Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Aren't vetoing owners playing "what if" every time they veto a non-collusive trade? By playing "what if" by vetoing, doens't that obligate them to owe the injured owner something more than, "Gee, I screwed up by thinking I knew a lot more about FF than you. Sorry about you losing that prize money."? another scenario is if you have a deadbeat owner.... but the commish is also at fault here for not rectifying the problem sooner.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) another scenario is if you have a deadbeat owner.... but the commish is also at fault here for not rectifying the problem sooner.. I'm admittedly guitly on that account - this year, in fact (as a commish not removing an owner soon enough). That seems a bit murkier, though, since its tough to tell exactly when an owner becomes a dead beat unless they fully participate in a league every week until one week when they simply completely stop their activity and then perhaps end up starting bye week players through that inactivity. It's still kind of murky even then - what happens if there was a family emergency just before the weekend and an owner couldn't tend to their team that week, but ended up getting removed. In any case, it's a different discussion than the one I proposed and it seems dubious that the notorious vetoers on this board haven't justified their positions. Edited November 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I'm admittedly guitly on that account - this year, in fact (as a commish not removing an owner soon enough). That seems a bit murkier, though, since its tough to tell exactly when an owner becomes a dead beat unless they fully participate in a league every week until one week when they simply completely stop their activity and then perhaps end up starting bye week players through that inactivity. It's still kind of murky even then - what happens if there was a family emergency just before the weekend and an owner couldn't tend to their team that week, but ended up getting removed. In any case, it's a different discussion than the one I proposed and it seems dubious that the notorious vetoers on this board haven't justified their positions. I vetoed a trade because of a deadbeat owner who was involved with a lopsided trade that was pretty obvious to be collusion.... the owner who was "helping him out" admitted to this... but I got my head cut off here for it....which is fine... not rectifying the situation of an owner who hadn't paid up by week 7 was my fault..... but he paid up afterwards and a trade went through.... it's just fudged up that I had to veto a trade because of this....on top of the obvious collusion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 You mean they aren't even owed their league dues when they can't run their team as they see fit and it costs them money? But, you're talking about 1 veto. A veto where two teams are in essence being told they can't make a trade. Not all the teams. That was your hypothetical. You said this wasn't about the veto, it was about whether someone was owed money. I'm saying no they're not owed money, because that's the way that league was set up. The next season, change the rules, or leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I vetoed a trade because of a deadbeat owner who was involved with a lopsided trade that was pretty obvious to be collusion.... the owner who was "helping him out" admitted to this... Off topic, but why would you get drilled for that? One owner even admitted collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Off topic, but why would you get drilled for that? One owner even admitted collusion. he said it was the guys 1st year in the league and wanted to help him out.. I understood that as I help out a lot of 1st time owners in my league.. I just don't do it by making trades....I help them out with who to pick up as a FA and etc.. he went about it all wrong.. I think you've seen the thread... it was umm.. Hasselbeck, Welker, Ward and Bush for Randy Moss.... when the owner paid up....the trade went through excluding wes Welker.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 In any case, it's a different discussion than the one I proposed and it seems dubious that the notorious vetoers on this board haven't justified their positions. I don't understand why a justification is necessary. If a group of owners (presumably half or at the very least a third of those in the league) see enough of a problem with a prospective deal, then there are more than likely issues with it, right? The way the league is setup there is some sort of mechanism in place for allowing owners to approve/reject something for a reason, and if owners exercise their options with that mechanism, that's their prerogative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Please illuminate how it makes sense that a group of owners can block a trade. Every owner in the league not involved in the trade has a self-interest in not seeing a trade go through. That immediately biases them in any vote on a trade. Then why allow them to vote on it in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Consider this scenario...should this be vetoed. or allowed to stand? Our league is a keeper league, but you can only keep 1 player from each position (1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR) Owner A has been eliminated from the playoffs, despite a strong set of RBs. Bad h-to-h match-ups, poor starts, and the guy is saddles with a 3-7 record. He has both Sjax and LJ on his roster. He has decided he wants to keep LJ as his keeper, so rather than lose SJax at the end of the year, he traded Sjax to another owner for his 6th round pick next year. The other owner now has Addai & Sjax as his RBs heading into the playoffs, having given up almost nothing to add a stud RB. Is it fair to the league to allow this to happen? Obviously the trade benefits both teams, as the owner giving up Sjax would get nothing if he just released hima t the end of the year...a 6th rounder is better than nothing, right? But as a Commish, would you veto this deal, even though no collusion is apparent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I don't understand why a justification is necessary. If a group of owners (presumably half or at the very least a third of those in the league) see enough of a problem with a prospective deal, then there are more than likely issues with it, right? The way the league is setup there is some sort of mechanism in place for allowing owners to approve/reject something for a reason, and if owners exercise their options with that mechanism, that's their prerogative. That's fine, if the league allows for it. But if their judgment is wrong and an owner does not get money he would have won if the trade had been allowed, at a minimum isn't their a moral obligation