Favre4ever Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 Seems like a rookie or young player got a little antsy and started bailing on his draft picks...The Father was the lucky one to get the good trades and I wonder in the past if the kid has had trouble making deals with other players in the league...I know for me if I decide to unload someone that theres certain team owners I don't even look at there roster to make a deal because it's a waste of time...I'd say this trade is 60-40 but you can't assume that there cheating I bet it was more of an easy access trade...They probable talk alot or even live together and I know I make more trades with people I talk with more often than people I rarely talk with.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBum Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 Somehow "collusion" in week two seems pretty far-fetched. Any weakening of one team will only help everybody else, not just the team getting the players. If and when a father-son, or two brothers, or whomever, make a trade of 2 studs for 2 3rd stringers in week 10 or so, I 'd cry foul. Or more interestingly, if any of those players get traded BACK to the other team later, watch out! And by the way, as someone correctly pointed out, this particular trade might not be quite as one-sided as some have suggested. You'd have to look at all the rosters first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otis29 Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 veto systems are bs and so is veto'ing a trade that doesn't have proof of collusion... everything is pretty much fair game because at the end of the day, it's still your money on the table unless the father is buying two teams so he can trade with himself whenever he wants to... ...if that's the case then something needs to be said....especially if there is another trade like this between the two teams... THIS. Veto systems are weak juju - your owners will veto trades based on how it affects THEM, or how they feel about the people personally, rather than based on the trade itself. If there's a hint of collusion, it's the Commissioner's job to determine it - and whether the trade should be reversed. And if it turns out the nephew did indeed purposely get hosed, or if the Dad continues to take advantage of the son, don't invite them back for the following season. This kind of thing is why a commissioner shouldn't add people to a league unless he has a good feeling for their ethics and abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 (edited) See, it's much more to be concerned with every busybody's perception when you start 0-2 (which the kid probably is right now given that lineup) and not trade away underperforming players, and make everyone feel good while you fall to 0-3. I defy anyone here to state with absolute certainty that the kid is getting the wrong end of the deal statistically. And the single biggest fallacy (and one of a noob's biggest mistakes) is basing perception of player value on draft position once the season actually is under way. Let the kid manage his team as he sees fit. If you think his valuing of players is poor, then you ought to be making some offers to him. Otherwise, leave him alone. I see nothing that remotely indicates collusion, and there's a very real chance that by the time the season is over the kid may have gotten the upper hand overall. And at those who are stating with iron clad judgment that the kid got screwed beyond any doubt. Edited September 26, 2010 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 (edited) Because some owners will veto trades that benefit a division rival in a tight playoff race? If you're in a casual league with friends/family, make sure the stakes a low and tell your brain that these kinds of shenanegans are to be expected and there is nothing you can do about it. Trying to prove collusion is difficult or impossible. Some people don't do any research or don't care, or as in this case, the son could be under the influence of the dad. Decide if this kind of crap is worth it going forward and if you want to subject yourself to it next year. In a league of knowledgeable, honest people who are playing hard to win, it's fine to leave the veto powers with the commish only, and he should rarely if ever have to use it. I think voting by league owners to veto a trade is complete bs. Why people get into high $$ leagues without knowing the owners is beyond me. I disagree. Having been burned in the past with this sort of BS, I think there has to be some sort of check and balance. And if owners abuse that in order to block perfectly good trades, that is an ethical issue with the league. I guess I've been lucky never to have trades in any of my leagues (most of which is simple majority voting on trades) voted down because some Good Day, Sunshine (lol, @$$h@t filters to that) is trying to play the games you guys suggest here. I do see your point, however. Abuse is possible if the members of the league let competition overshadow ethics. In th past, we have only vetoed trades for the newbies that didn't know any better. Of course, it could be argues they need to get burned in order to learn. I could probably be persuaded to your way of thinking on this... Edited September 26, 2010 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 Because some owners will veto trades that benefit a division rival in a tight playoff race? Then that owner is crap. You need the veto option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcat Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 THIS. Veto systems are weak juju - your owners will veto trades based on how it affects THEM, or how they feel about the people personally, rather than based on the trade itself. If there's a hint of collusion, it's the Commissioner's job to determine it - and whether the trade should be reversed. And if it turns out the nephew did indeed purposely get hosed, or if the Dad continues to take advantage of the son, don't invite them back for the following season. This kind of thing is why a commissioner shouldn't add people to a league unless he has a good feeling for their ethics and abilities. +1 we tried the old voting routine in my leagues and people juse ended up voting for whjat was good for themselves. It sucked. We now trust the commish to make the best and fairest decision. For any transactions involving the commish, however, we still use the vote. This has worked beautifully for us for the past 5 years. But bear in mind that there are very few protests in these leagues... we all know each other a long time and play fair. Great leagues! In 8 years we have had about 2 overturned trades that the parties were willing to modify to make them more evenly balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 I disagree. Having been burned in the past with this sort of BS, I think there has to be some sort of check and balance. And if owners abuse that in order to block perfectly good trades, that is an ethical issue with the league. I guess I've been lucky never to have trades in any of my leagues (most of which is simple majority voting on trades) voted down because some Good Day, Sunshine (lol, @$$h@t filters to that) is trying to play the games you guys suggest here. I do see your point, however. Abuse is possible if the members of the league let competition overshadow ethics. In th past, we have only vetoed trades for the newbies that didn't know any better. Of course, it could be argues they need to get burned in order to learn. I could probably be persuaded to your way of thinking on this... Wait...so a newbie pays his money and you then tell him how to run his team. Explain to me, if I'm the newbie, why I should be required to pay a fee if I can't run my team as I see fit? Please don't tell me it's for the good of the league. It's my fn team? You didn't stop me when I drafted a kicker in the third round--in fact, everybody laughed at me and the guy who drafted right after me had a stud fall into his lap. And when, on a hunch, I sat adrian peterson for clinton portis, no one made me change my line-up. Now, that I'm trying to improve my team, you've decided that I can't make this trade. You don't make any sense to me and I want my money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 with time still to go in each game: Orton: 383 yards 1td 1int 11rush yards McFadden 96 rush yards 1 TD 1 recp 18 recv yards SJax 58 rush yards 1 td, 1 recp 6 yards Akers 4 XPs Romo 284yrds 2 TDs -1 rush yards MJD 80 yards rushing, 2 recps 1yrd Witten 7 recps 56 yrds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 26, 2010 Share Posted September 26, 2010 with time still to go in each game:Orton: 383 yards 1td 1int 11rush yards McFadden 96 rush yards 1 TD 1 recp 18 recv yards SJax 58 rush yards 1 td, 1 recp 6 yards Akers 4 XPs Romo 284yrds 2 TDs -1 rush yards MJD 80 yards rushing, 2 recps 1yrd Witten 7 recps 56 yrds Looks like the kid has a lot better chance to win this week than he would have otherwise. Good call by all the nay-sayers wanting to run the kid's team. 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.