Ongoing trade knowledge

[rashasha]

The first trade of the AFFL's inaugural season, where the Imperial StormTroopers gave up Kyle Boller and Santana Moss to the OprahTARDS for Trent Green and Drew Bennett has caused quite a bit of controversy. As commissioner and as one of the owners involved in this trade, it seems that suddenly my integrity may be under question, so I offer the following defense and raise a few questions as to how to deal with trades in the future.

 

Shortly after our auction draft, Dan (Deputy Commissioner) and I were going through the team rosters and Dan noticed that the OprahTARDS had three QB's with byes in Week #5. We had a good laugh, and as a kind gesture on my part, I sent Nathan (owner of the OprahTARDS) an email, Thursday, August 4th, informing him of his situation and had a brief phone conversation with him. We also had a good laugh about the situation.

 

The next day I received a trade offer from the OprahTARDS where I was offered Eli Manning for Kyle Boller. The trade was revoked, then offered again, and I rejected it. Several proposals were offered, ten to be exact, until the final trade was agreed upon on August 10th, six days later. In each of those ten different proposals, the OprahTARDS wanted Kyle Boller.

 

According to the AFFL rule book, that was posted online months before the draft and that we all went over on draft day, trades may be conducted for the benefit of both teams. "Trades must be fair. 'Herschel Walker' trades are fair, but dumping players and collusion are not." This was a fair trade. It may not have been a good trade, but was fair and legal. This wasn't a 'Herschel Walker' trade, nor was it player dumping, nor collusion. This trade benefitted both teams. The OprahTARDS now have a Week #5 QB, and they freed up some room under the cap in order to make future additions.

 

Apparently there are some owners who are upset that they had no knowledge of this trade. They feel that if they knew that Trent Green were on the trading block that they too, could have made a seperate proposal and prevented a top QB from going to the team with the best QB in the league. They claim that it is their right to know what key players are proposed within trades throughout the league, so that they may try to prevent any trade that they see fit. They contend that they have a right to make 'defensive' trade proposals to prevent a rival team from getting better.

 

That brings up serious questions: How much privacy should a team have in proposing a trade? If two owners want to conduct a trade in relative privacy, should they be able to do it? Is it the right of all other owners to know who is involved in a particular trade before it is finalized? How much of ongoing trade proposal knowledge should be gossip and rumor and how much of it should be league mandated? Should all trades be voted on by owners? Should all trade proposals be posted on the web site? Should there be league wide notification if one of the top 25 players in the league is proposed in a trade? Should owners be notified if a player in the free agent pool receives a blind bid?

 

It is my opinion that if two owners want to make a trade without anybody else's knowledge, then they should be able to do it. It is nobody else's business how an owner operates his team as long it is legal. I believe this to be the opinion of the majority of the Fantasy Football community. If it weren't, owners would be able to see all trades proposed on the league web site. This isn't even on option on myfantasyleague.com web sites unless every owner votes for the approval of every trade! Only the commissioner has the authority to see trade proposals to prevent illegal trades from taking place.

 

I can understand how an owner does not want a rival team to get better, but it is the rival team's best interest and right to do so, through trades and waiver additions. A rival owner has no business in sticking its nose into another team's transactions. The only thing they can do is to react to the betterment of a rival team. If a rival has the initiative and tenacity to better his team, then you should, too.

 

To prevent accusations of wrongdoing in the future (of which there was none of on this trade) I will only look at the transaction listing when I sign in as an owner. This way, I can't see what the owners can't see. It seems to me that the only fair thing to do is to make sure that we all see the same thing, be it every transaction, or only our individual team's transactions.

 

Does an owner have a right to a completely private trade?

[gogo2146]

I just went through something very close to this although i was the one trying to block a trade because I didn't want a team to get closer to mine. I felt the trade at hand was onesided as well. ( Gates for R. Johnson and Balt D)

 

First off as a owner, all trades should be made league knowldge and owners should have a few days to veto the trade or accept it. this keeps the league honest and stops any wrong doings ie... loading a team up for the playoff run.

 

in a 12 man league do this 8 votes no vetos the trade up to 6 votes yes trade is past. If tie 6 yes 6 no trade is passed ( 6 votes yes) i think this system helps the trade out a little to be vetoed you must have 3/4 say NO.

 

Here is the site I play in please check out message board where it says More on league voting. shflsports.com then click on pig products league this will take you to the main board then click on More on League voting. I'm the reason this was brought up.

 

Anyways my team is the Arizona Wildfire if you want to check it out. Good luck.

 

i also I feel if a team makes a bad trade it's there problem people pau good money let then do what they want just keep it honest.

[General Itals]

Fellow league members have absolutely no right to know what trade discussions are going on amongst other league members. In fact, that rule is written into our BOTH league constitution. If there is a situation which calls for a trade (i.e., a guy has 3 QB's on bye during the same week), let them do the research to find that situation so they can take advantage of it for themselves, instead of being the lazy crybabies they're now being after the fact.

 

And I also don't believe that teams should have a right to vote whether every trade is fair in order to approve it. In that instance, teams will vote against trades out of self-interest, even if the trade is fair, because they will see the two other teams getting better while their team stands still.

 

As your rules state, the only reason to disallow a trade is collusion and dumping. Unless one of those crybabies can prove either has occurred in this instance tell them to shut their pie-holes. I mean what did they expect, your rules even state that "Hershel Walker trades are fair", so pretty much anything goes as far as trades in your league.

 

Oh, and take this type of question to the Fantasy Football Advice forum next time, noob. Big John will be along shortly to herd it over there.

Edited August 11, 2005 by General Itals

[loaf]

If I were the Oprahtards, I woulda sat with no QB for week five than make that trade

[T-Scorp]

NO way should proposed trades be communicated to other owners so they can make counter offers...however a smart owner will float feelers out to multiple owners to see what they can get.

 

Voting on bogus trades can be tricky as other owners can whine about any trade fair or not.

 

Sounds like the rest of the owners in your league are whinny little kids. You may be dealing with this all season long.

[satelliteoflovegm]

100% privacy

0% voting

 

One of the few perks to being commish, being on top of all league happenings. But they all could have checked out the rosters.

 

Unless, you didn't post the rosters and made the trade before the league knew who had whom. Even then, I would have had them written down draft day. Though all my drafts are live and maybe it works different online.

 

Sour grapes from the league it appears. Don't waiver unless you did the above. Then reverse the trade and start the trade process early. IF IF IF the league relied on you posting the rosters then you might have a problem.

[REZ]

I've never heard of a league where it was required to tell peopleabout trade negotiations.

[muck]

I'd quit a league if trades could be voted down by other owners.

 

If you have owners who can't make a good trade, then you're in the wrong league. Its sorta like being a 26 year old guy dating 14 year old girls...you need to hang out with a new crowd.

[Los Gigantes]

I'd quit a league if trades could be voted down by other owners.

 

If you have owners who can't make a good trade, then you're in the wrong league.  Its sorta like being a 26 year old guy dating 14 year old girls...you need to hang out with a new crowd.

 

921701[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

but she swore she was 15!

[rashasha]

Also in this league we pay REAL money for our players. Our salary cap is $80 and we have several owners literally paying $15-$20 out of their own pockets for a player. If I am litterally paying $20 into the league's pot for Peyton Manning, I'll be darned if its any other owner's business where I may or may not be shopping him around! If I want to pay $20 for a player and keep that potential trade a secret, I should be able to.