RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I am the commissioner of the PPR league listed in my signature it is a paid league as well $20 buy in. A trade was accepted yesterday that I think is pretty unbalanced in my opinion. Team A (who made the offer) is trading away Matt Ryan, TY Hilton, and Greg Olsen to Team B for Travis Kelce and Darren Sproles Team A owns Andrew Luck as well so why trade away TY Hilton? Team B owns Romo so he needs a QB but he is winning by far on this deal with out hardly giving anything up. He is getting 3 starters and only giving up 1 starter and a bench player. I waited 24 hours and no one has voted on the trade yet so I am thinking about vetoing the trade. I also talked to a few friends outside of the league that are serious about fantasy football and they agree the trade is unfair. Most of the people in this league only set their lineups and that's it they are NOT actively on the league message board or answering league polls or voting on trades. It is like pulling teeth to get full participation from everyone which sucks and it is sad I cant find a good group of people to make the league as fun as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) This comes up a lot. I see no reason to veto this trade. TY and Olsen are off to very slow starts, while Kelce and Sproles are doing better. Now Murray may be out so Sproles value climbs. Maybe he wants to get rid of TY because he is dinged up and the Luck/TY combo is killing him. You may think it's an unfair trade but it's not your place to tell people how to run their team. I don't mean that to sound harsh, so don't take it that way. I think you will find that most everyone else that responds will agree with me. Edited September 24, 2015 by Finn5033 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Since when does a commish have the right to determine what an owner should be doing with his players. Just because he has a QB and WR on the same team does not mean he cannot trade one of them. Is it a requirement that you have this? Unless there is collusion then the trade should go through. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 No collusion = approved trade. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theirish Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 You should only veto trades if collusion is going on. Just because in your mind this isn't 100% balanced doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. So far hilton has been hurt and hasnt really produced. He needs a starting qb in Matt ryan. I mean thus trade doesn't seem that far off, yes one player is getting a better deal, but this could be helping out both players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 no veto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahl63 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 no veto Nailed it. It is not your job to fairly balance every trade; however, it is your job to make sure there is no funny business going down. No funny business, no veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 I never told anyone how to run their team and how would I truly know if collusion is going on or not? I was just trying to get an unbiased opinion outside of the league The trade is 3 players that would be every week starters on any team in the league for 1 starter and a bench player who is only currently owned in 64% of leagues. Kelce and Olsen are pretty much even so they cancel each other out so they guy is getting TY and Matt Ryan for Sproles...just doesn't sound fair to me but wanted to hear other opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle2003 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I have Kelce as the second best TE this year and maybe he does too. Without seeing the rest of the rosters nobody can tell who is winning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Your job as commissioner is to make sure there is no collusion and THATS IT. Collusion is trading away studs for duds. Sproles holds more value now than he did before as Murray has a bad wheel, and Kelce is right behind Gronk as the best TE in the league. So he's overpaying for Kelce - certainly not up to the commissioner to put 'his' value on the players involved and veto it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) I never told anyone how to run their team and how would I truly know if collusion is going on or not? I was just trying to get an unbiased opinion outside of the league The trade is 3 players that would be every week starters on any team in the league for 1 starter and a bench player who is only currently owned in 64% of leagues. Kelce and Olsen are pretty much even so they cancel each other out so they guy is getting TY and Matt Ryan for Sproles...just doesn't sound fair to me but wanted to hear other opinions. It's not your team though, without actually saying it you're implying that everyone should value players the same as you. There is nothing wrong with this trade if that's what the owners want to do. Edited September 24, 2015 by Finn5033 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 Thanks for the advice I've never been the commish before in 7 years I have played fantasy football. I didn't know what the veto etiquette was especially in a league where no one hardly responds to anything. I wanted to see what yall thought about it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's not your team though, basically what you're saying is everyone in your league should value players the same as you. And that if you don't like the trade then it shouldn't be allowed. There is nothing wrong with this trade if that's what the owners want to do. Maybe I should've asked would yall make this trade if you were receiving kelce and sproles for ryan, TY and Olsen instead of asking if it was a fair trade? So would anyone make this trade? If the majority wouldn't make that trade then obviously it is unbalanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Maybe I should've asked would yall make this trade if you were receiving kelce and sproles for ryan, TY and Olsen instead of asking if it was a fair trade? So would anyone make this trade? If the majority wouldn't make that trade then obviously it is unbalanced. It may be unbalanced but that is not the point. You asked if the trade should be vetoed, and the answer is no. Collusion is the only reason to veto a trade and believe me you will know if that happens. Not all trades are perfectly fair and balanced. It doesn't matter why these 2 are making the trade, it's their teams and if they want to overpay for someone they can do that. The fun of fantasy football is managing your team. There is no rule against being bad at it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) So would anyone make this trade? no, I wouldn't If the majority wouldn't make that trade then obviously it is unbalanced. It may be unbalanced, but that's not the point. Its not the job of a commish to impart their opionion or subjective assessment of player value on other peoples trades. If all the managers involved believe it to be a fair trade and there is no hanky panky, then its good to go. Value is subjective, approve and move on. Edited September 24, 2015 by slambo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 How can you actually prove if there is collusion or not though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 How can you actually prove if there is collusion or not though? It's like porn - you'll know it when you see it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Maybe I should've asked would yall make this trade if you were receiving kelce and sproles for ryan, TY and Olsen instead of asking if it was a fair trade? So would anyone make this trade? If the majority wouldn't make that trade then obviously it is unbalanced. It doesn't matter if it's unbalanced or not. That's not your decision to make. It's not collusion. It's not like one team is trading away Ryan, Hilton, and Olsen for Ray Rice, and Reggie Wayne (two players not even in the league anymore). If I were a part of this trade and I agreed to it with the other manager in the trade, and then the commissioner stepped in and vetoed it, I would immediately ask for my money back and let you as the commish pick up the pieces.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Thanks for the advice I've never been the commish before in 7 years I have played fantasy football. I didn't know what the veto etiquette was especially in a league where no one hardly responds to anything. I wanted to see what yall thought about it. No doubt, I only veto a trade if I can prove collusion and the most common form of collusion is "borrowing players"....It rarely happens, but it is the most common form of cheating if there is one.... I always place a rule that the players involved in a trade between two teams can not be traded back to the team they were traded from for 3 weeks....I have considered bumping it down to two, but three feels about right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 I never vetoed the trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's a horrendous trade giving up TY, Ryan and Olsen for Kelce and Sproles????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 Finally someone that agrees with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 2 weeks have gone by, ppr, Olsen is down a little, he is going to get his targets, Ryan has Julio, and TY is the number 1 there and the Colts will pick it up. Heck, all the web sites still have Luck being the QB1 at the end of the season. Giving up 3 front line players for 1 front line player and a back up, with some upside. My league would have vetoed that in a heart beat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heehawks Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) It's like porn - you'll know it when you see it. Post of the year so far imho! Edited September 24, 2015 by heehawks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Finally someone that agrees with me Not many disagree it favors a side (all trades tend to one way or another), just it has no bearing on the OP. 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.