theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Henry, Chris WR CIN Jacobs, Brandon RB NYG Maroney, Laurence RB NE Norwood, Jerious RB ATL FOR Droughns, Reuben RB CLE Hasselbeck, Matt QB SEA Houshmandzadeh, T.J. WR CIN Taylor, Fred RB JAC This is a $150 keeper league, you can keep up to 3 RB and 3 WR's . I have contacted both owners and the owner that is obvioulsy getting the far shorter end of the stick imo, says he's not going to be able to compete this season with Taylor and Droughns as his starters, so he wants to build for the future. I feel this trade is not even close to being fair and i know if/when i process it, i'm going to get some MAJOR smackback. What should i do? 1. Process it and explain to the league i spoke with both owners and the owner getting you short end is well aware he's getting shafted. 2. Post the trade in our forum and allow other owners to make this guy a better offer. 3. Reject the offer and tell the owners it's far too lopsided and would make the league too unbalanced. Please help, i do not like to rejects any trade in money leagues with competent owners, but this is a little different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 unless its obvious collusion, trades should not be vetoed. that is a horrible trade but not collusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Author Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) unless its obvious collusion, trades should not be vetoed. that is a horrible trade but not collusion. I completely agree with you, but when, if ever, do you consider the state of the league when it's so far swaded in one direction? Edited August 19, 2006 by theeohiostate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 unless its obvious collusion, trades should not be vetoed. that is a horrible trade but not collusion. No but it could screw up the league. I would suggest a league vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I wouldn't want Droughns/Taylor for my starting RBs either but that isn't a fair trade. I don't see how he'd rather be playing Maroney/Jacobs. So you don't keep any QBs? I can see why he'd offer a QB for a keeper position. Maybe you can veto the deal based on the owner "dumping" Houshmandzadeh, a young starting receiver, for his backup, Chris Henry. How does that benefit anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 It may not be collusion, but it it too one-sided, IMO. I would not allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 unless its obvious collusion, trades should not be vetoed. that is a horrible trade but not collusion. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Author Share Posted August 19, 2006 Problem Solved Glad i re-read our rules for these situations: Trades: * Trading permitted year around. * Trades must be approved by the commissioner to be finalized. Commissioner will approve all trades that appear to benefit both teams. Trades that are obviously one sided or appear to be collusion will not be approved. * Owners who have trades vetoed by the commissioner have the right to appeal to the rest of the league. The owner in question must notify the commissioner that he appeals the decision. The commissioner will then put the trade to a vote by all owners not involved in the trade. The trade must be approved by more than half of those teams , the commissioner will not vote. Seems very clear now, i don't feel this benefits both team, so i can decline trade and they have the oportunity to appeal and have it voted on. I love it when things are clearly written in the rules. I'd suggest any of you to adopt this as well, as it's pretty clear to make a determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I don't see how you can veto it unless its collusion. I just had 2 teams in my keeper trade D. Davis and R. Williams (WR) for Shockey. Is that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) It is one sided now, but in 2 years it could be fine. The other team, in getting Jacobs, Norwood & Maroney, is clearly building for the future, which makes sense in a keeper league. It looks to me like Henry was just thrown in to make the numbers right. As long as the owner is willing to blow his $150 in a "rebuilding year" I don't see how you could veto it. Edited August 19, 2006 by Bonehand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 +1 +2 Too early for "collusion". The season hasn't started. I hate Leagues where the commish has to allow anything! One is playing for now, the other the future! Is this dynasty, keeper? Either way, don't meddle in how teams operate! After all, "Stupid is as stupid does"! Let your stupid be stupid brah! They're fun to laugh at! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I don't see how you can veto it unless its collusion. I just had 2 teams in my keeper trade D. Davis and R. Williams (WR) for Shockey. Is that bad? Roy Williams or Reggie Williams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) What do your leagues rules say about trade vetoes? EDIT: Nevermind. I see that you posted them above. Edited August 19, 2006 by Furd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Author Share Posted August 19, 2006 I agree that trades should be processed BUT our rules have laid out a system for such an instance as i've noted above. If i do not see the trade as beneficial to both teams for whatever reason i see fit, i must veto it and if challenged by either owner it can be put to a vote where a majority would decide, while i wouldn't vote. Seems a perfectly grand way to deal with this. So i have done so, by using my permission to veto and sending both owners a copy of the article in the rules that deal with this and asking if either would like to challenge it and have a vote. That's about as fair and simple as it can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Roy Williams or Reggie Williams? Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I don't like commishes stepping in... actually...I am commish.... the only trade I have ever vetoed was last year...it was early in the season... Stephen Davis and Eddie Kennison for Nick Goings Davis was getting GL carries and Kennison is a #1 WR on his team....Goings is a #3 RB on his team...behind Davis...it was around week 2 or week 3... these 2 teams were involved with collusion late in the season and they are no longer in the league... I don't recall the other trades...because I let them go...they involved Steve Smith and others but I found that when I vetoed the 1st trade, they complained about every trade that came across the board.... plus they were buddies and really didn't know anyone else in the league nor did they really deal with anyone else in the league unless they were to get LJ and CJ for Steve Smith or something like that... the trade you posted is not vetoable IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Commissioner will approve all trades that appear to benefit both teams. That is a really bad rule. We've already established that the trade is not collusion. Beyond that criteria, I think you have to let guys manage their teams the way they see fit. In a big money keeper league, I can't fault the guy for recognizing that he has no chance to