Bending the rules for owners (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

2 talking points here.

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe. Some owners / most owners actually have brought up the point of making trades on a friday. People have trade submited to other owners that sometimes dont get accepted until early afternoon friday. Seems like some owners just are not active during the week and do all thier team moves and trades during the weekend.

Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.

My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

 

[Sabertooth]

We don't have any rules on 48 hours or anything like that. You can agree to a trade at 12:30 on Sunday. WHy not? Collusion? If it's obvious collusion, boot them out.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Trades should automatically be processed as soon as they are made.

 

[Righetti]

Trades should automatically be processed as soon as they are made.

 

[BroadwayG]

Trade reviews stink. You should take the entire thing out of your rulebook next year.

 

[-OZ-]

Trade reviews stink. You should take the entire thing out of your rulebook next year.

While this is correct, it is also irrelevant. This year, keep the rules the way they are. As much as I dislike the rule, I hate it when leagues change midyear more - unless maybe if it's unanimous.

 

[BroadwayG]

Trade reviews stink. You should take the entire thing out of your rulebook next year.

While this is correct, it is also irrelevant. This year, keep the rules the way they are. As much as I dislike the rule, I hate it when leagues change midyear more - unless maybe if it's unanimous.

I agree, that's why I said next year. This year, live with what you have.

 

[Sabertooth]

Trade reviews stink. You should take the entire thing out of your rulebook next year.

While this is correct, it is also irrelevant. This year, keep the rules the way they are. As much as I dislike the rule, I hate it when leagues change midyear more - unless maybe if it's unanimous.

 

[Dreamer]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

 

[GregR_2]

I think your rules are pretty clearcut that it has to be 48 hours. I don't think those rules should be changed during the season without a unanimous vote, especially if teams have already been affected by it already this year. I don't think there's really any question that as commish you need to stand up for the rights of the minority of owners who do not wish to have the rules changed out from under them mid-season.

As for next year you can do it however you want. If 45 hours is better than 48 I don't understand why not just make the review period 45 all the time. I agree with others that allowing owners to veto someone else's trade for any reason they want sucks, but if that's what your league wants to do, no reason you can't do it.

So I think how to handle people wanting to change it is a no-brainer since it isn't unanimous. What that leaves you with is how do you handle trades that finish review when some NFL games have started and others haven't. It isn't fair if one team gets to start Player A in the early game, then that afternoon he's traded for Player B who plays Monday, and he gets to start Player B too. It isn't fair because he started two players from a single roster spot.

So I think the bigger question you have is when do you put trades through. Two ways I think you could do it. One is you put any trades through when they finish review as long as the players in the trade haven't had their games start. But that also puts a time crunch on you to have to be available at all hours on Sunday to put a trade through. So my preference would be that trades that have not finished review as of the start of games will not go through until after MNF.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.

You can't do this unless it's unanimous. If 3 owners have a problem with it, you can't change it. It's just not fair.

My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

Nothing you can do about it this year, again. But, I agree with the other posters--you might want to bring up nixing the voting method all together next year. Vetoing is NOT for trades that seem unfair. Who are you to say that a trade is unfair when two consenting adults agree to it? By doing that, you're saying, "I know it's your team, but here's what's best for you." That's crap.

 

[jadensdad]

We have a commish review of trades. There has not a veto of a trade in 8 years. A couple of deals that were a little fishy, but everything seems to always turn out ok. Bad deals happends at times, but players relative worth is so different. As long as the commish see's no collusion in the deal, then there should be no time frame to review.

 

[Wu-banger]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

I am normally from this mindset ... but then this trade went through in one of my leagues :a 1st year player (younger brother of a founding owner) trades Drew Brees & Plax Burress for Philip Rivers & Joe Horn... the new guy says that the other owner told him Joe Horn haas been scoring a lot points this year.. (save the all owners should do their own homework comments)

The kid accepts the trade .. the commish let's it go through because he does not suspect collusion,

now all hell has broken out through the league , most owners want the trade shot down - and the new owner who originially made the trade wants to back out after doing a little research about Horn ? Brees

this was not collusion , but a case an owner being a dirt bag to a kid who is being introduced to Fantasy.

