BeeR Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) Just wondering PS on 2d choice what I meant was there is some combo of the vote and commish input that decides (with I'd think the vote usually being how the commish decides) Edited May 31, 2007 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) I am commish and have been in my local since 2001 when I finally decided to create my own league... I make the decisions on what is fair and what isn't... I let everything go unless there is obvious collusion involved......and even then, I let it go in one instance because I was in 1st place and wanted to stomp out their 'super-team' anyways... they were banned after that season and joined another league where there are 2 other groups of people that built a super team....and their league is a joke...you have about 3 or 4 super teams and about 4 garbage teams with a few others left out of the loop.... I even banned that leagues commish from my league and he's running that joke league like he ran his team.. edit: actually...I usually talk to a few other owners who are knowledgable....so it's not like I run the league like I am god.. Edited May 31, 2007 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 In my local, which is made up primarily of college friends, I as commish let everything go unless an owner complains about it. If there is a complaint, which I let owners make anonymously to me if they wish, I have them state their reasons they feel the trade is unfair, and I then broadcast to the league that a challenge has been made to the validity of a trade and it goes to a league vote. In the 10 years or so that the league has been running, it has happened once, and this league has a lot of trading. I actually was involved in the trade (i'd have to do some research to recall the details), and all I had done was accept an offer made to me. The vote overwhelmingly (8-2) let the trade stand. The mian point of contention was that the one player I was getting was better than the 2 or 3 I was giving up. As it turns out, the player I got flamed out and the ones I traded away blew up that season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 It's kind of hard to block trades even very bad ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 It's kind of hard to block trades even very bad ones. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AquaticRay Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I let all trades go thru unless I can prove collusion. If I can prove collusion I toss both owners, Confiscate the teams involved. I then find new owners for the teams. That is included in the rules of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 NOT like CM's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) In one of my leagues, anyone can call BS on a trade and ask for a vote. (This rarely happens) At which time, the trade is put up to a vote and the majority rules. I don't think I've ever seen a trade over turned after 14 years in the same league. Edited May 31, 2007 by NAUgrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I let all trades go thru unless I can prove collusion. Bingo. You cannot void a trade based on stupidity. Collusion, IF you can EVER prove it, is another thing. Good luck with that though. The only trade I voided that was not collusion (proved that once) was when a guy traded up to the #2 overall in exchange for a copy of his cheat shet at the auction. Clearly, that's not within the scope of what can be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 We had a guy lose Marvin Harrison on the golf course. Commish let it go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "How does your league deal with questionable trades, or other issues?" Rule 14.2.59 (in one league I am in) states that the offending owners are taken out and shot. The rule then goes on to say how we get rid of the bodies, etc. The usual stuff for FFL's that take the game serious. Oddly enough... we have never had a questionable trade. On the other side of the coin.... another league I am in requires three people, out of 16, request a leaguewide vote. Trying to remember.....but I don't think we have ever had a trade negated. No requests...the Player Commissioner goes ahead and approves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramhock Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) Home league, I am God. FLS: 1) We have a very long drawnout, immature discussion. 2) People threaten to quit. 3) HoPpy fedexes blunts to all owners. 4) We forget what we were discussing. 5) Big F'n Dave does what he wants. Gotta go, just thought of a possible rule change. Edited May 31, 2007 by Ramhock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 In my local, which is made up primarily of college friends, I as commish let everything go unless an owner complains about it. If there is a complaint, which I let owners make anonymously to me if they wish, I have them state their reasons they feel the trade is unfair, and I then broadcast to the league that a challenge has been made to the validity of a trade and it goes to a league vote. My league deals with it similarly to the way BC's does but the way this was stated was perfect. I'm going to install this as our rule in my new BoTH League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Bingo. You cannot void a trade based on stupidity. Collusion, IF you can EVER prove it, is another thing. Good luck with that though. The only trade I voided that was not collusion (proved that once) was when a guy traded up to the #2 overall in exchange for a copy of his cheat shet at the auction. Clearly, that's not within the scope of what can be traded. Exactly. Even if it goes to a vote most won't vote against a trade because he wouldn't want his traded voided. Intentional tanking and colusion are hard to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 It's kind of hard to block trades even very bad ones. I agree with this to a point in cases where its not obvious collusion . Sometimes , especially early in the year, people try and trade for "big name guys" by offering up a lesser name that may be off to a very good start. If a team is trying to sell high like this with no names and looking for big names it makes it a tough call..In my main local I am commish and I have total control over trade approval. I havent had many problems over they years with people crying foul over my decisions . Occassionally you get a guy that offers lopsided trades and will hit you with the "You dont have a crystal ball comment" when you say althought the numbers may jive right now when you look at trends at the end of the day this trade will not be fair..Early last year Kevan Barlow had more tds then a lot of the big name rbs if someone tried to sell you on numbers in a trade that you feel will be lopsided it makes it tricky..Like rockin a rhyme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 The way we tend to handle these issues is by bickering and fighting about