Advice for Commish (1 Viewer)

[jagerbomb]

I'm the commish of a $ league among friends.

I was offered Owens for Favre and accepted the deal because I'm very weak at WR (Evans, Santana, Djax, Roddy), and I also have Brady. The Owens owner is fed up with inconsistent play from Rivers in a league where QB scoring is pretty important (6 of the top 10 scorers are QBs).

I've had a complaint that the trade is unfair. It definitely helps my team but I don't think it's really lopsided. Our league scoring 0.5 PPR and 0.25 points per completion. Favre is currently the #4 scoring QB, Owens is the #10 WR.

The league rules don't allow voting on trades, so it's up to me to maintain the integrity of the league in the cases of collusion, etc (I've never vetoed a trade in the 4 years I've run the league). I don't get specific in the rules about vetoing, I just say that it the sole responsibility of the commish to veto trades, but that complaints will be heard.

What do you guys think? Is this trade too lopsided? Should I veto my own trade to keep the peace?

Here are the lineups: (Start QB/2RB/3WR/TE)

Me (4-1):

Brady, Favre

Evans, Santana, Djax, Roddy

Parker, Bush, ADP, Foster, Selvin

Winslow

Owens Owner (2-3):

Rivers, Losman

Gore, JJ, Wynn, Taylor

Owens, Cotchery, Ward, Jennings, Henderson, Glenn

Shockey, Watson

 

[Bannedman]

If the scoring is slanted toward QBs, then the guy did well. What the #### are they angry about? That you made your team better? Idiots.

 

[thayman]

Good trade for you. It doesn't sound like collusion so yes the trade should go through.

 

[Angrymutt]

Stop being so sensitive. Deal done. Commish shouldn't be able to veto trades unless IT IS COLLUSION.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

So which team is the trade lopsided for? I have yet to see a trade where I have to ask that and then agree that the trade should be vetoed. Absurd.

 

[jagerbomb]

Stop being so sensitive. Deal done. Commish shouldn't be able to veto trades unless IT IS COLLUSION.

Just to be clear, I am the commish. I'm only considering vetoing because I am involved. It's important to me not to lose owners over this stuff.

 

[FFFanatic71]

Seems fair to me, too. To avoid this kind of second-guessing though, you can designate an 'assistant Commish' to approve Commish-involved trades like my league does. We've never had such an issue.

 

[Irish1995]

Trade stands. No question.

Advice for the future: Appoint a like-minded assistant commissioner who will act with the commissioner's power for any action which might give an appearance of conflict of interest.

 

[jagerbomb]

So which team is the trade lopsided for? I have yet to see a trade where I have to ask that and then agree that the trade should be vetoed. Absurd.

The argument is that it helps my team (the starting lineup anyway) more than it helps his teams. He upgrades from Rivers to Favre, but downgrades from Owens to Jennings. I think part of the problem is that Cotchery and Jennings just don't get the name recognition yet.

 

[bucs4life_99]

No reason to veto this trade, as it's fine. However, in the future, you might want to put in an addendum to the rules that states that whenever the commish is involved in a trade, there is a 2 day review period where if 2/3 of the league says it's collusion, the trade gets vetoed. This acts as a sort of check to the commish's powers and avoids any potentially awkward situations...

 

[jagerbomb]

No reason to veto this trade, as it's fine. However, in the future, you might want to put in an addendum to the rules that states that whenever the commish is involved in a trade, there is a 2 day review period where if 2/3 of the league says it's collusion, the trade gets vetoed. This acts as a sort of check to the commish's powers and avoids any potentially awkward situations...

I really dislike voting on trades. To many people vote against just because it's in their interest to do so. Thanks for the advice though.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You should definitely veto this trade. Commissioners should never try to improve their own team. if you accidentally get a player that's good for you, and anyone complains, you're expected to veto it.

In the interests of looking like you're being "fair," you should always hurt your own team. HTH

 

[JohnnyU]

Stop being so sensitive. Deal done. Commish shouldn't be able to veto trades unless IT IS COLLUSION.

How do you prove collusion?

 

[The Kansas Comet]

Each team addresses an area of need in the trade. Case closed. The other owners are just bitter because they couldn't get Owens. If you are going to lose owners over this trade, the league would be better off without them in the long run.