A Commish should at least reveiw trades in certain situations for the good of the league.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The rules are the rules. As a commish you should not choose when to follow them and when to not. If you do, eventually people might claim you are playing favorites. Just follow your league rules regardless of what people think. You are only helping yourself out in the long run by doing so.

 

[Keys Myaths]

The rules are the rules. As a commish you should not choose when to follow them and when to not. If you do, eventually people might claim you are playing favorites. Just follow your league rules regardless of what people think. You are only helping yourself out in the long run by doing so.

I never thought I'd say this, but this is some excellent posting by The Scientist.

 

[corpcow]

2 talking points here.I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe. Some owners / most owners actually have brought up the point of making trades on a friday. People have trade submited to other owners that sometimes dont get accepted until early afternoon friday. Seems like some owners just are not active during the week and do all thier team moves and trades during the weekend. Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

Propose an in-season amendment (perhaps temporary to be voted on again next year) for an accelerated window. Trades must be accepted no later than noon on Sat, and the trade veto period ends after 48 hrs or Sun at noon, whichever comes first. This solves both issues.

 

[Shrek]

All of my leagues are on a Trade Reviewed By Commissioner basis. League reviews/votes are outdated. If you elect a commissioner, you should trust him to decide fairly if a trade is collusive or not.

 

[corpcow]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

I am normally from this mindset ... but then this trade went through in one of my leagues :a 1st year player (younger brother of a founding owner) trades Drew Brees & Plax Burress for Philip Rivers & Joe Horn... the new guy says that the other owner told him Joe Horn haas been scoring a lot points this year.. (save the all owners should do their own homework comments)

The kid accepts the trade .. the commish let's it go through because he does not suspect collusion,

now all hell has broken out through the league , most owners want the trade shot down - and the new owner who originially made the trade wants to back out after doing a little research about Horn ? Brees

this was not collusion , but a case an owner being a dirt bag to a kid who is being introduced to Fantasy.

A Commish should at least reveiw trades in certain situations for the good of the league.

Yes, particularly for newer owners. The big thing is ensuring the "competitive balance" of the league - but again this should be in the rules. We have provisions for collusion or trades that are so plainly unbalanced that it would upset the balance of the league.

 

[corpcow]

All of my leagues are on a Trade Reviewed By Commissioner basis. League reviews/votes are outdated. If you elect a commissioner, you should trust him to decide fairly if a trade is collusive or not.

We do executive committee - I'm commissioner and I try to be as objective as possible, but having a three-panel committee is a good idea because less are going to question bias etc.

 

[dslaw]

If the current rule is 48 hours then all trades should be accepted by both parties before 1:00 Eastern on Friday to be effective for that weeks games. If someone accepts a trade at 5:00 it isn't 48 hours. It seems weird but the rules must be enforced as written. Same with the owner vetoing his own trade. If his guy gets hurt, backup becomes a starter, whatever reason he has to change his mind he can do so and veto his own trade.

I would take one vote on changing the rules this year. If it isn't unanimous you can't change the rule for this year. You can look at other suggestions in this thread for changes for next year.

 

[Dreamer]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

I am normally from this mindset ... but then this trade went through in one of my leagues :a 1st year player (younger brother of a founding owner) trades Drew Brees & Plax Burress for Philip Rivers & Joe Horn...A Commish should at least reveiw trades in certain situations for the good of the league.

But who is to say Horn and Rivers don't explode from week 3 on? Unless you have a crystal ball I say let the owners run their own teams unless it's a LT for Donte Stallworth type deal.

 

[Shrek]

All of my leagues are on a Trade Reviewed By Commissioner basis. League reviews/votes are outdated. If you elect a commissioner, you should trust him to decide fairly if a trade is collusive or not.

We do executive committee - I'm commissioner and I try to be as objective as possible, but having a three-panel committee is a good idea because less are going to question bias etc.

I agree with this in theory, but the problem is that it still creates red tape. As commissioner, you should be able to effect a trade on Sunday morning right before kickoff if you want. It's in the best interest of the league to have efficiency. Besides, 99.9% of trades should probably be approved anyway, without any need for approval or rejection. I think a commissioner should be able to be trusted to review those .01% of trades that need reviewing and make a sound decision.

