Advice please about vetoing a trade (1 Viewer)

[joseywales]

I never imagined I'd have trouble with collusion in my league, but I don't feel good about this trade. First, I want to be clear that I don't care if one team is robbing the other team. I only care about preventing collusion.

The last place team (0-8) traded T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a team in playoff contention for Earnest Graham and Patrick Crayton. The two owners happen to be cousins. PPR league if that makes a difference to anyone.

Opinions? Am I overreacting? The owner that got Houshmandzadeh constantly criticizes trades that he thinks are unfair.

 

[madd futher]

I often see teams that are out of it or almost out of it trading a more studly player for depth....................usually they are still trying to win, and that is thier only hope....to be more competitive. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Often commishioners suspect relatives of collusion, but I've found that usually the relatives are too competitive to collude,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is usually two work buddies who are more likely.

So, yea, in lieu of any other information, I think you are over-reacting.

you cannot veto this trade, but you have a great opportunity to give the Housh owner a bit of his own medicine and give him the 3rd degree on this one..........and let him know him he got a free pass, but he better shut the flock up (censor avoidance) when it comes to criticizing other owners trades in the future.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The last place team (0-8) traded T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a team in playoff contention for Earnest Graham and Patrick Crayton.

The two owners happen to be cousins. PPR league if that makes a difference to anyone.

Excellent trade.

Is it favoring a team? It always favors a team.

Could the TJ owner have gotten more? you can always get more.

He took a shot at a starting RB and received a WR with a nice skill set and team.

 

[lion_crazz]

At first, I was about to post that it seemed like collusion to me. Then, I did a little thinking and thought about what the previous poster said about getting depth.

The play-off contention team is giving up the 18th highest scoring running back and the 24th highest scoring receiver for the 2nd most scoring receiver. However, if you add the two guys yearly totals thus far and compare to TJ, they are about the same.

However, if the 0-8 team has 2 guys scoring well, it is basically the same as having one in TJ. At least with two though, he has twice the advantage of one of them breaking out with a huge game, whereas, with TJ, he only has 1 shot. TJ also has a rough schedule coming up, playing Baltimore, Arizona, Pitt, and Tennessee. He will also lose a good deal of points with Chris Henry returning. On the other hand, Crayton and Graham have nice schedules. Graham has Atlanta, NO, and Houston, and Crayton has Philly, NYG, NYJ, and Detroit.

The 0-8 owner may not have made such a terrible move.

 

[Krewe]

I have been Commish 3 times before in my $$$ league and would in no way nix that deal. Trades are clearly not always win-win. Tough luck. The ones I had to nix were when folks cut deals to trade between divisions--and then swap players back later--due to bye weeks. That was a brief--but manageable mess.

This one is easy---let it stand.

 

[joseywales]

I should have added that the 0-8 team hasn't made a single transaction this season. He's even left players on byes in his starting lineup instead of making a waiver move.

But you guys have convinced me. Thanks for settling me down. I think I overreacted because the team that got Housh criticized me for robbing a couple of teams in trades recently and said I should be "ashamed" of myself.

 

[lion_crazz]

Wait, hold on, now you are adding new info. This has to be reconsidered. If he has made no waiver moves and has started players on byes, this seems certainly like collusion. Give us the playoff contention's roster. Were Crayton and Graham the most expendable?

 

[madd futher]

Wait, hold on, now you are adding new info. This has to be reconsidered. If he has made no waiver moves and has started players on byes, this seems certainly like collusion. Give us the playoff contention's roster. Were Crayton and Graham the most expendable?

Regardless of the new info, I don't see this even close to a vetoable situation with these players involved - and I seriously doubt that there is collusion and with the remote possibility that there even was, there really isnt any way to prove it. It seems to me that the last place team is in last place for one reason only: he is a poor fantasy manager and has been all season. Poor managers tend to make more of these types of trades. The defense rests.

 

[southeastjerome]

I think you can veto only if there is evidence of collusion. We had the first trade ever vetoed in our league, one of the owners admitted to trading back the players involved before the deadline, essentially sharing rosters. The trade in your league on its own is not vetoable. IF there is collusion involved and you can find out about it, that's another story. Good luck.

