayne, and Brees for Ray Rice, Hank Baskett, and Matt Ryan and we've got no troubles.

 

 

exactly....

 

there are rip off's and then there are these ridiculous trades...

 

if someone trades a stud for 2 or even 3 average players and it's lopsided, then fine...bad trades happen all the time and while I'm not the "be all" in regards to projecting what a player will do...I still can still see a great deal of necrophilia when it comes to outright slaughtering and then arseraping someone in a trade to where someone knew how to work someone and got a little greedy...

 

knowing you have someone on the ropes in a trade talk is one thing....but completely abusing it when you know damn well not to is another...

 

it doesn't just take collusion to reject a trade....it just need to be REALLY...REALL-REALLY BAD...

Edited September 25, 2008 by Avernus

[Grits and Shins]

it doesn't just take collusion to reject a trade....it just need to be REALLY...REALL-REALLY BAD...

 

I guess if you believe you have infinite wisdom and the innate ability to predict the future performance of all players with 100% accuracy, then I see why you believe you should have the ability to run everybody else's teams to the optimum benefit of all.

[Hat Trick]

I tend to fall in between Cunning and BB line of thinking. I know that sounds odd. I think for redraft leagues no trades should be vetoed. I think in keeper leagues that some form of veto should be used. I don't feel I'd be managing said teams roster by disallowing the trade. I also feel that if a LT for Ray Rice trade went down I would veto as well, and if it turned out that Rice outperformed LT I would have no problem reimbursing the owner either(it's just that it won't happen and I pretty much know for certainity, it hasn't happened before since i have been playing '95). I just feel it isn't right for a competitive balance to shift in a league. However I also feel that I am in no way obligated to stay in the league either so if this were to happen I would just leave. I feel most teams want to veto a trade based on the fact that they feel a stronger team is getting stronger and that scares them, they have no shot at winning the league, and that to me is dumb. If the owners think a trade is fair, it usually is. I have never been in any situation where a league has traded a top pick for a 3rd stringer, and if I found myself in said league i would bite my tongue and slowly exit, in such leagues I have heard where teams have dropped their whole roster and then that just totally screws everything up even further, although that was way back in the day. Technology and Commishes have a lot more power these days to prevent things like this and can fix them if it were to happen. It's a slippery slope and most have their view...it's one way or the other, however I fall in between.

[i_am_the_swammi]

are you talking hindsight

 

This is the quote of the thread....

 

no trade can be evaluated as fair until the effects of the trade play out.

 

Thus, any trade should be allowed to stand, unless as some have stated, its a trade for an injured/IRd player. Even if the trade appears inbalanced when made (i.e LT-for-Rice), you won't know if its fair until the season is over.

 

Judging it as fair or slanted today is impossible.