Commishes

[Raider.Nation]

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.

 

 

You're saying this now, but you didn't even realized this at the time you posted your question. So you obviously were looking for a reason to VETO. The trade may be lob-sided, but it doesn't appear to be collusion. 2 young RB's for 2 garbage RB's... The catch is why Jacobs/Henry for Housh/Hassy? That's where this trade was lost. Does the guy receiving Jacobs own Tiki or something?

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I don't think most feel it is fair, they feel i should not have vetoed it, but not based on the fairness of the trade rather the power to be subjective.

 

I can see your side, it's your opinon and i'm fully aware of potential. But i'm not going to judge a trade on potential value of a player 5 years from now. I am to determine if the trade benefits both teams and i do not feel that way and it's my obligation to say so and put it to a vote, period.

 

 

 

But that's exactly WHY this trade was accepted by both sides, potential value. It's not like the prospects he's trading for are rookie free agents or anything, we're talking about the 2nd RB drafted this year, a 3rd round guy who has been extremely impressive(so much so there's hugh speculation about his team trading the #2 back), and a 2nd year guy who was drafted in the fourth round and is allready his teams GL back(7tds last year). It's not a stretch to say these guys are quality prospects. You have to let teams build for the future. He's got a crappy team now with those starting backs, how else is he going to improve??

[theeohiostate]

the title of the thread was "would you allow this trade"?I would allow it and gave my reasons why.If you want to post a question for people's opinions you should be ready to hear all sides of the arguement,no?

 

 

 

instead of reading the title, then the last post, try reading the other 75 posts inbetween to make an informed post when doing so.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Some of you guys crack me up.

 

Most interpretations of rules require opinion. And everybody has one.

 

Unless you have some type of evidence, a determination of "collusion" involves opinion. Collusion is the most overused and ridiculous term in fantasy football.

 

You don't like TOS' call on this one? I can see your point. Would I veto it? Probably not. But it is an awful trade, so I'm not going to whine about the veto like some of you.

 

The league votes on it now. If the owners don't vote with integrity, shame on them, and its time to find a new league.

 

I for one find it hard to call it an awful trade without seeing the full rosters of the teams involved.Who does the guy trading Hass(the only great FF player involved IMO) also have at QB?As far as voting with integrity...this trade can be (as has been here) looked at in alot of different ways.One guys view isn't wrong just because you disagree with it.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

instead of reading the title, then the last post, try reading the other 75 posts inbetween to make an informed post when doing so.

 

I posted twice on page 2.Nice try though.

[theeohiostate]

You're saying this now, but you didn't even realized this at the time you posted your question. So you obviously were looking for a reason to VETO. The trade may be lob-sided, but it doesn't appear to be collusion. 2 young RB's for 2 garbage RB's... The catch is why Jacobs/Henry for Housh/Hassy? That's where this trade was lost. Does the guy receiving Jacobs own Tiki or something?

 

 

 

the deal breaker was he's giving up Hass, his only other QB is Frye and not a single other starter in the free agent pool.

 

I don't care about building for the future, but when the season has yet to start and a team has decided to quit already and not compete, what am i to i say to the 8 teams not in his division that only get to play him once verses the divisonal teams playing him twice virtually insureing them 2 victories.

 

That in itself is enough to veto, imo. I don't think the integrity of the league should be sacrificed at the expense of a single owner unhappy with his draft.

Edited August 19, 2006 by theeohiostate

[MikesVikes]

Theeohiostate had the problem solved on page one according to league rules. What are we doing re-writing the constitution?

[cincy slammers]

here are the rosters

 

D Carr,D McNabb

J Norwood,B Westbrook,M Morris,G Jones,C Benson,B Jacobs,L Maroney

H Baskett,C Henry,R Moss,T Owens,B Edwards,

T Heap

J Kasay

D Jaguars, D Ravens

 

C Frye,M Hasselbeck

M Jones-Drew,F Taylor,R Droughns,L White

S Holmes,M Muhammad,R White,M Jenkins,M Jones,L Fitzgerald,T.J. Houshmandzadeh

V Davis,K Winslow

P Dawson

D Browns,D Bears

[theeohiostate]

Theeohiostate had the problem solved on page one according to league rules. What are we doing re-writing the constitution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all like a good debate MV. Your a commish what would you have done

 

 

It's circumstances like these that make us think "What if". I love getting any advice i can to better our league rules for the future, it really takes years to institute a bullet proff constitution. I don't have a law degree, where's Squeegie?

[i_am_the_swammi]

 

I'm confused on why many here think it's okay if i use my opinon to say the deal is okay based on what i believe could or couldn't happen, yet if i say the deal is not okay based on my own opinon as well, i'm wrong. Seems i damned if i do or damned if i don't using that philosophy.

