XFlash Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 agree with consensus that trade should not be vetoed. But as a commissioner myself, you can also throw a softball suggestion to the owners to try and balance out the amount of players. As someone mentioned on page 1, you want to avoid the "borrowing of players". In my league we have bylaws stated to prevent this. The same players involved in the trade cannot be trading back, it would have to be a mix of different players. Also, if 3 or more owner protest a trade it goes to a vote to the rest of the league, minus the owners involved and majority wins. If I happen to think that the trade is very lopsided, I at least talk to the owners to make sure they understand the trade offer. Upon 2nd confirmation, I approve the trade. Out of the many years I have been playing FFL, I only had to talk to owners twice (trade approved) and once to balance out a trade (to avoid an already growing protest) trade approved. There is no way to prove collusion unless you happen to see the email traffic or overhear the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 I can understand everyone not liking our Veto system, and I don't love it for sure, or the other weird rules, 1 trade per each other owner, making only 11 trades possible and never twice with the same owner. All this, but our league works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 There are maybe 2 or 3 trades a year in my league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 agree with consensus that trade should not be vetoed. But as a commissioner myself, you can also throw a softball suggestion to the owners to try and balance out the amount of players. As someone mentioned on page 1, you want to avoid the "borrowing of players". In my league we have bylaws stated to prevent this. The same players involved in the trade cannot be trading back, it would have to be a mix of different players. Also, if 3 or more owner protest a trade it goes to a vote to the rest of the league, minus the owners involved and majority wins. If I happen to think that the trade is very lopsided, I at least talk to the owners to make sure they understand the trade offer. Upon 2nd confirmation, I approve the trade. Out of the many years I have been playing FFL, I only had to talk to owners twice (trade approved) and once to balance out a trade (to avoid an already growing protest) trade approved. There is no way to prove collusion unless you happen to see the email traffic or overhear the conversation. Allowing the rest of the owners the ability to block my trade because they don't like it is bull manure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) I'm guessing the OP vetoed the trade anyway, despite the prevailing opinion here (which he requested) against vetoing the trade. Which would make you wonder why he bothered asking our opinion. Edited September 25, 2015 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) Furthermore, trades don't always have to be balanced. The point of a trade is that both owners feel like they are improving their teams. If I have the top 2 QBs in the league but can only start 1 of them each week and I my only WR is Dez Bryant than my team just took a big hit. You might find me trading one of my QBs for a sub par WR not because I am getting value for value but because I am improving the overall value of my team. Who are you to tell me I can't improve my team in this fashion? i was actually involved in one of these earlier this week - other owner had both Brady and Rodgers on his roster and i had Eli and Tannehill...he needed an RB and i wanted to upgrade at QB, so asked him if he wanted to make a deal since he was in need of RB help and had QB points rotting on his bench...i didn't make an offer for either QB, specifically, i let him choose and i let him choose any of my RBs (except Charles), as well as offered Eli so he would have a quality QB2 for bye week filler...he picked Rodgers and my RB handcuff tandem of Hill/Bernard, so the deal ended up being Rodgers and Doug Martin for Eli, J. Hill, and G. Bernard...the commissioner questioned it, but once i explained the logic behind it and he saw there was no collusion, whatsoever, he let the deal go through...i'm sure other owners were not happy with it, though, but both of our teams are stronger, now... Edited September 25, 2015 by the outlaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) i was actually involved in one of these earlier this week - other owner had both Brady and Rodgers on his roster and i had Eli and Tennehill...he needed an RB and i wanted to upgrade at QB, so asked him if he wanted to make a deal since he was in need of RB help and had QB points rotting on his bench...i didn't make an offer for either QB, specifically, i let him choose and i let him choose any of my RBs (except Charles), as well as offered Eli so he would have a quality QB2 for bye week filler...he picked Rodgers and my RB handcuff tandem of Hill/Bernard, so the deal ended up being Rodgers and Doug Martin for Eli, J. Hill, and G. Bernard...the commissioner questioned it, but once i explained the logic behind it and he saw there was no collusion, whatsoever, he let the deal go through...i'm sure other owners were not happy with it, though, but both of our teams are stronger, now... IMO there is no reason you should have had to explain yourself to the commissioner. There should have been no reason for him to question it or suspect collusion for that trade. Edited September 25, 2015 by Finn5033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) IMO there is no reason you should have had to