What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Important Commish Decision (1 Viewer)

Fair trade? like league voting?

  • Total voters
    99
Dirk Digler

Dirk Digler

Footballguy
OK...

Need some help on this. I have been a longtime commish. Seldom have any issues, while people complain or whine from time to time about trades, I never veto them. Being involved in this and sticking to my belief that if a trade is not collusion, I will not veto it. I've always believed people should be free to manage their teams as they see fit. If the owners belive that a trade helps them, they should be able to make it. This is a small buy in league, all owners have been involved for years.

Here's the situation...

PPR league + performance league. 1 per 10, 6 per TD (WR/RB) 1 per 20, 4 per TD (QB) bonus pts at 125 yards for WR/RB 350 for QB passing.

Team 1 drafted Philip Rivers as a 2nd QB with the intention of trading him (also drafted Aaron Rodgers as QB1) for a top tier WR. That was his draft strategy.

Because of the Manning fiasco, He got that opportunity.

This was a trade that was proposed to me by team 1:

I give Andre Johnson, Ryan Grant (offer prior to last nights game) and the throw in was PManning who was being dropped for a waiver QB (sanchez, fitzpatrick)

I get Rivers (team 1 backup), Best (team 1 bench), Manningham

Normally, I am very much against the league vote option. It's abused in many leagues and as I mentioned Ive always been of the opion that if its not outright cheating, then trades shouldnt be questioned. IN the years Ive been doing this, there has never really been a problem.

The specific owner who is pitching a fit, is one that questions almost every trade. He says that he has quit a bunch of leagues before becuase he doesnt agree with trades, so I take it with a grain of salt. I tried to ask myself if I werent involved in the trade, as a commish would I veto the trade... Im really on the fence about it. I dont know that I would as it does improve both teams starting lineups... (Team 1's best WR is manningham and he has virtually no one else (sidney rice, etc) Can provide entire rosters upon request. Start up to 4 WR's or 3 RB's (2/2 + 2 flex one is WR/TE flex)

Two questions, Is the trade outright unfair to the league? and do you like league vote's on all trades?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell the whiny tool to Quit so you don't have to deal with him any more

ETA: Where is this an "ethics" issue? because the commish is trading? :confused:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see anything wrong with this trade, some owners just can't except when other owners make good trades. It is a very fair trade.

 
Which side does the league do they feel is taking advantage? Best and Manningham could both have huge years.

 
'belljr said:
Tell the whiny tool to Quit so you don't have to deal with him any moreETA: Where is this an "ethics" issue? because the commish is trading? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah, as the commish and being involved in the trade. Being told as commish that I am taking advantage of people and ripping them off. Also, as the only person with veto power, not veto'ing it is cheating.
'jon_mx said:
Which side does the league do they feel is taking advantage? Best and Manningham could both have huge years.
Click to expand...
I am giving up AJ / Grant getting Best/Mannighm/riversHis stand is that I am ripping off the other owner and taking advantage of him (dispite him propsing it)
 
'Dirk Digler said:
'belljr said:
Tell the whiny tool to Quit so you don't have to deal with him any more

ETA: Where is this an "ethics" issue? because the commish is trading? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah, as the commish and being involved in the trade. Being told as commish that I am taking advantage of people and ripping them off. Also, as the only person with veto power, not veto'ing it is cheating.
'jon_mx said:
Which side does the league do they feel is taking advantage? Best and Manningham could both have huge years.
Click to expand...
I am giving up AJ / Grant getting Best/Mannighm/riversHis stand is that I am ripping off the other owner and taking advantage of him (dispite him propsing it)
Click to expand...
Tell him that right as you kick him out.
 
I don't see a problem with the trade. But here's a better one involving Manning. This is a dynasty league by the way with an IR spot.

Team A drops Manning and picks up Lex Hilliard (having several other drop-able players IMO)

Team B, who happens to be online at the time, immediately grabs Manning for a kicker.

