Unbalanced trading (1 Viewer)

[Al Sherry]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

 

[DoubleG]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

 

[comfortably numb]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

unbalanced trades are standard and pose no problems and vetoing trades does more harm than good.

 

[Al Sherry]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

The veto was set up to prevent collusion problems, People usually dont fess up to collusion. Also early in our league the newbies were occasionally taken advantage of, and rather than the Commish make unilateral descisions we sort of let it up to a poll of thew members. Not a perfect system and we may tweak it

 

[HeartoftheLions]

I don't really see what the rule against unbalanced trades really accomplishes... often times you have roster limits anyway correct? So if you are acquiring 3 guys you (and giving up 2) are going to have to cut someone anyway, so basically the person who you would cut just gets placed into the trade to balance it.

Now you are just allowing a team to cut that guy and release him into the open market. Not a big deal imo.

 

[mquinnjr]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I've left leagues over the bolded. It just breeds jealousy amongst the owners with no stones to make trades or their own trade chips, which results in the Vetoes. I'll save the novella cause I could write on this all day, but I will never, ever play in a league that allows owner veto again for that specific reason.

 

[Wadsworth]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I've left leagues over the bolded. It just breeds jealousy amongst the owners with no stones to make trades or their own trade chips, which results in the Vetoes. I'll save the novella cause I could write on this all day, but I will never, ever play in a league that allows owner veto again for that specific reason.

I will play in PPR, IDP, start 2 QB, 10 man, 14 man, best ball, roster lock, TD only; pretty much any type of rule set is fine with me. I will not ever again play in a league where owners vote on trades.

 

[DoubleG]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

The veto was set up to prevent collusion problems

If there is collusion, you kick the cheaters out - and revers the trade. Period. It's really not that hard.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Before you take that 2 for your 1, gotta ask yourself if that 2nd best guy you're getting in return is really that much better than what's already on the waiver wire.

 

[Road Warriors]

Unbalanced trades are fine, and are often the type that can truly make a trade Win/Win for the owners involved. Trading two legit starters for a stud can be great for both teams, depending on their makeup.

And I fully agree with the never play in leagues with league votes on trades sentiment. Too many votes are based on how the trade impacts the voter, not if the trade is beneficial to the owners involved. I see more truly great trades, where both owners improve, get overturned by league votes because the other 10 owners don't want to see the two involved teams get better.

 

[FUBAR]

Before you take that 2 for your 1, gotta ask yourself if that 2nd best guy you're getting in return is really that much better than what's already on the waiver wire.

or what you have to drop.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

 

[bagger]

The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

why?also why the need for "balanced" trades...if you are trading 2 for 1 the person getting more just has to drop someone ahead of time.

 

[bagger]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

The veto was set up to prevent collusion problems

If there is collusion, you kick the cheaters out - and revers the trade. Period. It's really not that hard.

yes. you have league rules to prevent collusion, otherwise all trades stand in my league.

 

[Pantherz]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

They don't veto because it's unfair. They veto because they don't want an opponent to improve his team. It's unfortunate but true. No matter how many times they deny it, it's the way it works.

 

[Ray_T]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I'm not concerning myself with your veto rules in my response.the change wont be a problem. Most pools (ie. yahoo)will notify you upon acceptance of your trade that you need to drop a player (if you sent away 1 and receive 2 or more)as a player you need to be careful about doing this type of trade because those 2 for 1 trades are in effect actually 2 for 2 trades because the person receiving 2 players will be forced to drop a player onto the waiver wire upon completion of the trade. so if you trade me Vick for Eli manning and Robert Turbin, Vick will be replaced by Manning, but you will need to drop your crappiest player to make room for Robert turbin. so it's not actually a 2 for 1 deal because you still have to drop another player. (acknowledge its your worst player on your roster, but it is still a hidden cost to you as the person making the trade)otherwise you should be good to go.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Before you take that 2 for your 1, gotta ask yourself if that 2nd best guy you're getting in return is really that much better than what's already on the waiver wire.

or what you have to drop.

correct

 

[Vision6]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

The veto was set up to prevent collusion problems

If there is collusion, you kick the cheaters out - and revers the trade. Period. It's really not that hard.

Agree 100%unfortunately it makes too much sense for others to jump on board

 

[footballnerd]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

There is no such thing as an objective veto vote. Commish should only decide if a trade is collusion, not fair. Who are you to project a players production? Everyone has their own perceived value.

 

[Jack White]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I've left leagues over the bolded. It just breeds jealousy amongst the owners with no stones to make trades or their own trade chips, which results in the Vetoes. I'll save the novella cause I could write on this all day, but I will never, ever play in a league that allows owner veto again for that specific reason.

I tried to get this rule changed in my league, to no avail.I was successful, however, in changing the rule so that 6 of the 10 owners not involved in the trade have to vote against it to nullify it.

That will never happen, so it's effectively the same as no voting.