 

[Wu-banger]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

I am normally from this mindset ... but then this trade went through in one of my leagues :a 1st year player (younger brother of a founding owner) trades Drew Brees & Plax Burress for Philip Rivers & Joe Horn...A Commish should at least reveiw trades in certain situations for the good of the league.

But who is to say Horn and Rivers don't explode from week 3 on? Unless you have a crystal ball I say let the owners run their own teams unless it's a LT for Donte Stallworth type deal.

If you go by this type of thinking than why exclude LT for Stallworth ..?? Where does the vision become clear who will succeed and who will fail...?

 

[GoBears84]

2 talking points here.I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe. Some owners / most owners actually have brought up the point of making trades on a friday. People have trade submited to other owners that sometimes dont get accepted until early afternoon friday. Seems like some owners just are not active during the week and do all thier team moves and trades during the weekend. Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

I've read through all the other posts and I think people are missing the point. If the rule is that trades need 48 hours to process, the owners need to know that they have to have trades submitted by 1:00 EST on Friday.Why should trades be any different than claims or waivers? Our claims process @ 2:0AM Thursday, waivers @ 2:00AM Friday. If you miss it, too bad. The owners know the times, they need to abide by them.

 

[GoBears84]

I would take one vote on changing the rules this year. If it isn't unanimous you can't change the rule for this year. You can look at other suggestions in this thread for changes for next year.

Somewhere on the website, I can't remember where (maybe even in Greg R's "Rules for every league"), is an article the explaining the truth behind trades: All trades are inherently unfair and that's because it's all based on perceived value. Perfect example: I was in a league last year and had Brooks and Kitna as my QB's and BAL/SD as my D's. Another owner had Manning and Brees as his QB's but nothing and worse for D's. We traded Brees/horrible D for SD/Brooks (trades need to be balanced) and the league howled that it was unfair. But he didn't care because he knew he needed a D to be competitive and Brees wasn't helping him. We both ended up making the playoffs and he won the league.Trade approval should be left to the discretion of their commissioner, or an impartial committee if you can set one up. Then the 48 hour rules don't factor into the decision.

 

[Dreamer]

I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe.

I don't think that's standard. Set trades to go through automatically, there shouldn't be a need to police trades. Collusion is the exception to the rule of course, but that shouldn't happen often.

I am normally from this mindset ... but then this trade went through in one of my leagues :a 1st year player (younger brother of a founding owner) trades Drew Brees & Plax Burress for Philip Rivers & Joe Horn...A Commish should at least reveiw trades in certain situations for the good of the league.

But who is to say Horn and Rivers don't explode from week 3 on? Unless you have a crystal ball I say let the owners run their own teams unless it's a LT for Donte Stallworth type deal.

If you go by this type of thinking than why exclude LT for Stallworth ..?? Where does the vision become clear who will succeed and who will fail...?

Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

 

[GregR_2]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

 

[Wu-banger]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

 

[corpcow]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

I tend to question/bring up any trade where the FBG Trade Dominator shows a % change greater than 50% in either direction. (In the case of LT vs. Stallworth, it would be a 99.34% change... and Michael Robinson, well... yeah no ####)

 

[corpcow]

2 talking points here.I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe. Some owners / most owners actually have brought up the point of making trades on a friday. People have trade submited to other owners that sometimes dont get accepted until early afternoon friday. Seems like some owners just are not active during the week and do all thier team moves and trades during the weekend. Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

I've read through all the other posts and I think people are missing the point. If the rule is that trades need 48 hours to process, the owners need to know that they have to have trades submitted by 1:00 EST on Friday.Why should trades be any different than claims or waivers? Our claims process @ 2:0AM Thursday, waivers @ 2:00AM Friday. If you miss it, too bad. The owners know the times, they need to abide by them.

Well, one justification for this is that at least in the waiver process the owner is completlely in control of his decision. In the trade situation, it takes two sides to agree, and a delay on the other side in accepting (i.e., even if you've agreed to it before) could adversely affect the trade going through. (Especially if it was a situation where one side proposes the trade "under the condition" that it's made this week, and then the other owner just doesn't get around to accepting right away for whatever reason).

