Trade Fairness

[Infinity]

I never post these types of threads, generally let owners do their own thing and don't complain.

 

This is a league with locals, last year i was offered a trade where i gave up Colston and Received Marshall. Obviously i jumped on that opportunity. the commish shut it down and wouldn't allow it claiming it to be unfair and all that non-sense. Meanwhile the trade was offered to me. Time went on and i decided i didn't need Marshall it was just an upgrade so i just dropped the trade all in all.

 

This year in the same league the commissioner just made a trade, He gave up Nicks and McGahee and he received Chris Johnson in return. I didn't care at first, wasn't even really looking much at the trades that were going on, local league, small winners payout, have bigger leagues to be more focused on. Other owners in the league start to complain, commissioner says he wont change it back because he decides it is far based on future projected stats and so on. But i finally decide to check it out. I don't think the trade is terrible, there have definitely been worse. But honestly I think it should be revoked. He declines my trade last year but permits this, this season.

 

McGahee hasn't had a good season since his 4th year in the league and it has only declined. I don't care about his scenario because he's not about to put up season high numbers playing for a sub-par team, especially when he-himself is a sub-par player. Nicks is at the 10 spot as far as huddle rankings. But people below him could start to play and easily take him out of the top 10. Marshall, Bowe, Steve Smith (CAR), DeSean Jackson, Miles Austin, Reggie Wayne are all players who are below him who if they are playing good could end up doing better then Nicks.

 

 

Johnson has never had a season under 1000 yards, why would you think this year is any different, we're only four games into the season.

 

I just don't see how this trade is fair, he gets an incredible upgrade at RB by giving up basically Nicks and a low tier rb2, more like an rb3. Not to mention last years scenario.

 

I'm sure all of you guys know the players in your local league who would never be able to hold their own in a BOTH league, win one league with a group of friends a year and they declare themselves the best of the best.

 

 

Sorry for the rant. But opinions are needed to make myself feel like i'm not going crazy here

Edited October 5, 2011 by Infinity

[Matty Ice]

Both trades are fair and you shouldn't have played again in that league this year knowing that bulltaco was pulled last year.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Nicks has been hobbled this far, and except for this past week, has been one of those "below-average" players you are referring to. Most people had him as high as top-4 heading into his year. On paper, a true stud WR.

 

With the disaster that is Moreno, McGahee could be a solid RB2 for stretches of the season, for a team that will need to run the ball to slow their opponents down to stay in games. He has plenty of upside.

 

Chris Johnson plays for a team that just lost its #1 WR, and will be facing many games with 8-9 men in the box focused on stopping the run. So far, the Titans haven't been able to solve this defensive scheme. He has definitely underperformed, and could very well continue to do so with the exception of those hit-or-miss long runs of which he is capable.

 

Trade seems pretty fair to me

[lkirc]

I see nothing wrong with either trade. Vetoing trades destroys leagues.

 

I guess my advice would be to let this go. There should be no complaining about this deal. If your trade wouldn't have gotten shot down last year, you wouldn't bat an eye at this one.

 

Trades don't need to be fair. Everyone values players differently.

[scuba chuck]

Both trades are fair and you shouldn't have played again in that league this year knowing that bulltaco was pulled last year.

 

Yes.

[Infinity]

There should be no complaining about this deal. If your trade wouldn't have gotten shot down last year, you wouldn't bat an eye at this one.

 

I guess that's true, but it's frustrating when things like this happen and the commissioner says the end all be all statements, i probably won't be returning next season. It's annoying

[Double Agent]

Trade is very fair and so was yours last year. When you have trades set up for commissioner approval the commissioner has to let all trades go through unless it is grossly unfair. I've never rejected a trade in 6 years as commish. It's not my place to manage people's teams or keep the league competitive by vetoing trades. Not withstanding collusion...if some moran wants to ruin his team with bad trades then that's his business. He won't be invited back next year.

[electricrelish]

Both trades are fair and you shouldn't have played again in that league this year knowing that bulltaco was pulled last year.

+1

 

Shame on you, Infinity. SHAME ON YOU!