 

[Jack White]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I'm not concerning myself with your veto rules in my response.the change wont be a problem. Most pools (ie. yahoo)will notify you upon acceptance of your trade that you need to drop a player (if you sent away 1 and receive 2 or more)as a player you need to be careful about doing this type of trade because those 2 for 1 trades are in effect actually 2 for 2 trades because the person receiving 2 players will be forced to drop a player onto the waiver wire upon completion of the trade. so if you trade me Vick for Eli manning and Robert Turbin, Vick will be replaced by Manning, but you will need to drop your crappiest player to make room for Robert turbin. so it's not actually a 2 for 1 deal because you still have to drop another player. (acknowledge its your worst player on your roster, but it is still a hidden cost to you as the person making the trade)otherwise you should be good to go.

One way we've addressed that situation is to allow the inclusion of FAB money to "even up" a deal.Though personally I would never trade away FAB money.

 

[flc735]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

The veto was set up to prevent collusion problems

If there is collusion, you kick the cheaters out - and revers the trade. Period. It's really not that hard.

Agree 100%unfortunately it makes too much sense for others to jump on board

 

[Instinctive]

owner vetoes, give me a break...

On point: I dont see why there would be an issue - I've not in 10 years played in a league that required the same number of players on each side of a trade.

 

[Warrior]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

Why?

 

[Johnny Blood]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

 

[Ace28]

Does it really matter? I mean I can always throw in a scrub in which is essentially a 2 for 1 trade just to make it even in terms of numbers.

 

[Quibbler]

You should definitely allow it. 2-for-1 trades usually suck for the person getting 2 players, but not always. I've seen ones that look good, especially when someone has a starter go down with an injury. For example, in one of my leagues, the FJax owner was already thin at RB before last week. Letting him do a 2-for-1 means he could trade one of his stud WRs for a decent starting RB and get back a better WR than he could find on waivers.

 

[Reepicheep]

I for one am impressed that Al Sherry was able to rustle up his username and password from 7 years ago for his 2nd-4th posts. That is some sick lurkage right there.

 

[DoubleG]

I for one am impressed that Al Sherry was able to rustle up his username and password from 7 years ago for his 2nd-4th posts. That is some sick lurkage right there.

It's almost too obscure to be an alias, no?

 

[CokeZero]

I for one am impressed that Al Sherry was able to rustle up his username and password from 7 years ago for his 2nd-4th posts. That is some sick lurkage right there.

It's almost too obscure to be an alias, no?

I for one could not remember TWO previous alias' and passwords...had to recreate

 

[Red Herring]

I for one am impressed that Al Sherry was able to rustle up his username and password from 7 years ago for his 2nd-4th posts. That is some sick lurkage right there.

It's almost too obscure to be an alias, no?

I for one could not remember TWO previous alias' and passwords...had to recreate

aliai?and yes, allowing 2 for 1's is fine. For those playing in salary cap leagues there are times that extra player being dropped wouldn't fit under the cap if its a forced 2-2. Also, screw owner voting, it can cause contention in even close friend leagues. If you can't trust your commish to stop collusion, find a new commish.

 

[SSOG]

I knew a league once that allowed 2-for-1s, but then didn't require the owner getting the 2 to make any cuts. In essence, you weren't just trading players, you were also trading roster spots. If you had a 20 man roster, and you traded your stud RB for four scrubs, then for the rest of the season you would have a 23-man roster and the other guy would have a 17-man roster. It was a pretty cool concept, really- added a lot of strategic considerations. You would actually see teams trading their best player for 4 or 5 of another team's worst players, and nobody would bat an eye.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

It's no one's job to decide if a trade is unfair. The commissioner retains the power to reverse trades in the event of cheating, not to decide if trades are fair.

 

[cstu]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

 

[Zaphod]

I knew a league once that allowed 2-for-1s, but then didn't require the owner getting the 2 to make any cuts. In essence, you weren't just trading players, you were also trading roster spots. If you had a 20 man roster, and you traded your stud RB for four scrubs, then for the rest of the season you would have a 23-man roster and the other guy would have a 17-man roster. It was a pretty cool concept, really- added a lot of strategic considerations. You would actually see teams trading their best player for 4 or 5 of another team's worst players, and nobody would bat an eye.

That is one of the craziest roster rules I have ever heard of...I LOVE IT!!!

 

[TakiToki]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

Meh. Agree with the principle, but in an established league it probably doesn't matter. Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

They don't veto because it's unfair. They veto because they don't want an opponent to improve his team. It's unfortunate but true. No matter how many times they deny it, it's the way it works.

"Unfair" was the wrong word on my part. But I would rather the bias be distributed among a larger group and require a majority for veto than grant the power to an individual who has no checks or balances while maintaining the same potential for bias.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

There is no such thing as an objective veto vote. Commish should only decide if a trade is collusion, not fair. Who are you to project a players production? Everyone has their own perceived value.

Everyone does have their own perceived value which is why trades should seldom, if ever, be vetoed.Who are you to determine if collusion has occurred?

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

That is a nice presumption.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

Hard to argue against that.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

That is a foolish statement. I could see granting full power to a commissioner if they are not a team owner in the league they commish. However if the commish is an owner then there should be a contingency for the owners to balance his power. It is foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

That is a foolish statement. I could see granting full power to a commissioner if they are not a team owner in the league they commish. However if the commish is an owner then there should be a contingency for the owners to balance his power. It is foolish to do otherwise.