 

 

You are correct, it is the system in place that is broke. Asking you, as one person, to be the deciding factor as to whether a deal is allowed to go to vote is rubbish.

 

In our league, any trade is up for veto. 12-man league, and if 8 or more coaches voice an opposing opinion, the deal is reversed. And I guess it is with the maturity of our league that very few trades have ever been vetoed. Most teams know that if they want their own trades to go through, they better not veto other deals (unless its for very good reason).

 

This particular deal was weighted towards one team this season (and this might not even be the case...we'll see if Dillon holds up, and how many TDs Jacobs gets), but weighted even greater towards the other team going forward. I would be insulted if I was the coach getting Maroney...your veto means to imply he mad a bad deal, and I think he comes out on top. You should let him know that many on this board think the deal is, at worst, even.

 

EVEN BETTER: you should email your league this thread to ensure they realize all the ups and downs of analyzing a trade such as this, as well as the ups and downs of your system. the you should let them re-vote.

 

I would bet anything the outcome would be significantly different.

Edited August 19, 2006 by i_am_the_swammi

[i_am_the_swammi]

here are the rosters

 

C Frye,M Hasselbeck

M Jones-Drew,F Taylor,R Droughns,L White

S Holmes,M Muhammad,R White,M Jenkins,M Jones,L Fitzgerald,T.J. Houshmandzadeh

V Davis,K Winslow

P Dawson

D Browns,D Bears

 

 

 

This guy was out his $150 well before the trade

 

Even more reason to let him try to build for the future. Kudos to him for making the deal, and kudos to the other owner who saw an opportunity to win it all this year and go for it. Opportuntiy knocks, you let 'em in!

[McBoog]

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.

 

 

 

Hello... Keeper Leagus Brah! It helps him IN THE FUTURE! In the "real" NFL, these types of deals are made, why not here?

 

I could see you maybe wanting a non-refundable deposit toward next season if that is the thinking he might split.

 

BAD RULE that makes you, a player in a league, and you, commish, to make arbitrary decisions. I think you are honorable, but you set yourself up for too many bad blood senarios!

 

STAY OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS AND LET THEM RUN THEIR TEAMS!

[McBoog]

That's another ironic thing about this whole argument...Taylor and Droughns are very questionable starting fantasy backs this year. Hass is steady and consistent but not exactly a unique talent. There are plenty of comparable QBs. Housh is a nice #2 WR. So he's not getting any players that will set the league on fire this year, and he's dumping some very promising young talent that could be huge next year. I think it's a very stupid trade on his part, given the keeper format and money at stake.

 

 

+1

[Raider.Nation]

Hey I agree when it comes to the integrity of the league. Last year 2 clowns tried pulling a trade in a keeper league of my own, that got vetoed by the entire league.

 

They tried trading a free keeper (Ashley Lelie) for Torry Holt (who couldn't be kept). Brutal. That would seriously affect the integrity of the league. If you guys feel the same about this trade, than it needs to be vetoed.

[McBoog]

...Unless you have some type of evidence, a determination of "collusion" involves opinion. Collusion is the most overused and ridiculous term in fantasy football.

 

Truer words could not be said!

 

The league votes on it now. If the owners don't vote with integrity, shame on them, and its time to find a new league.

 

 

I think this is a perfect example of being overly cautious and overly paranoid of everyone playing nice. Too many rules, it is almost like the US Congress... You start to paralyze yourself with your own protocol.

 

Proving "collusion" is almost impossible. Denying this guy the opportunity to build his team for the future in a keeper league is retarded.

 

I with Furd, you deny that trade, I would walk, probably this year and let someone else have my money and play the team for free!

[i_am_the_swammi]

They tried trading a free keeper (Ashley Lelie) for Torry Holt (who couldn't be kept). Brutal. That would seriously affect the integrity of the league. If you guys feel the same about this trade, than it needs to be vetoed.

 

 

Your trade should have been vetoed. I would think most agree there is major difference in trading for a projected stud like Maroney, and a WR like Lelie who by most concensus accounts would NEVER be considered a keeper (and is probably available on waiver wire about now).

[theeohiostate]

Your trade should have been vetoed. I would think most agree there is major difference in trading for a projected stud like Maroney, and a WR like Lelie who by most concensus accounts would NEVER be considered a keeper (and is probably available on waiver wire about now).

 

 

 

your using your judgement..........something your shunning me for doing as well. It's one thing to say my judgement was wrong, but to say it can be used in one instance and not in another is hypocritical.

 

I mean why veto that trade and not the one i did? Really like some of you have said, it's for the future, imo Lelie could be a stud next year, worth much more then CJ even.

 

Seems that many feel it's okay to use your judgement...............provided it agrees with others.

Edited August 19, 2006 by theeohiostate

[McBoog]

your using your judgement..........something your shunning me for doing as well. It's one thing to say my judgement was wrong, but to say it can be used in one instance and not in another is hypocritical.