 

[super sleeper]

I don't understand the collusion claim. What is the 0-8 team playing for at this point? Is there a weekly high score pool? Is this a dynasty/keeper league?

People throw around the term collusion here all the time, but that's a pretty serious claim. I am the commissioner in a league that at various times has featured brothers, in-laws, co-workers, and neighbors. I've found that in most cases where a trade has gone down between these sets of players, it is not that they are colluding with each other, it's because they are in close proximity: the co-worker badgering to make a deal, the brothers discussing their team at a family gathering, neighbors talking over the fence. Others will complain if they don't like a trade, and throw out the relationship as evidence of collusion, but it's natural that those that see each other and talk more would be able to work out a deal, and that one would be able to use the powers of persuasion over another.

So even though one owner here has been inactive, and the other is in contention, you can't assume collusion. It's pretty likely they were together, and the one guy inquired about TJ and convinced the other this was a deal that helped each team. And he may be right.

 

[Barooo]

From my experience; I find that people are more interested in vetoing a trade when it helps one of their competitors. This to me is the "cancer" of fantasy football. If you think about it...a trade is designed to improve both teams...that is why they are doing it. I am enduring this "cancer" in one of my leagues; every trade has been vetoed since about week 3 regardless of how fair it is.

In terms of this trade; to me it is not even close to being "vetoable". Points are fair, trading studs for more depth is not an unsensible move and that settles that.

Just because the argument can be made that Pittman is coming back and Bennett has been signed, Glenn may return to the field, etc. just becomes a battle of perspective...not in my mind....a reason to veto a trade.

Trades should be vetoed for 2 reasons...stupidity and collusion....

 

[Couch Potato]

You didn't specify redraft, dynasty, or keeper league. In a dynasty league it's pretty hard to overturn any trade since it's a lot easier to find some sort of justification given that some teams are looking to now and some to the future.

However, if this is a redraft league, beginning next year your league needs bylaws that prevent any team mathematically eliminated from playoff contention (or in some other way earning prize money) from trading. And, if this 0-8 team is already mathematically eliminated, this trade should be reversed since he has no reason to be trading -- except to help the other team. That is collusion.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

From my experience; I find that people are more interested in vetoing a trade when it helps one of their competitors. This to me is the "cancer" of fantasy football. If you think about it...a trade is designed to improve both teams...that is why they are doing it. I am enduring this "cancer" in one of my leagues; every trade has been vetoed since about week 3 regardless of how fair it is.

In terms of this trade; to me it is not even close to being "vetoable". Points are fair, trading studs for more depth is not an unsensible move and that settles that.

Just because the argument can be made that Pittman is coming back and Bennett has been signed, Glenn may return to the field, etc. just becomes a battle of perspective...not in my mind....a reason to veto a trade.

Trades should be vetoed for 2 1 reasons...stupidity and collusion....

fixed

 

[Barooo]

I would like to provide context on the "stupidity" reason. If someone involved in a trade has made a trade without knowing additional context; i.e. the player has a season ending injury that has not been posted to their player notes, a player is expected to be suspended, etc.

Example, someone trading for Morris without knowing that his season is over. Someone trading for Chris Henry without knowing that he may be suspended this week.

I think league members should maintain the integrity of league by ensuring that lack of information is not abused. I would say these instances are rare...but I think they are still applicable.

 

[jwb]

From my experience; I find that people are more interested in vetoing a trade when it helps one of their competitors. This to me is the "cancer" of fantasy football. If you think about it...a trade is designed to improve both teams...that is why they are doing it. I am enduring this "cancer" in one of my leagues; every trade has been vetoed since about week 3 regardless of how fair it is.

agreed. In one of my dynasty leagues (16 teams), I took over a bad team, and have been making trades to rebuild. One of these trades involved trading Romo a few weeks ago. A team vetoed the trade simple because now he would have to play Romo 4x (he already played me twice, and now would have to play Romo's new team twice), and felt that unfair. He actually argued that this was a valid reason for vetoing a trade - that it made HIS schedule harder (he lost in a league vote 14-1) Amazing.