:rolleyes:

There's been some discussion but nobody believes collusion took place. The alternative is just as disappointing I guess

:nerd: <---- Team A

EDIT: sorry for the distraction....carry on

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trade is fine.

For future reference, in the league I commish, I create a fluid two-man appeals committee to deal with cases that either affect me or general appeals of my decisions. These are the top two finishers from the previous season and excluding anyone directly involved in the dispute. Anything other than a 2-0 vote to overturn my decision gets affirmed. It has been used exactly once since I created it in 1997 but it's comforting for others to know the process exists.

 
'Joe Summer said:
The other owner is upgrading his WRs without a downgrade at any other starting position. How is that a rip off? Is Best his #1 RB or something??
Click to expand...
No, Best is on his bench right now.
footballnerd]='1315598888' post='13515962 said:
good trade. delete the whiners account by tomorrow
Click to expand...
He's a very good friend. I wouldn't do that. Him threatening to quit and being a @&$^#* about it put me in a really bad spot though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Dirk Digler said:
OK...

Need some help on this. I have been a longtime commish. Seldom have any issues, while people complain or whine from time to time about trades, I never veto them. Being involved in this and sticking to my belief that if a trade is not collusion, I will not veto it. I've always believed people should be free to manage their teams as they see fit. If the owners belive that a trade helps them, they should be able to make it. This is a small buy in league, all owners have been involved for years.

Here's the situation...

PPR league + performance league. 1 per 10, 6 per TD (WR/RB) 1 per 20, 4 per TD (QB) bonus pts at 125 yards for WR/RB 350 for QB passing.

Team 1 drafted Philip Rivers as a 2nd QB with the intention of trading him (also drafted Aaron Rodgers as QB1) for a top tier WR. That was his draft strategy.

Because of the Manning fiasco, He got that opportunity.

This was a trade that was proposed to me by team 1:

I give Andre Johnson, Ryan Grant (offer prior to last nights game) and the throw in was PManning who was being dropped for a waiver QB (sanchez, fitzpatrick)

I get Rivers (team 1 backup), Best (team 1 bench), Manningham

Normally, I am very much against the league vote option. It's abused in many leagues and as I mentioned Ive always been of the opion that if its not outright cheating, then trades shouldnt be questioned. IN the years Ive been doing this, there has never really been a problem.

The specific owner who is pitching a fit, is one that questions almost every trade. He says that he has quit a bunch of leagues before becuase he doesnt agree with trades, so I take it with a grain of salt. I tried to ask myself if I werent involved in the trade, as a commish would I veto the trade... Im really on the fence about it. I dont know that I would as it does improve both teams starting lineups... (Team 1's best WR is manningham and he has virtually no one else (sidney rice, etc) Can provide entire rosters upon request. Start up to 4 WR's or 3 RB's (2/2 + 2 flex one is WR/TE flex)

Two questions, Is the trade outright unfair to the league? and do you like league vote's on all trades?
Click to expand...
The Trade is fine. But that being said, the other owner is a moron. You lost Manning and need Rivers. You would probably accept AJ for Rivers and Manningham or possibly even AJ for Rivers. You are the one in trouble and you are the one who is getting the far better end of this deal. Then he could move Best or Best and Manningham for additional help.
 
Show the complaining owner this thread and update us after you get his response, for the life of me, I just don't understand what he is complaining about. I have seen some bad trades, savvy owners taking advantage of guppies, but this is actually one of the trades where you just don't have a winner, looks pretty even to me. Nice trade for both owners.

 
I've been a commish for 21 years. Mostly friends and co-workers in the league. Since the scoring was done on paper. I've seen some instances (not many) of collusion. This is not one. The people complaining should expect the same ability to make good trades as they are refusing to your team.

Owners that are not commissioners should not be able to vote - period. Their job is to win with their OWN team. If you need another opinion - get an outside party. Other owners are never the answer. Peace.

 
You don't have anything to worry about on this one. There's no way that a reasonable person thinks that trade is not to the gametime benefit of both teams. Even if the guy gave up more than he probably needed to, that's his judgment call.