 

 

 

What I am saying is that you, OR the league, should NOT be in the loop. I tshould be based on the teams involved with the deal and ONLY those teams. Do the Raiders get to "veto" a trade the Broncos make?

 

Unless it is the end of the year and the trade is LT for Derek Hagen, with LT going to a team in the playoffs, you gotta let the GMs run their teams!

Edited August 19, 2006 by McBoog

[TDFFFreak]

This is the problem with keeper leagues. Just like in the NFL or other pro sports, a team that feels it is no good must look to the future and, at the same time, makes another team more powerful for that season (or beyond). I think you have to live with the trade and understand that these things are often a part of a keeper league that allows you to hold onto 3 or more players. For this reason, I am not a big fan of a dynasty/keeper leagues.

Edited August 19, 2006 by TDFFFreak

[theeohiostate]

What I am saying is that you, OR the league, should NOT be in the loop. I tshould be based on the teams involved with the deal and ONLY those teams. Do the Raiders get to "veto" a trade the Broncos make?

 

Unless it is the end of the year and the trade is LT for Derek Hagen, with LT going to a team in the playoffs, you gotta let the GMs run their teams!

 

 

 

 

have no problem with this and if your league allows all trades to go through without reviewal then so be it, ours doesn't. Like so many judgements being made about my decision, i had to make a judgement about the trade and i decided to veto and send to a vote.

[McBoog]

have no problem with this and if your league allows all trades to go through without reviewal then so be it, ours doesn't. Like so many judgements being made about my decision, i had to make a judgement about the trade and i decided to veto and send to a vote.

 

 

I understand this and believe you have acted correctly

 

I just think you have some league issues that need to be streamlined and addressed for next year to get you and the other owners out of each other's business.

 

Good Luck, with the issues you are facing as a Commish already this year, I don't envy you. These are the types of years that can turn out to be looooooong instead of FUN!

Edited August 19, 2006 by McBoog

[jaxfactor]

dude, you are stressing!

so are what you saying above (in bold) is that you are going to veto almost any borderline deal so as to not violate the leagues right to vote?

 

Worse, are you going to succomb to league pressure when you DON'T veto a deal, and another owner approaches you and demands his right to vote?? You better prepare for this scenario to unfold in your league, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

 

If its a complete democracy, why bother even having a commish????

 

 

The next trade that comes along and goes through without a vote, there may be an owner who wonders why he didn't get a chance to vote on the new trade, referring to this trade. The way I see it, you are opening up a door here where every trade will get voted on. If that's what you want out of your league, so be it. Get ready for endless votes, vetoes, complaints, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with this trade in a keeper league. It's going to be a long season once you open the door, and it looks like you have. Good luck.

[theeohiostate]

The next trade that comes along and goes through without a vote, there may be an owner who wonders why he didn't get a chance to vote on the new trade, referring to this trade. The way I see it, you are opening up a door here where every trade will get voted on. If that's what you want out of your league, so be it. Get ready for endless votes, vetoes, complaints, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with this trade in a keeper league. It's going to be a long season once you open the door, and it looks like you have. Good luck.

 

 

 

agree the possibiltiy is there, i have played with most of these guys for several years and 2 of them for only 1 season, but the league has shown support for my veto with several emails thanking me for doing so. The owner wanting to build for the future is getting plenty of trade offers now that should be much more acceptable. He'll get a deal done and be happy, he's also expressed to me, he's not at all upset with my veto, he simply wants to build for the future. I have no doubt our league will be perfectly fine. I have also introduced the idea to the league of auto trade approval or complete voting process where majority rules.

[StormChasers]

Secondly, my rules state that if the commish thinks the trade doesn't benefit each team he must veto. Now if your suggesting that YOU feel this trade is well balanced then i'd say, i'd love to play in your league anytime

 

 

Sorry TOS but your dead wrong in what you're doing. Whether this trade is balanced or not is not the question because 3 years from now it could be balanced or it could be beneficial to the fuy getting the young RB's. The question is does this benefit each team. For this year and if an owner was playing for this year the answer is No. But when an owner tells you that he is playing for the future this absolutely benefits his team for the future.

 

You vetoing this trade is dead wrong and I absolutely wouldn't blame the owner leaving the league and asking for his money back. You have no right to tell an owner how to run his team.

[StormChasers]

I think all trades should go to the league for a vote. Like a guy said earlier, if you can't trust 6 guys to get it right, you should disband the league.

 

 

This is just as stupid as having a Commish the power to say yes or no to a trade. No trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion. All trades should be allowed unless there are at least 3 owners who question a trade's validity and hen take it to a vote. Otherwise all trades should be processed. Even when a trade is questioned it really should evolve around collusion.