[DanTheMan_5]

Both trades are fair and you shouldn't have played again in that league this year knowing that bulltaco was pulled last year.

this

 

We recently had a long thread discussing this in great detail.

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=363527

Edited October 5, 2011 by DanTheMan_5

[Infinity]

I doubt you need to quit this league as the commish probably destroyed it with his response to the other owners who complained.

 

He pretty much just told everyone that he thinks its fair so its staying, i think it's going to a vote

[SecondString]

Nothing wrong with either trade.

 

No way I believe that it is the place of the LM or commish to invoke his own subjective views of player values into a decision of whether or not to veto. Neither do I believe that you should have to use a damn calculator to measure, what did you call it..... "based on future projected stats ". In the case of the CJ trade, up until this past weekend, you had people valuing him as low as a weak flex play (which he had been year to date) and as high as a top tier RB1, which he has historically been. So of course you're going to have a wide variance of opinions there, and who the hell is the LM to say that his views are correct??

 

The only criteria that the owners in our league have agreed would be cause for veto is that one or both owners entered into the trade for any other purpose than the betterment of their own team. If that is apparent, reasonable, and justifiable, the trade should be good to go.

Edited October 5, 2011 by SecondString

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

A lot of posters here always answer the same way and that is

 

No collusion then trade is good !

 

Well I used to think the same way until recently

You also have to watch out for roster dumping , this can happen like in one league I'm in this year.

It wasn't even obvious with the first few trades.

But after it was all said and done over a 2 week period (this guy that was tired of the way our commish ran the league)

He traded away every starter on his roster for all bench players

Not one of the trades he made when he was making the trades by themselves looked too lopsided to not be put through

But comparing the rosters after the last trade ( 9 trades total ) it became obvious what he had done.

Now he does not reply to any emails and we have no way of getting in touch with him and he has not signed on to the site since the last trade 1-1/2 weeks ago

 

 

Now this is a dynasty with a large buy in and no way we can sell this team after the season so we are going to cut from 14 to 12 teams and throw left over players in to FA ,,, 12 teams because another owner was so upset that the commish didn't overturn these trades when they were being made he will not be returning

[Duchess Jack]

the way this is supposed to go is you email CunningRunt and he decides if it is fair or not.

[Zebra Stripes]

I left a Dynasty league of friends several years back over commish bias. 14 teams, keep 4, by week 6 my team was toast for the current season. So I began trading with an eye towards improving my 4 keepers and garnering draft picks. This league also awards draft position based on least wins to most.

 

This commish started changing my line-ups based on players he felt were a better play, in what he described as being fair to other owners in league seeking to reach playoffs (a cusp team may or may not get in based on winning against my team). After the first week, he did it again a second week despite the fact that had he left my line-up in the prior week it would have scored more than it did with his substitutions.

 

After that second time, I gave him a choice, let me manage my team or I was out. He chose to continue meddling, so I quit the league (out $300). He then spent the rest of the season insulting me, which I enjoyed egging on knowing it was grinding his gears further.

 

Long-winded version of, leave the league.

[Duchess Jack]

This league also awards draft position based on least wins to most.

Were you trying to lose because of this?

[delusions of grandeur]

The damage has already been done when the commish decided to meddle in your business previously.... Aside from the fact that vetoes and over-rulings are completely subjective and often biased towards one's own interests, this is exactly what happens. As soon as people start getting screwed over, they retaliate against others based on the previous rulings agianst them...

 

I certainly don't blame you at all for feeling slighted, but agree with everyone here that you don't stoop to their level... IMO, take the time to give them hell about how this is why you shouldn't meddle in people's legitimate trades absent collusion, and then leave the league next year...

 

(ETA: However, if there's a strong indication that the league seeks to overturn it anyway, then I might almost vote with them just out of principle, so that commish can rethink his rulings... But that's more my emotion talking than good reason, much like your OP.)

Edited October 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Duchess Jack]

We should start a thread including all the trades that people "think" are bad so we can look at them at the end of the year (or the following year in the case of a dynasty or keep draft).