You should implement a process for how commish duties are handled when you are one of the owners involved.

I would have a sit down with the complaining owner and explain that the league lets owners do as they wish so long as collusion is not involved. If he is challenging the trade then he is essentially asking the league to investigate you and the other owner to see if you are cheating. If he does not suspect cheating then he doesn't have a basis to expect the league to do anything.

If he can't abide by a league that handles trades like that, then let him know your league might not be what he's looking for..

 
'dagwood said:
'Dirk Digler said:
OK...

Need some help on this. I have been a longtime commish. Seldom have any issues, while people complain or whine from time to time about trades, I never veto them. Being involved in this and sticking to my belief that if a trade is not collusion, I will not veto it. I've always believed people should be free to manage their teams as they see fit. If the owners belive that a trade helps them, they should be able to make it. This is a small buy in league, all owners have been involved for years.

Here's the situation...

PPR league + performance league. 1 per 10, 6 per TD (WR/RB) 1 per 20, 4 per TD (QB) bonus pts at 125 yards for WR/RB 350 for QB passing.

Team 1 drafted Philip Rivers as a 2nd QB with the intention of trading him (also drafted Aaron Rodgers as QB1) for a top tier WR. That was his draft strategy.

Because of the Manning fiasco, He got that opportunity.

This was a trade that was proposed to me by team 1:

I give Andre Johnson, Ryan Grant (offer prior to last nights game) and the throw in was PManning who was being dropped for a waiver QB (sanchez, fitzpatrick)

I get Rivers (team 1 backup), Best (team 1 bench), Manningham

Normally, I am very much against the league vote option. It's abused in many leagues and as I mentioned Ive always been of the opion that if its not outright cheating, then trades shouldnt be questioned. IN the years Ive been doing this, there has never really been a problem.

The specific owner who is pitching a fit, is one that questions almost every trade. He says that he has quit a bunch of leagues before becuase he doesnt agree with trades, so I take it with a grain of salt. I tried to ask myself if I werent involved in the trade, as a commish would I veto the trade... Im really on the fence about it. I dont know that I would as it does improve both teams starting lineups... (Team 1's best WR is manningham and he has virtually no one else (sidney rice, etc) Can provide entire rosters upon request. Start up to 4 WR's or 3 RB's (2/2 + 2 flex one is WR/TE flex)

Two questions, Is the trade outright unfair to the league? and do you like league vote's on all trades?
Click to expand...
The Trade is fine. But that being said, the other owner is a moron. You lost Manning and need Rivers. You would probably accept AJ for Rivers and Manningham or possibly even AJ for Rivers. You are the one in trouble and you are the one who is getting the far better end of this deal. Then he could move Best or Best and Manningham for additional help.
Click to expand...
Thats pretty much it - The other owner has u by the short and curlys and he letting u off the hook.
 
I fully believe owners should be free to make whatever trades they want even if other people think they are bad so long as their is no collusion

League votes are narf

 
'Shadows said:
Thats pretty much it - The other owner has u by the short and curlys and he letting u off the hook.
Click to expand...
No, that's the thing. He doesn't. I also have jay cutler. While others disagree I like cutler this year and think He is more the adequate. Actually my opinion of him is very high. Compared to the collective masses my opinion of rivers is not that high. So I don't see a huge gap there. See rivers as top 5 QB, Cutler as top 10. What pushed me to accept is the fact that I also have Austin collie in a flex spot. Best is now an option for that spot. With the QB situation, even if cutler for some reason did not work out, I can acquire someone during the early season via waivers or find another trade partner that has a very playable option at QB that would not cost me Andre Johnson. I didn't feel like I was in a position of desperation and I was ok dealing with cutler and finding a flex if collie turns out to be crap without manning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Dirk Digler said:
'Shadows said:
Thats pretty much it - The other owner has u by the short and curlys and he letting u off the hook.
Click to expand...
No, that's the thing. He doesn't. I also have jay cutler. While others disagree I like cutler this year and think He is more the adequate. Actually my opinion of him is very high. Compared to the collective masses my opinion of rivers is not that high. So I don't see a huge gap there. See rivers as top 5 QB, Cutler as top 10. What pushed me to accept is the fact that I also have Austin collie in a flex spot. Best is now an option for that spot. With the QB situation, even if cutler for some reason did not work out, I can acquire someone during the early season via waivers or find another trade partner that has a very playable option at QB that would not cost me Andre Johnson. I didn't feel like I was in a position of desperation and I was ok dealing with cutler and finding a flex if collie turns out to be crap without manning.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAOI dare you to not make this trade and go to war with Jay Cutler.OMGROFLMAOToo Funnyand you will find no one remotely close to Philip Rivers and you will be at a disadvantage every week at QB. Woop it up brother. You are making an awesome trade for you!!! Run don't walk and hit the accept button before the other guy reads this thread or talks to someone about the trade.
 