them endlessly until one party gets worn out and decides to hold a personal grudge against the other party. The party that holds the grudge then sides with somebody else in the league in opposition to the other party until the eternally unresolved issue or a similar eternally unresolved issue arises again, in which case the cycle begins anew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 We had this issue in one of my leagues not too long ago.. Our rules state that if 2 or more owners want to request a vote to veto the trade, then we vote. A simple majority of 7 (in 12 team league) yes votes and the trade stands. In this situation, we had 7 yes votes, and 5 no votes. The trade stood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 The biggest fable in fantasy sports states that the only reason to veto a trade is collusion. When an idiot owner trades a contending team a stud for nothing, the trade will be voted on and most likely vetoed, especially if it is the same few teams that keep trading. It isn't fair to the other good owners in our league that the worst owner just happens to be the cousin of one of the top owners, especially considering the amounts of money that fantasy leagues are charging nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 The biggest fable in fantasy sports states that the only reason to veto a trade is collusion. When an idiot owner trades a contending team a stud for nothing, the trade will be voted on and most likely vetoed, especially if it is the same few teams that keep trading. It isn't fair to the other good owners in our league that the worst owner just happens to be the cousin of one of the top owners, especially considering the amounts of money that fantasy leagues are charging nowadays. I have to agree with this somewhat. We have alot of borderline BS trades in our league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 The biggest fable in fantasy sports states that the only reason to veto a trade is collusion. When an idiot owner trades a contending team a stud for nothing, the trade will be voted on and most likely vetoed, especially if it is the same few teams that keep trading. It isn't fair to the other good owners in our league that the worst owner just happens to be the cousin of one of the top owners, especially considering the amounts of money that fantasy leagues are charging nowadays. if someone is an idiot and does a dumb trade, I let them go.... I am not here to babysit... collusion is when 2 people primarily deal with one another and they keep doing lopsided trades......and they also don't deal with others unless they rip them off and continue to build their super-team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Option #3 but a trade has to be challenged. Each owner gets one and only one challenge per year. If anyone starts whining, you ask if they want to use their challenge. Then you see how serious they are. I think lots of times people just want to complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I've played in the same 3 leagues for the past 6 years. 2 are re-draft leagues and 1 is a "franchise league". The WHOLE problem with leaving the commissioner in charge or the final say on a trade is this: In one of my re-draft leagues (my favorite one) last season durring about week 6, I was desperate for a RB who was producing. The commissioner offered me a trade of: B Westbrook and M Colston for T Barber, L Jordan, and P Burress.. I was already stacked at the WR position and Westbrook was a step up from Barber cause Westy actually got IN the endzone and didnt just see it. I accepted it on Sportsline and it was just pending the commissioner's approval. Like I said, the guy I was trading with WAS the commissioner. He called me that night to tell me that he was getting on his computer to process it, but then had to go cause he had another phone call. Well come to find out, that phone call was from another member in our league, and a close friend of his. I kept refreshing my team page so I could make the appropriate lineup changes for the upcomming week. After about an hour I refreshed it, and it said that my trade was "VETOED" by the commissioner and about 2 minutes later, there was a trade that was accepted and processed BY the commissioner for a trade with him and his buddy. He gave up the same 2 players - Westy and Colston for F Gore, C Taylor, and R Wayne. I was FURIOUS!!! I sent out an email to the entire league letting everyone know what just happened, and that the commisioner used his veto priviledges to better his team after a trade had already been accepted and waiting to be processed. He then fired back and told me that he would have done this for anyone out there. B.S.!! We shared some pretty nasty words, and he was upset at me for telling HIS league that he has ran for the past 12 years that he is a cheater. I just told him the proof is in the transaction report. Anyway, the only way that we could get past this was he refunded me my $150 league entry fee and left my team intact. He stayed true to it and put the best lineup each week in there for my old team, but low and behold, he not only won the championship but he also won the points pot as well. So he got 100% or $1800 in this league. I guess my whole point here is BE CAREFUL of what your league rules are, and BE SURE that you have a trustworthy and honest commissioner if trades are up to his final approval. Yes I'm still bitter about this. We are still friends - not near as good as we used to be, but I will NEVER again play in another one of his leagues. Oh well.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 The biggest fable in fantasy sports states that the only reason to veto a trade is collusion. When an idiot owner trades a contending team a stud for nothing, the trade will be voted on and most likely vetoed, especially if it is the same few teams that keep trading. It isn't fair to the other good owners in our league that the worst owner just happens to be the cousin of one of the top owners, especially considering the amounts of money that fantasy leagues are charging nowadays. This type of action is collusion, and absolutely the trade should be voted on and the owners disciplined for their actions appropriately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Bingo. You cannot void a trade based on stupidity. Could not disagree with this more. I'm in the minority I know, but I will not allow a dumb-ass trade to be made, collusion or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Its is the commish's job to assemble enough people where a 'bad trade' is never an issue. If ever there is a league put together where the commish is jonzing for owners and takes on some newbies - I think that trades should be taken out of the equation until said newbie learns what real value is. Otherwise, everybody is going to try to take advantage of the newbie. An ounce of prevention and all that good stuff. 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.