to compensate that owner? That the owner benefited the way he did against conventional wisdom is proof simple that the veto was wrongly applied in the first place. Unless, of course, you are advocating undeniably unethical behavior for one's own benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Then why allow them to vote on it in the first place? :lightbulbgoeson: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Is it fair to the league to allow this to happen? Absolutely. Why would it be unfair that the rest of the league didn't recognize the plight of the 3-7 owner and offer him something better than a future 6th rounder for SJax? Edited November 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 That's fine, if the league allows for it. But if their judgment is wrong and an owner does not get money he would have won if the trade had been allowed, at a minimum isn't their a moral obligation to compensate that owner? That the owner benefited the way he did against conventional wisdom is proof simple that the veto was wrongly applied in the first place. Unless, of course, you are advocating undeniably unethical behavior for one's own benefit. It's a bummer. And if I was getting my deal vetoed I would make sure and post stats every week and btch to high heaven about it all and probably quit the league. However, what is undeniably unethical about maximizing the rules for one's own benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 However, what is undeniably unethical about maximizing the rules for one's own benefit? So the ends justify the means, eh? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Oooohhh... but it feels so GOOD! When the evil courses through your veins!? AAAHHHHH.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Oooohhh... but it feels so GOOD! When the evil courses through your veins!? AAAHHHHH.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So the ends justify the means, eh? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. I asked what is undeniably unethical about it. If someone wants to veto a trade for whatever reason because that option is available to them, that's the way the rules are set up. So what was the trade you got vetoed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I asked what is undeniably unethical about it. If someone wants to veto a trade for whatever reason because that option is available to them, that's the way the rules are set up. Your position is that it is okay to do anything within the rules for the gain of one's own team and that ethics should be of no consequence? That's unfortunate (IMO, of course). Do you enjoy playing in leagues that operate like this? So what was the trade you got vetoed? Didn't happen to me. It's pretty much a question posed based upon the vetoed trade threads that turn up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nothing can be done except , a , and a . Any maybe a sorry. Even if the trade wasn't vetoed there would be no assurances that said payers would have been started, would have still performed the same, etc. You can play "What If" all you want but it doesn't change the error nor will anything else. Suck it up to life...or if you were the boneheaded commish that pulled the veto, go hide in shame. What if the comissioner ended up winning the whole thing? I would demand my entry fee back and get my cash or extract it from his hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I asked what is undeniably unethical about it. Oh - I didn't answer this question. It's (in my opinion again, of course) unethical to veto a trade based upon the trade being unfair when one can not possibly see into the future and determine the "fairness" of the trade. This hinges upon being reasonable, again, IMO. I'd have a tough time allowing a trade of a RB who is currently a top 10 RB straight up for one who only gets 1-2 carries a game every game despite not knowing the outcome of the entire season if I were given veto power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 You only have past performance to go by when deciding if a trade should be vetoed. That is the only data available to you assuming everyone involved is healthy. Collusion is not the only reason a trade could be vetoed ISMHO. Sometimes an owner may be inexperienced , or lack interest or whatever the case may be where he is just getting hosed on a deal and is too dumb to realize it. Its up to the commish to make sure a major unfair strengthening of a team doesnt happen at the expense of the other owners. For the record I have been commish of my main local for a while now and have never vetoed a trade. I have seen a few that where favoring a team and that was the way it played out but never to the point it was so grossly unfair I had to nix it..But if I did see one like that I would nix it even if collusion wasnt involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think collusion is nearly impossible to prove.....but whos to say all trades should go through. What if an owner in a redraft is frustrated and just says fudge it and trades his stars cause he knows he's out of it. You all would stand for this.....and just accept it that the guy getting these good players just outsmarted you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I've asked this question before ... and people just don't get it. They want everything to be "fair" ... which makes me wonder why they play this game in the first place. If, before the season started, an owner wanted to trade SJax and Gore for Adiran Peterson and Marion Barber because he wanted a younger team many commissioners (like Avernus) would have vetoed this trade because it just wasn't fair to the owner getting Peterson and Barber. Had the trade been allowed to happen the owner getting AP and MBIII would have been vastly improved and IMO is due compensation from the bone-headed commissioner whose crystal ball was apparently broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 You mean they aren't even owed their league dues when they can't run their team as they see fit and it costs them money? No, the rules are set before the league starts. If they are in a league where the commish has solo veto power, and the commish is an idiot, then they should not be in that league. If they are in a league that is a league vote, and all the other owners are idiots, then they should win more than they lose, so thems the breaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Your position is that it is okay to do anything within the rules for the gain of one's own team and that ethics should be of no consequence? My position is that if the rules are setup where I have an option to veto a trade, then it's my prerogative as an owner to veto a deal I don't like. I'm still not following how this is a violation of ethical conduct. 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.