'Dirk Digler said:
OK...

The specific owner who is pitching a fit, is one that questions almost every trade. He says that he has quit a bunch of leagues before becuase he doesnt agree with trades, ...

Two questions, Is the trade outright unfair to the league? and do you like league vote's on all trades?
Click to expand...
:thumbup: :thumbup: Before posting this, I studied the trade offer from all angles I could for 15 minutes. Think I like it--would Definitely like it if you held onto that "throw-in Manning" in hopes of possible playoff magic. I really didn't want to read any of the other responses yet in case they tainted my thinking--so this has likely been said: Let him quit.

As for your questions--no and no imo.

eta--love this place! :cool:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the OP just wanted to get some discussion on the actual trade.

A) There is absolutely NOTHING "unfair" about this trade. The notion that trades have to look fair is ridiculous. As long as no collusion is involved owners should be able to make whatever trades they want. PERIOD.

B) League votes on trades are stupid and an inherent conflict of interest. IF you have a competent commish, there is NO REASON to engage in this silly practice.

If this is an honest question then the Commish needs to grow a pair, make the trade he wants, and tell the loser who is complaining to get lost. Unbelievable that this is even a question.

 
Trade is not unfair, but to shadows' and dagwood's point, "not unfair" is not the same as equal value. You got tremendous value considering your circumstances, so don't overplay your hand

 
This trade is not even close to unfair. I did something very similar in an auction draft, having already won Rivers and trying to price enforce a very low bid on Rodgers, ended up winning him, too. Cost me at WR, so I was in trade mode at that point. Ended up moving Rodgers for Roddy White and Mike Thomas. The trade helped both teams, but two owners in my division whined incessantly for a week before the trade finally went through. They even outright said they didn't like the trade because it made both teams better. It's nothing short of cheating to try to stop a trade for that reason. Finish your trade deal and sleep well with your improved chances of winning.

 
Oh, and league votes on trades are a HORRIBLE idea and actually encourage collusion among competing owners on the veto side. Owners just need to manage their own teams and not try to block others from improving in good faith.

 
Perfectly fine trade.

You're giving up the best player in the trade in AJ.

The crybaby pitching a fit is the type of person who ruins leagues and makes life difficult for commissioners.

 
'Bronco Nation said:
Oh, and league votes on trades are a HORRIBLE idea and actually encourage collusion among competing owners on the veto side. Owners just need to manage their own teams and not try to block others from improving in good faith.
Click to expand...
My big-money league grants every owner veto power, and if a trade gets 3 or 4 vetoes it gets sent to the commissioner for approval. I hate it. First of all, there is a guaranteed 2 vetoes from 2 owners in our league. They veto every trade b/c they just don't like people trading. Luckily I can't remember the last time a trade didn't go through, but it's still really annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wlwiles
Commish/Platform Help needed
Replies
11
Views
469
need2know
need2know
Judge Smails
  • Poll
Would you veto this trade?
Replies
34
Views
1K
beef
beef
S
  • Poll
14 teams...12 teams...10 teams -- Sell my league on SUPERFLEX
Replies
12
Views
501
markrc99
markrc99

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top