explain yourself to the commissioner. There should have been no reason for him to question it or suspect collusion for that trade. i had no problem explaining it, knowing the explanation would make it "go through" easier...the reason he questioned it was because he couldn't believe the other owner was willing to trade his "keeper" QB after only Wk 2, so he just wanted to make sure it was all straight-up...plus, i've been playing in this league since 2005 (11th season), and i think i've only made 3 or 4 trades over the course of 11 seasons, to-date - he questions every one of them, but i'm not aware of any (none of mine, or for other owners that i'm aware of) that he has actually vetoed...if, after questioning and a legit, logical explanation, he then vetoes one, that's when i start to have a problem... lol Edited September 25, 2015 by the outlaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 i had not problem explaining it, knowing the explanation would make it "go through" easier...the reason he questioned it was because he couldn't believe the other owner was willing to trade his "keeper" QB after only Wk 2, so he just wanted to make sure it was all straight-up...plus, i've been playing in this league since 2005 (11th season), and i think i've only made 3 or 4 trades over the course of 11 seasons, to-date - he questions every one of them, but i'm not aware of any (none of mine, or for other owners that i'm aware of) that he has actually vetoed...if, after questioning and a legit, logical explanation, he then vetoes one, that's when i start to have a problem... lol So it sounds more like he just confirms the details before sending it through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 BTW I never vetoed the trade I was just asking before I did anything... Didn't think I would get so much hate for just asking advice on commissioner "etiquette" or procedure on handling a trade that looked pretty lopsided to me and trying to see what everyone thought about the trade if they thought it was looked like fair trade or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 You are getting hate because you are ridiculously annoying. You again brought up that you think the trade is lopsided. It's not your place to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 Yeah, you should know about being ridiculously annoying, you're a Jets fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Just veto the trade already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 You are getting hate because you are ridiculously annoying. You again brought up that you think the trade is lopsided. It's not your place to decide. Let us consider: 1. You considered the trade "unbalanced" and "unfair" (your words). Trades are often not balances as owners look to address different needs of their respective teams. The idea that you are determining if trades are "fair" or not is laughable. When owners agree to trades they are not doing so to be "fair" to the rest of the league they are doing so to gain a competitive advantage. If trades have to meet the standard of being considered balanced and fair by the majority of the league then most trades will not happen because owners have a natural propensity to think when other owners make trades that make their teams better is is "not fair". 2. You considered using commissioner power to veto the trade, placing your valuation of players over that of the owners involved in the trade. Just because you are commissioner doesn't mean your valuation of players is any more relevant than any other owner in your league. The fact that you think so is what is generating such a negative response. 3. You were drumming up support from other owners in the league for a veto of the trade. IMO this is collusion. You are colluding with the other owners in the league to block a trade. 4. Despite all the feedback that trades in general and this specific trade should not be vetoed you were defending the idea of vetoing the trade. Maybe that will help you understand why you are getting such a negative backlash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 1. Never told any owners in the league to veto the trade. 2. I was not trying to run anyone else's team or trying to abuse my power. 3. I never defended the idea of vetoing I was defending that idea that the trade looked unusually unbalanced to me. 4. I never once was seeking approval from anyone to veto the trade. 5. The trade was approved. 6. I was just asking for opinions on what y'all would do in the situation and if anyone thought there was collusion going on. 7. I have never vetoed a trade before I actually like being in a league that makes a decent amount of trades throughout the season it makes it more fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 I was just asking what other people outside of the league that have been commissioner before would do or have done, never ran a league before. I never fired shots at anyone but a dozen or so people decided to fire shots at me because I was just asking for advices and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) 1. Never told any owners in the league to veto the trade. 2. I was not trying to run anyone else's team or trying to abuse my power. 3. I never defended the idea of vetoing I was defending that idea that the trade looked unusually unbalanced to me. 4. I never once was seeking approval from anyone to veto the trade. 5. The trade was approved. 