[Zebra Stripes]

Were you trying to lose because of this?

 

 

Naw, I had 4 quality keepers starting every week, the rest however were choices between 2 players at a given position of similar talent/tier, as I had traded to better players to either improve keepers or garner picks. This happened during the height of my fantasy football play, I truly wanted to win that league.

 

I suspect his real motivation was to create a team opening for a close friend.

[billay]

Should a commish veto a trade where an owner just doesn't understand the rules of the league? For example, makes a trade based on the idea that he can keep more players than the league allows? Does it matter how many years the owner has been in the league?

[Azazello1313]

Nicks has been hobbled this far, and except for this past week, has been one of those "below-average" players you are referring to. Most people had him as high as top-4 heading into his year. On paper, a true stud WR.

 

I keep hearing this, but nicks' statline through 4 games projects out over 16 to 96 grabs for 1388 yards and 8 TDs. doesn't seem so "below average" to me, particularly given the fact that he's been banged up.

[Azazello1313]

Should a commish veto a trade where an owner just doesn't understand the rules of the league? For example, makes a trade based on the idea that he can keep more players than the league allows? Does it matter how many years the owner has been in the league?

 

if you're going to go fishing for comments that I did a bad job, I'd appreciate it if you at least state the issue accurately. I didn't "veto" anything, I asked for the trade to be re-stated in a way that was legal and that I could process.

 

edit to add: details are in an open forum here, if anyone wants to tee off on me for how I handled it.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Azazello1313

[delusions of grandeur]

Should a commish veto a trade where an owner just doesn't understand the rules of the league? For example, makes a trade based on the idea that he can keep more players than the league allows? Does it matter how many years the owner has been in the league?

1) I had considered this in a contract dynasty where the rules are vastly different from your average league, and a new owner got totally fleeced within a couple weeks of joining, by dealing AP for Rivers and a 3rd/4th rounder (worth next to nothing in a rookie draft).... We ended up just giving him a hard time though, but in most set-ups, ignorance should never be an excuse. (Though I will say this could perhaps be up to the commish/league if they really have a problem with people clearly fleecing the noobs)

 

2) Are you referring to a move that puts you over the roster limit? Obviously that gets overruled regardless of any other factor, but if you're talking about # of keepers or something like that, again, ignorance is not an excuse.

 

3) See the end of 1 and 2. I do give people a ton of leeway as the commish when they're new to the league on other matters, but you just can't be managing their trades and roster moves, other than to offer to give them objective advice if they look like they need it.

[The 13ers]

I left a Dynasty league of friends several years back over commish bias. 14 teams, keep 4, by week 6 my team was toast for the current season. So I began trading with an eye towards improving my 4 keepers and garnering draft picks. This league also awards draft position based on least wins to most.

 

This commish started changing my line-ups based on players he felt were a better play, in what he described as being fair to other owners in league seeking to reach playoffs (a cusp team may or may not get in based on winning against my team). After the first week, he did it again a second week despite the fact that had he left my line-up in the prior week it would have scored more than it did with his substitutions.

 

After that second time, I gave him a choice, let me manage my team or I was out. He chose to continue meddling, so I quit the league (out $300). He then spent the rest of the season insulting me, which I enjoyed egging on knowing it was grinding his gears further.

 

Long-winded version of, leave the league.

Wow, no way would I ever manipulate my league team's like that(I'm a commish). I can't believe half the league didn't quit over that. That's unbelievable. I can't believe you didn't quit the first week.

[The 13ers]

I guess I'm lucky in a way. In my league, there are very few trades. I wish there were more, but there aren't. I've tried expanding rosters, but to no avail.

 

I put trades to a league veto.

 

There's never been any funny business except the second year of our league. A turd dumped his whole team week 10 or so, then made pick ups/drops so that I wouldn't see what he did. Then, a friend of his picked up whatever goodies he wanted (it was a long time ago and i had the league set so it was instant waiver pick ups.). In any case, i locked his team, dumped him and announced any team that used his players would immediately lose any games in which the players were used.

[tazinib1]

That would really screw Taz.