compete this year, and looking toward the future. You have to start looking at that big league fee as an investment. With that in mind, look at who he's getting. Among Jacobs, Maroney and Norwood, I think there is a very good chance that 2 of those 3 will be starters for their teams next year, or at least major contributors. Maroney in particular looks like he could be a stud. Think of where that leaves him next year, he can look at stud WRs in the first couple rounds. Now he's got a shot at the title, or the playoffs at the very least. If I'm spending that much to play in a league and I'm stuck with Taylor and Droughns as my starting RBs, I'd probably make that deal for next year too. I want the best possible chance to get a return on my money, if not this year, next. With that strategy in mind, does this trade benefit both teams?? I think it obviously does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 That is a really bad rule. We've already established that the trade is not collusion. Beyond that criteria, I think you have to let guys manage their teams the way they see fit. In a big money keeper league, I can't fault the guy for recognizing that he has no chance to compete this year, and looking toward the future. You have to start looking at that big league fee as an investment. With that in mind, look at who he's getting. Among Jacobs, Maroney and Norwood, I think there is a very good chance that 2 of those 3 will be starters for their teams next year, or at least major contributors. Maroney in particular looks like he could be a stud. Think of where that leaves him next year, he can look at stud WRs in the first couple rounds. Now he's got a shot at the title, or the playoffs at the very least. If I'm spending that much to play in a league and I'm stuck with Taylor and Droughns as my starting RBs, I'd probably make that deal for next year too. I want the best possible chance to get a return on my money, if not this year, next. With that strategy in mind, does this trade benefit both teams?? I think it obviously does. exactly....that rule is based purely on opinion..... bad rule.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Author Share Posted August 19, 2006 exactly....that rule is based purely on opinion..... bad rule.. regardless of the view of the rule, it is in place and i must follow it by vetoing the deal that i see in no way will ever benefit the one team. The trade has been posted in the league site and is now up for vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormChasers Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 That is a really bad rule. We've already established that the trade is not collusion. Beyond that criteria, I think you have to let guys manage their teams the way they see fit. In a big money keeper league, I can't fault the guy for recognizing that he has no chance to compete this year, and looking toward the future. You have to start looking at that big league fee as an investment. With that in mind, look at who he's getting. Among Jacobs, Maroney and Norwood, I think there is a very good chance that 2 of those 3 will be starters for their teams next year, or at least major contributors. Maroney in particular looks like he could be a stud. Think of where that leaves him next year, he can look at stud WRs in the first couple rounds. Now he's got a shot at the title, or the playoffs at the very least. If I'm spending that much to play in a league and I'm stuck with Taylor and Droughns as my starting RBs, I'd probably make that deal for next year too. I want the best possible chance to get a return on my money, if not this year, next. With that strategy in mind, does this trade benefit both teams?? I think it obviously does. I absolutely agree with this 100%. Last year in a keeper league I did the same type of sacrifice (in a $ 250 entry league). This year my keepers are Ronnie Brown, Larry Johnson and Randy Moss. Remember last year Ronnie had Ricky and Larry had Priest still around. Sometimes it's worth taking the chance...sacrifice a year and just play for the future when you know you can't win it all with the team you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 one last thing... there is no such thing as offseason collusion unless it's for a top round pick and it's BAD.... but I can see the philosophy of both the teams here.... one team is making a movement towards the future....the other is trying to add pieces to win now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gijunky Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) It may not be collusion, but it it too one-sided, IMO. I would not allow it. +1 I tend to evaluate the fairness of trades based on 1. any collusion 2. will it unbalance the league? 3. a firesale at the end of the year by a team out of it. Any of these 3 make it a case for review. If you put it to a league vote, at least then you can say "Well, you guys voted to let it go through..." However, if you vote, and the trade is still allowed, is that going to make anybody feel better? One of the things I have found is that my owners are sometimes hesitant to vote down something, but then want to B(*&% about it later. Good luck. Let us know what you decide. Edited August 19, 2006 by gijunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) exactly....that rule is based purely on opinion..... And deciding whether something is "collusion" isn't? Unless you have a witness to it, or a tape recording, or document, you can never, ever prove collusion. You're left with opinion. Collusion only rules are worthless for that reason. I am a proponent of rules such as the one being discussed. Call it a "team stacking" rule or some such. Most people know an unfairly lopsided trade when they see it. A rule such as that allows for a ridiculous trade to be vetoed while allowing the rest through. If you can't trust 6 of 12 owners to do the right thing on a trade, you need to leave that league. Edited August 19, 2006 by Furd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 regardless of the view of the rule, it is in place and i must follow it by vetoing the deal that i see in no way will ever benefit the one team. The trade has been posted in the league site and is now up for vote. Hope you got everyone's entry fee. If that were my team and you vetoed that trade, I'd be like F you, I quit. You're not going to take my $150 and tell me how to manage my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 19, 2006 Author Share Posted August 19, 2006 Hope you got everyone's entry fee. If that were my team and you vetoed that trade, I'd be like F you, I quit. You're not going to take my $150 and tell me how to manage my team. Like i said the RULE was in place for me to have the power to veto a deal i saw that lopsided. It is not the end all, as the league will now vote on the trade. I am just following the rules that have been in place now for 5 years, funny i've never had to even read them before this instance though. If you would be pissed, i'd simply say " read the rules" sorry, but like collusion and many other things, this rule is left to my judgement to determine to balance of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts