Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Trade Committee Decision


SpinalTapp
 Share

Recommended Posts

I formed a three person trade committee with rotating members every year to combat the toxic, hateful trade veto process that was tearing the league apart. Owners were constantly vetoing deals not on the merit of deals but rather because one owner was getting too strong or because their crystal ball told them one player in the deal was going to be slightly better than the other player.

 

My rule of thumb for trade committee members has been pretty simple - as long as the two people involved in the deal were consenting adults and we are certain that there was no collusion or coercion - we should approved the deal unless it is painfully obvious the deal is horrifically lopsided - such as Adrian Peterson in his prime for the Whizzinator.

 

So far, we have not killed a single trade in six years and the league has been much more relaxed and happy.

 

New owner who is already out of the hunt shows up and accepts the following deal:

 

1. New owner looking for keepers gives up: Zeke and TY Hilton (huge stud non keepers)

2. Other owner gives him back: Crabtree, Rawls, Hunter Henry, and Cole Beasley (all keepers)

 

IMO, its a very bad deal for the new owner but I am not sure it meet the standard of AP for Whizzinator...so I would not kill it. The others owners in my league think this IS the worst deal in the history of deals - and to maintain the fairness in the league - this deal must be reconfigured or killed. Most competing teams are either 5-2 or 4-3 so this deal would put this other owner over the top.

 

Am I missing something or are the other owners right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is tough since it is a keeper league, but the new owner can do better.

 

Since you have a committee, talk to both of them to propose another deal. You have the committee for a reason so use it to the full advantage. Best to bring it to light to both of them and let them try to make it better. Don't just outright veto with no discussion.

 

Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my league I am the commish. I am fortunate not to have petty owners, but you had to make the committee because your dynamic of the owners require it.

 

Others will have their comments, but you have the mechanism in place to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't be vetoing it.

 

TY Hilton has been inconsistent in his career but Zeke has probably the highest ceiling of any RB in football.

 

The likes of Henry, Rawls and Beasley have good long term potential especially Henry considering what a wasteland TE is outside the studs. I'd want more for a deal involving Zeke but it's not terrible and certainly doesn't look like collusion of any kind (only reason to veto).

Edited by Dolphin_Akie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does your league have place for Trading Block Players?

 

Hopefully. If not, others owners may only be hearing about last minute. Shame on them. In FFL you have to be active and put "feelers" out there to see if there is any trade interest.

 

You can't fault the owners involved in the trade. If they do not like it, they should have been more proactive and make an offer themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Zeke a keeper?

 

If the committee says no. I say reject and give the other owners who object to this trade a chance to acquire Zeke & Hilton (give them a day to offer a trade). If the new owner still thinks this is the best deal go ahead with it.

No it was mentioned in the original post (see text in red below)

 

I formed a three person trade committee with rotating members every year to combat the toxic, hateful trade veto process that was tearing the league apart. Owners were constantly vetoing deals not on the merit of deals but rather because one owner was getting too strong or because their crystal ball told them one player in the deal was going to be slightly better than the other player.

 

My rule of thumb for trade committee members has been pretty simple - as long as the two people involved in the deal were consenting adults and we are certain that there was no collusion or coercion - we should approved the deal unless it is painfully obvious the deal is horrifically lopsided - such as Adrian Peterson in his prime for the Whizzinator.

 

So far, we have not killed a single trade in six years and the league has been much more relaxed and happy.

 

New owner who is already out of the hunt shows up and accepts the following deal:

 

1. New owner looking for keepers gives up: Zeke and TY Hilton (huge stud non keepers)

2. Other owner gives him back: Crabtree, Rawls, Hunter Henry, and Cole Beasley (all keepers)

 

IMO, its a very bad deal for the new owner but I am not sure it meet the standard of AP for Whizzinator...so I would not kill it. The others owners in my league think this IS the worst deal in the history of deals - and to maintain the fairness in the league - this deal must be reconfigured or killed. Most competing teams are either 5-2 or 4-3 so this deal would put this other owner over the top.

 

Am I missing something or are the other owners right?

 

 

Regarding the OPs question, what do the other 2 committee members say? Are they in line with the "other owners" in your league who think it is the worst deal ever? If so I'd suggest you need to look for new committee members.

 

Also some info on the teams, especially the one giving up the studs, but even the other team, will they be able to keep all those guys, do they have no potential keepers now.

We rarely see studs traded, but then our keeper league is more dynasty like without contracts or rules that prevent a current player from being kept. (AP got cut when he was ruled out for the year, and quickly snatched up by somebody hoping he can return to form and be a keeper for next year.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We call our league a keeper league. Really - we are more of a "finder" league. We can keep any player drafted in the fourth round or later for a total of three years including the year they were drafted. The new owner inherited D.Freeman, C.Palmer, and Decker - that was about it. Decker goes back in the redraft. So, he is looking for keeper depth.

 

Some great points were made earlier about other owners failing to offer deals to this new owner whose 1-6 record screamed - TRADE WITH ME...i am ready to dump my stud non keepers.

 

I tried to make a deal with this guy before this other owner did - but I did not have enough on my bench to match even the low bar that this other owner got done.

 

I have two full time commissioners and one alternate. One of my full time commissioners is involved in the deal - so he had to recuse himself from voting. The other one does not like the deal either - but believes in the free market principle.

 

I see our role the same as I see the commissioners role in the NFL. If the Redskins want to ship three first round picks and their second round pick to the Rams for the rights to draft RG3...well a majority of the league may think its a bone headed decision, including the commissioner - but the commissioner is not going to step in and stop the deal or reconfigure the deal in any way. that is not his primary job. The assumption is that teams and owners will act in the best interest of their franchises or they will pay the price accordingly...and yes - their stupidity does often help and hurt the teams around them - and that's the way it goes.

 

Also, at the end of seasons when team's are out of contention, teams dump players that are going to walk. thinking of baseball - there are two key back of the bullpen guys in the World Series right now that fit that mold - Miller and Chapman. the Yankees fire sold these guys for prospects - not guaranteed studs. That is also the way it goes. Everyone in the league had a shot at these two guys..

 

I think the same holds true in fantasy. Perhaps I am in the minority. I try to put together three person trade committees that view the world through this lens - that our job is to promote free trade and to only kill deals that involve collusion or coercion...or are so bad that we feel like vomiting upon review...and that has not happened in six years.

Edited by SpinalTapp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your league is setup in a way that promotes stud non-keeper fire sales when a team falls out of contention, you are going to end up getting deals like this, particularly if you have aggressive owners. If you don't like the perceived imbalance, make some rules changes for next year. For this year, you are stuck accepting this trade as is. It is not collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your league is setup in a way that promotes stud non-keeper fire sales when a team falls out of contention, you are going to end up getting deals like this, particularly if you have aggressive owners. If you don't like the perceived imbalance, make some rules changes for next year. For this year, you are stuck accepting this trade as is. It is not collusion.

Exactly. You're stuck with this deal this year IMO. It's not collusion and the trade benefits both teams. I'd focus on figuring out how to prevent deals like this going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information