I'm aware that there are a lot of really ####ty commissioners out there. The solution isn't to distribute veto power to the rest of the owners, the solution is to find a better commissioner or join a better league. If you want a contingency for owners to balance his power, give them the power to vote him "out of office" and appoint a better commissioner if the majority feels he is abusing his veto power. League voting on trades is honestly one of the worst ideas in fantasy football, nothing good can come of it.

 

[Psychopav]

Nt forget those owners who tank games at the end of the season to help worse teams into the playoffs. And of course the collusion that happens when those colluding traders play each other! Nothing but heartache can come from such situations.

That's why it's so important for owners to be able to veto lineup decisions. I find a weekly poll for each team is the best way to accomplish that. We use the AC forum (used to use the Test Forum before it got yanked).

 

[Reepicheep]

Nt forget those owners who tank games at the end of the season to help worse teams into the playoffs. And of course the collusion that happens when those colluding traders play each other! Nothing but heartache can come from such situations.That's why it's so important for owners to be able to veto lineup decisions. I find a weekly poll for each team is the best way to accomplish that. We use the AC forum (used to use the Test Forum before it got yanked).

We also vote on every draft pick after the '06 draft when it was obvious that the guy in the 12 hole was picking the wrong players so #11 would have better picks on the way back. Our drafts take about 3 full days when you include time for oral arguments and cross examination, but it's worth it to have a league that is Totally Fair.

 

[Chaka]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

That is a foolish statement. I could see granting full power to a commissioner if they are not a team owner in the league they commish. However if the commish is an owner then there should be a contingency for the owners to balance his power. It is foolish to do otherwise.

I'm aware that there are a lot of really ####ty commissioners out there. The solution isn't to distribute veto power to the rest of the owners, the solution is to find a better commissioner or join a better league. If you want a contingency for owners to balance his power, give them the power to vote him "out of office" and appoint a better commissioner if the majority feels he is abusing his veto power. League voting on trades is honestly one of the worst ideas in fantasy football, nothing good can come of it.

Lots of good comes out of it. With distributed power and open ballots it is in the best interest of everyone to only try to veto trades when there is obvious collusion. It helps to have good owners.I think people jump into leagues too easily and end up with crappy owners and commissioners. Why would you ever play anything with people you can't trust?

 

[DoubleG]

Nt forget those owners who tank games at the end of the season to help worse teams into the playoffs. And of course the collusion that happens when those colluding traders play each other! Nothing but heartache can come from such situations.That's why it's so important for owners to be able to veto lineup decisions. I find a weekly poll for each team is the best way to accomplish that. We use the AC forum (used to use the Test Forum before it got yanked).

We also vote on every draft pick after the '06 draft when it was obvious that the guy in the 12 hole was picking the wrong players so #11 would have better picks on the way back. Our drafts take about 3 full days when you include time for oral arguments and cross examination, but it's worth it to have a league that is Totally Fair.

You guys are funny.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

That is a foolish statement. I could see granting full power to a commissioner if they are not a team owner in the league they commish. However if the commish is an owner then there should be a contingency for the owners to balance his power. It is foolish to do otherwise.

I'm aware that there are a lot of really ####ty commissioners out there. The solution isn't to distribute veto power to the rest of the owners, the solution is to find a better commissioner or join a better league. If you want a contingency for owners to balance his power, give them the power to vote him "out of office" and appoint a better commissioner if the majority feels he is abusing his veto power. League voting on trades is honestly one of the worst ideas in fantasy football, nothing good can come of it.

Lots of good comes out of it. With distributed power and open ballots it is in the best interest of everyone to only try to veto trades when there is obvious collusion. It helps to have good owners.I think people jump into leagues too easily and end up with crappy owners and commissioners. Why would you ever play anything with people you can't trust?

this

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm aware that there are a lot of really ####ty commissioners out there. The solution isn't to distribute veto power to the rest of the owners, the solution is to find a better commissioner or join a better league. If you want a contingency for owners to balance his power, give them the power to vote him "out of office" and appoint a better commissioner if the majority feels he is abusing his veto power. League voting on trades is honestly one of the worst ideas in fantasy football, nothing good can come of it.

Lots of good comes out of it. With distributed power and open ballots it is in the best interest of everyone to only try to veto trades when there is obvious collusion. It helps to have good owners.I think people jump into leagues too easily and end up with crappy owners and commissioners. Why would you ever play anything with people you can't trust?

If you play with people you can't trust, then you can't let them vote on trades, because they will vote in the best interests of their own team.If you play only with people you can trust, then you have no need for league votes on trades because you would never have collusion. Either way, there is never a need for owners to vote on trades.QEDOn a more serious note, the only real reason trades should be overturned is if collusion has occurred. Whether or not collusion has occurred is not something that gets determined by popular vote. It's something that needs to be carefully considered by the commissioner. If other owners have reason to believe collusion has occurred, they can bring their concerns to the commissioner.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.