6. I was just asking for opinions on what y'all would do in the situation and if anyone thought there was collusion going on. 7. I have never vetoed a trade before I actually like being in a league that makes a decent amount of trades throughout the season it makes it more fun. 1. You clearly said in your original post you asked the other owners in your league and they also considered the trade "unfair". So you didn't tell anybody to veto the trade but you were laying the ground work for your decision to veto the trade. You were getting support to veto. 2. If you veto an owner's trade how can you say you are not managing their team for them? As managers of their teams they have agreed to a trade but when you step in and veto the trade you are effectively managing their teams saying that one or both of them are better off NOT making the trade. 3. You were trying to shore up your position that the trade was unbalanced because if we agreed it was unbalanced you would veto the trade. You failed and still fail to recognize that we all value players differently and you have no right to impose your personal player valuations on the rest of the league. 4. Sorry but I am of the opinion that the whole point of this thread was for you get people here to agree with you that the trade should be vetoed. 5. Your whole demeanor in this thread wasn't that you were innocently seeking our opinions, but that you were seeking support for your decision to veto. Kudos to you for not vetoing, now take the next step and do away with vetoes altogether. 6. You didn't appear to want any opinion that was counter to your opinion that the trade should not have been vetoed. 7. Start vetoing trades and you will kill trading altogether. The only collusion I saw in the whole thing was your attempt to collude with the other owners to block the trade. Edited September 25, 2015 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLochridge Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 If you go back and read my original post I clearly stated that I talked to people OUTSIDE of the league I haven't talked to any one in the league about the trade. And in all of my responses I never showed disagreement with anyone's opinion to not veto the trade...NOT once. There is nothing wrong with the ability for the league to veto trades I have never seen a fair trade vetoed by the majority of the league and it keeps the league fair, balanced, and competitive. I hardly ever veto a trade I prefer being a league with trades. I never veto a trade to manage peoples teams I veto trades that appear to be collusion or heavily one sided. It keeps the league more competitive and balanced. Like last season when I was in league where a someone's wife traded Andrew Luck to her husband for James Jones the day of the trade deadline because she was in dead last and he made the playoffs. If my demeanor wasn't to seek advice or opinions why would I have thanked people who responded? 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. Sorry to offend everybody I didn't know it was that serious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Allowing the rest of the owners the ability to block my trade because they don't like it is bull honda exactly. /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) It's a horrendous trade giving up TY, Ryan and Olsen for Kelce and Sproles????? Finally someone that agrees with me This looks like you had one thing in mind the whole time. Get support of your opinion and slam the door on that trade. Pretty cut and dry what your angle here was an I wrong? Edited September 25, 2015 by Sunday Couch Potatoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) If you go back and read my original post I clearly stated that I talked to people OUTSIDE of the league I haven't talked to any one in the league about the trade. And in all of my responses I never showed disagreement with anyone's opinion to not veto the trade...NOT once. There is nothing wrong with the ability for the league to veto trades I have never seen a fair trade vetoed by the majority of the league and it keeps the league fair, balanced, and competitive. I hardly ever veto a trade I prefer being a league with trades. I never veto a trade to manage peoples teams I veto trades that appear to be collusion or heavily one sided. It keeps the league more competitive and balanced. Like last season when I was in league where a someone's wife traded Andrew Luck to her husband for James Jones the day of the trade deadline because she was in dead last and he made the playoffs. If my demeanor wasn't to seek advice or opinions why would I have thanked people who responded? Sorry to offend everybody I didn't know it was that serious. I stand corrected, you did indeed say friends outside the league considered it unfair. I originally read that as friends in the league (other owners). In any case, I am not offended, not sure why anything you do or say should offend me. Nonetheless ... it is still quite clear that you consider your opinion on how to value players to be superior to those owners in your league and to many here ... thus your disbelief that we aren't all flocking to jump on board your "this trade is unbalanced and unfair" band wagon. So while you didn't veto this trade you state clearly that you have vetoed trades in the past ... to keep the league "fair and balanced". If you are playing in a league worth playing in, all the owners are striving for a competitive advantage. Nobody is passing on a highly sought after free agent in order to keep the league fair and balanced, nobody is trying to set a less than optimum lineup to keep the league fair and balanced. No, we all try to improve our teams so that they are the best team in the league and take us to the championship. Last year in my local I drafted ODB in the last