Puddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Let me ask this: Was the bottom guy mathematically out of the playoff hunt? If he still had a mathematical chance then you should not have vetoed the trade IMO. If he was mathematically out and with that much money in the pot and it being a re-draft - I can see why you vetoed the trade. However, the OP said in his situation, the bottom guy was still mathematically in the hunt - so my response to you was based on that same premise. There's the rub. Yes he is mathematically eliminated, however, since we pay the top 5 total points positions, in theory, nobody is mathematically eliminated from that race. However, he was second to last and would have to leapfrog 7 teams to even claim 5th place. Highly improbable, but obviously, not impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 1) Reversing the trade is completely and totally out of line, especially since (by your own admission), it seems like a fair trade when you disregard the records of the respective owners. I would have a hard time playing under rules like that. 2) Every other owner in the league had the chance to swing a deal, too. I think we should call this the Sour Grapes Rule: "If a team in title contention makes a win-win deal with a team who's all but eliminated, that trade must be vetoed because that's totally not fair to all the other teams who didn't think of it first". Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 So you prefer the 2-8 team to just quit then. You have no problem if he doesn't submit a lineup or has players in his lineup that are out? Do you prevent them from getting the top free agents too? Nope. In the spirit of competition and league integrity we expect him to put forth his best lineup each week, including picking up players to fill a complete lineup if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Make the deadline shorter next year if you think it is a problem this year. Also, make trades cost money so people are less likely to throw their team away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 We have a 50 dollar prize every week for high points so we would allow the trade because people are always looking to be at thier best no matter what their playoff possibilities are Yep +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 And for the record, my stance has been it doesn't matter who the players are in the trade, it's the position of the teams making the trade. Commishes should not be deciding the merits of the trade based on the players involved (unless collusion is suspected for some reason). So is suspected collusion the primary factor in reversing the trade(s) you're referring to? I don't understand your logic here. Also, if you have a total points payout, there's absolutely no reason to veto a trade based on the head-to-head standings. I've seen VERY dramatic swings in total points over the last third of the fantasy season. As someone else said, it's not "unfair to the rest of the league," since the rest of the league also has a chance to trade with any team before the deadline. That is, after all, why there's a deadline in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Make the deadline shorter next year if you think it is a problem this year. Also, make trades cost money so people are less likely to throw their team away Good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Two responses so far... As you did this time, we should look at at on a case by case basis. Everyone could easily see that this trade should not be allowed. My opinion is unless a trade is so lopsided as to indicate collusion, it should go through, regardless of which teams are involved. The more I read in this thread the more I'm questioning my stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I always implement a rule that if you are out of the playoff race, you can't make trades...only add/drops.. but I also don't run a keeper league either..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If it's a fair trade, it's a fair trade. Stay out of their business otherwise. You mention writing it in the rules, I'd love to see that language myself. Listen, every team in that league has a chance to trade with this team, and the other bottom rung teams right? If the second place team in the league does it and makes himself better, then that's on the other teams that weren't smart enough to do the same. Competitive balance is a weak excuse, as EACH TEAM has the right to try to make deals. Pretty much dead-on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Nope. In the spirit of competition and league integrity we expect him to put forth his best lineup each week, including picking up players to fill a complete lineup if necessary. ....but just not making a trade with anyone above him in the standings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Yep +1 We do this too. We have found that as long as an owner has SOMETHING to play for, he will never throw his team away for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) The more I read in this thread the more I'm questioning my stance. Would you prefer that all owners. eliminated or not, attempt to field their best team every week? Spoilers are great parts of sports and competition history. Or would you rather have those teams, being relegated to knowing that as soon as they are on the bad side of being in the money, simply quit because you have denied them their right to manage their team - which by denying trades like this you are actively encouraging them to do - and skew playoff/money races by supplying no competition to some teams when they stop fielding lineups? Edited November 17, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 This is hard one. The main issue/concern here is a playoff team/points leader getting an unfair advantage from a team out of the playoffs/point race. I agree that the commissioner should have ultimate authority to reverse a trade deemed unfair. However, if it appears to be an equal trade and it is done before the trade deadline than it may be ok to allow it. I think you and Pete try and do what is fair so your judgement in this supported by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 things to consider First & foremost, if no rule has been broken you can not do anything second, if an owner does something this year, within the rules, that someone thinks should not have been done, all you