 

[Road Warriors]

League vote on trades is the scourge of FFL. Eliminate it now!

(ETA: The trade is fine. )

 

[GregR_2]

I never imagined I'd have trouble with collusion in my league, but I don't feel good about this trade. First, I want to be clear that I don't care if one team is robbing the other team. I only care about preventing collusion.The last place team (0-8) traded T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a team in playoff contention for Earnest Graham and Patrick Crayton. The two owners happen to be cousins. PPR league if that makes a difference to anyone.Opinions? Am I overreacting? The owner that got Houshmandzadeh constantly criticizes trades that he thinks are unfair.

How big of an improvement does Earnest Graham make in his starting lineup? Is it reasonable for someone to believe he is as big an improvement as the drop from TJ to Crayton is? For the poster who said getting 2 guys that score the same as 1 is an advantage.... uh, what? No. No, no, no. Using 1 roster spot to score X is always better than using 2 roster spots to score X from everything other than an injury risk aversion standpoint.You should go to the team trading TJ and as him his reasoning for the trade and how he believes it will improve his gametime efforts. Regardless of what we think about the trade or what reasoning for or against it we can come up with, you should judge the trade based on what the OWNERS involved say they think. You don't have to agree with their reasoning, but it should at least sound believable that someone else could believe it.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

You didn't specify redraft, dynasty, or keeper league. In a dynasty league it's pretty hard to overturn any trade since it's a lot easier to find some sort of justification given that some teams are looking to now and some to the future.However, if this is a redraft league, beginning next year your league needs bylaws that prevent any team mathematically eliminated from playoff contention (or in some other way earning prize money) from trading. And, if this 0-8 team is already mathematically eliminated, this trade should be reversed since he has no reason to be trading -- except to help the other team. That is collusion.

Rarely do I have an opinion like this, but in this case, I do think it's below board.

 

[JHuber77]

Here's my advice, Post this thread in the AC forum.

 

[celticplague]

If Bennett wasn't traded for I would say that all is well.... but I would want to veto it, but it is too close to do that.... unless the team who traded TJ has no chance of making playoffs...

tough call

 

[bjabrad]

Here's my advice, Post this thread in the AC forum.

Even though I consider these posts quite entertaining they don't belong in the Shark Pool because they can't be considered common information and are quite specific to only one league.The AC Forum is a great place to go to read about some crazy trades and try to figure out if the trade should be vetoed.I hadn't been in the AC forum for a while but there is some good stuff in there these days.FYI: just to be fair, I don't think the mods have come down with a position on whether trade issues that relate to one specific league only belong in the AC forum, I'm just letting you know what makes sense to me.

 

[bigfoamfinger]

I never imagined I'd have trouble with collusion in my league, but I don't feel good about this trade.

There really is a simple rule of thumb with these things. If you have proof of collusion, then overturn the trade and secretly look to replace the owners the next year. If you don't then let folks complain, but they are really just complaining about not getting an offer to the TJ owner first. It needs to be collusion, not ignorance to be overturned.

 

[Barooo]

I never imagined I'd have trouble with collusion in my league, but I don't feel good about this trade.

There really is a simple rule of thumb with these things. If you have proof of collusion, then overturn the trade and secretly look to replace the owners the next year. If you don't then let folks complain, but they are really just complaining about not getting an offer to the TJ owner first. It needs to be collusion, not ignorance to be overturned.

Very well put....I think most trades are vetoed over jealousy. That is beyond the scope of why a veto is levied. In addition, vetoes are being utilized based on "perspective"...every one has an opinion..... If everyone thought about players the same...it would cause the fun of fantasy games to diminish. The differences in opinion shape everything we do; drafting, line up decisions, free agent pickups, etc.It could be argued that TJ's value could go down after Henry comes back, Crayton's value goes down if Glenn comes back, Pittman might return this week, and the debate could ensue for days....Those discussions are not the basis for a veto!!!