round and hung on to him and then rode him to the championship (him and Antonio Brown). Using your logic it probably wasn't "fair" of me to get such a good player with the last pick, so perhaps the commissioner should have cut ODB from my roster and made him available for general waivers. Despite what you say ... when you veto a trade you ARE managing other people's teams for them. You never answered my question, if you veto a trade and it turns out you were wrong ... do you offer financial restitution to the owners for presuming that your opinion was right and enforcing it? In your tireless efforts to keep the league fair and balanced do you also verify everybody's starting lineups each week and change them to what you consider to be the optimum starting lineups? Edited September 25, 2015 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 I was just asking what other people outside of the league that have been commissioner before would do or have done, never ran a league before. I never fired shots at anyone but a dozen or so people decided to fire shots at me because I was just asking for advices and opinions. Nobody has fired shots. You asked for opinions and you're prickly response shows you clearly didnt like the answers we gave, sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inziladun Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) OP taking a little offense to this. I'm a commisioner in one of my leagues this year. Two brothers initiated a trade, it was borderline highway robbery and part of me really wanted to veto it. But I just took a deep sigh and sent it through. Part of me knows it wasn't collusion because I personally know the two brothers very well, it was just a case of the Older brother taking advantage of the borderline retarded younger one who was inebriated at the time. And you know what, that's perfectly legal in my opinion. In all my years of fantasy i've always liked to talk trades while drunk, but never pulled the trigger without another discussion the morning after. He learned a lesson hopefully and everyone else in the league sent him "trade-rape" offers. It happens from time to time, not too often, but the term "trade-rape" gets thrown around even when the trade isn't even that bad. So just let it slide man. Besides the Older brother in my story had Dez Bryant and Romo, and the trade was before the injuries, so Karma and all that. Edited September 25, 2015 by Inziladun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphashado Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) Let me tell you a story: I've been commissioner for many years. I used to give team managers the option to vote on each proposed trade just in case I was out of town or for whatever reason was unable to stop a ridiculous trade from happening. I had a bunch of new members that year and a very fair trade proposed from one guy's team to his girlfriend's team was actually rejected by the league. (I forget the details, but it was a fair trade proposal). Naturally this couple was very pissed off that their trade was rejected. When I looked into it and started asking other members why they voted down the trade, it was because some newer members in the league didn't want to see anyone else's team get better or because the people involved in the trade were a couple. This is what I heard: 1. They are a couple. Clearly they are just trying to help each other 2. Why should I let them improve their teams? Aren't I better off stopping any trades that would improve the team of a potential opponent? These are terrible reasons to veto a trade. Know why? Because what do you think this couple is going to do the first time they see a proposed trade? That's right, they are going to veto it. Purely out of spite. Now everyone in the league is going to veto trades out of revenge and you have essentially removed trading from the league. Now everyone is bitter and looking for a chance to get even. Trading is a huge part of fantasy football. it should be encouraged and supported by the commissioner, not discouraged. If both teams believe the trade is beneficial to their teams (however misguided or stupid they may be) you must let it go through. That is the key. As commissioner, you aren't supposed to be deciding if trade is dumb or not, you are only required to decide if both teams believe they are helping their team. As someone above mentioned, you will know when you see a shady trade offer. Otherwise let people play and let them have fun. If someone decides to accept a dumb trade, then let them. That's part of the game and they will learn from their mistake. It isn't your job as commissioner to decide if it's a dumb trade or not. It's your job to decide if someone is cheating. There is a big difference and you will know it when you see it. Edited September 26, 2015 by Alphashado 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 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. Ryan means squat to the team with Luck. He's as disposable as an empty bag of chips. Kelce>>>>>>Olsen... Kelce is closer to Gronk than Olsen is to Kelce. T.Y. is injured. No idea how long it will impact him. Who are the other WRs on that guys team? Sometimes you have to overpay to get the player you covet. when did I say I didn't like anyones advice? and I wasn't looking for approval. and I guarantee not one person that chimed in would make that trade if they were receiving kelce and sproles for ryan, ty and olsen. You may or may not be looking for approval but when someone here agreed with you it was clear you were looking for an ally. 1 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.