can do is allow it now and then propose a change to the rules next year third, being virtually eliminated and actually being eliminated are not one in the same. If I were in danger of being eliminated from a $ prize and I thought a trade would help me win it, I would make the trade there are many other things that could play into why tis owner may have made the trade he made but none of them matter if any of these 1st three things apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Doesn't anybody play the spoiler role anymore? Good lord. If I'm 2-8 and not allowed to make a trade to try and knock somebody out of the playoffs, I'll be seeking new company the next year. Absolutely ridiculous. +1 Playing the spoiler and for pride is what all league owners and comishes should WANT from a team mathematically eliminated from the post season. Christ, if making a fair trade with somebody else allows me the slightest chance of beating my brother, I'm doing it. Playoff bound or not. To deny an owner making a fair trade the right to do so, based only on their standings, is a bogus league and sounds more like a person who got beat by such a spoiler team before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBowden1220 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Wow, people on here are really way too sensitive about collusive trades. Not allowing the last place team to make fair trades or to improve his/her team sounds awful, in my opinion. I would obviously be a little more skeptical about obviously unbalanced looking trades coming from the last place team, but really people, what gives? Are you so worried about "getting hosed" or whatever that you are willing to veto perfectly fair trades and take away chances to compete? Last place team absolutely ought to be able to do what makes their team the best and compete for pride points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesMarauders Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 If they have a chance to make the playoff then they should be allowed to make a trade, but if they are out of the playoff hunt then I would not allow it (keeps friends from helping friends) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otis29 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 If they have a chance to make the playoff then they should be allowed to make a trade, but if they are out of the playoff hunt then I would not allow it (keeps friends from helping friends) So if those two teams made the same exact trade in Week 5 it would be ok? Look at it this way - that sucky team was working hard the first half of the season to keep their team competitive - why should their opposition later in the season benefit by not having to play someone who's trying to keep their team strong? In your scenario above, that would be collusion, and although you probably couldn't prove it without a smoking gun - as a commish I'd make sure in no uncertain terms that the teams in question would not be receiving an invitation back the following year. If you have friends helping other friends in your league, they should go start their own circle-jerking league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Puddy, Your league prize structure is the problem with you overturning trades. Not only do you have playoffs, but several teams also earn $$ for high points. Even if I were eliminated from the playoffs, I would do whatever I could to improve my team in the hopes of somehow finishing in the money. I don't like losing but I can accept it if I've done my best. Your preventing me from trading would be a major problem for me. I think you should move your trade deadline back to week 7 or 8, when everyone is still alive as that makes it fair for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 When I'm done in redraft leagues I won't do trades as they cannot benefit my team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Puddy, Your league prize structure is the problem with you overturning trades. Not only do you have playoffs, but several teams also earn $$ for high points. Even if I were eliminated from the playoffs, I would do whatever I could to improve my team in the hopes of somehow finishing in the money. I don't like losing but I can accept it if I've done my best. Your preventing me from trading would be a major problem for me. I think you should move your trade deadline back to week 7 or 8, when everyone is still alive as that makes it fair for everyone. This is something we have been kicking around this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 To deny an owner making a fair trade the right to do so, based only on their standings, is a bogus league and sounds more like a person who got beat by such a spoiler team before. Yes, that's exactly it. I've been running a bogus league for 15 years with every team ponying up decent money without question. Isn't it possible that this is simply a philosophical discussion regarding only one issue that has happened twice in the 15 years of the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprtfan Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Maybe an example from a deadline trade in one of my leagues could be helpful. The 2nd to last place team in the league traded Calvin Johnson, Karlos Dansby to the 2nd place team for Chad Johnson, Frerotte, and Dhani Jones. The last place team only added one player all year. This trade was made before week 10 and left the 2nd to last place team with 6 players with a week 10 bye and would not be able to pick up enough players to have anything close to a full starting lineup. The 2nd to last place team only had JaMarcus Russell at QB and the trade probably made his team better even though there were some QBs on the waiver wire that might have been just as good. The trade went through with out any questions because it was fair enough but it still makes me wonder why a team with no chance to win would make such a trade and I could understand if some league would have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yes, that's exactly it. I've been running a bogus league for 15 years with every team ponying up decent money without question. Isn't it possible that this is simply a philosophical discussion regarding only one issue that has happened twice in the 15 years of the league? no. I have decreed thy league to be bogus, thus it be-eth bogus. 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.