 

[GregR_2]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

I tend to question/bring up any trade where the FBG Trade Dominator shows a % change greater than 50% in either direction. (In the case of LT vs. Stallworth, it would be a 99.34% change... and Michael Robinson, well... yeah no ####)

Right, LT vs Stallworth would also take a leap to find it something a reasonable person would believe. And for what it's worth, what should be getting judged here is the owner's statement as to why he thinks it helps his team. Not my own assumptions as to why the owner would consider it to be reasonable. Letting the owner speak for himself as to why he made the trade is an important part of a review, IMHO.Edit to add something I should have said the first time. While a trade evaluator isn't a bad thing, it shouldn't be more than one small component. The availability of players in the league is as important a factor, and the trade evaluator has no clue what that is.To give an example on that, a few years back when Bledsoe was in Buffalo and all sorts of unexpected QBs became studly, I traded Duce Staley for Jeff Garcia. Several teams groused about it because he had taken Garcia in the 2nd round and I'd taken Duce in the 7th or later. So I replied to them, "Ok, tell me any team in the league that will offer better than Duce for Garcia?" I was the only team that was even looking for a QB. The other owner had Garcia lounging on his bench behind Bledsoe and was in dire need of a RB. I was also about the only team who had gobs of RB depth to where I was willing to trade a top 20 RB, which Duce was.Not only was no one going to give up better than Duce, no one else was going to give up even close to Duce. Though a trade evaluator might have said it was a 50% lopsided trade, the fact was it by far the best the other owner was going to get from any team for a player who was just sitting on his bench.I think both the supply and demand need to be taken into account. If this was the best offer the owner could get after having tried several teams, that also is a good sign that the trade should go through.

 

[GoBears84]

2 talking points here.I commish a league that has a pretty standard 48 hour trade review timeframe. Some owners / most owners actually have brought up the point of making trades on a friday. People have trade submited to other owners that sometimes dont get accepted until early afternoon friday. Seems like some owners just are not active during the week and do all thier team moves and trades during the weekend. Thier main point being that if it is a legit trade, but happens say 45 hours before the kickoff of sundays games so that trade be pushed through? The problem is that in a 12 team league about 9 teams so no problem with this, while 3 do. Any ideas for a quick fix on this situation? Im thinking about making a shortened deadline just for friday. Along the lines of all trades eligable for sunday lineups must be accepted no later than 5:00pm EST. I just dont want the other owners to say I am changing the rules after the draft.My other Issue is say trades made on a saturday that will not affect sundays lineups but the players value change enough over the weekend to make the trade unfair. We do a league votes methods. If I get 5 vetos, I veto the trade. I dont have anywhere in the rules that states an owner can not veto his own trade. Again I know that is kind of BS, but its not in the rules that he cant. Something that will be corrected next year, but what should I do about this year?

I've read through all the other posts and I think people are missing the point. If the rule is that trades need 48 hours to process, the owners need to know that they have to have trades submitted by 1:00 EST on Friday.Why should trades be any different than claims or waivers? Our claims process @ 2:0AM Thursday, waivers @ 2:00AM Friday. If you miss it, too bad. The owners know the times, they need to abide by them.

Well, one justification for this is that at least in the waiver process the owner is completlely in control of his decision. In the trade situation, it takes two sides to agree, and a delay on the other side in accepting (i.e., even if you've agreed to it before) could adversely affect the trade going through. (Especially if it was a situation where one side proposes the trade "under the condition" that it's made this week, and then the other owner just doesn't get around to accepting right away for whatever reason).

Still, you have to be aware of the rules. I've been in that situation, and when I prosed the trade to an owner who is notriously slow, I was certain to remind him that we had to get the trade in by a certain time to meet the league deadline. I then notified the commissioner that a trade was in the works and detailed it to him and explained the timing issue (Firewalls at work blocking access) - well ahead of the deadline.

 

[corpcow]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

I tend to question/bring up any trade where the FBG Trade Dominator shows a % change greater than 50% in either direction. (In the case of LT vs. Stallworth, it would be a 99.34% change... and Michael Robinson, well... yeah no ####)

Right, LT vs Stallworth would also take a leap to find it something a reasonable person would believe. And for what it's worth, what should be getting judged here is the owner's statement as to why he thinks it helps his team. Not my own assumptions as to why the owner would consider it to be reasonable. Letting the owner speak for himself as to why he made the trade is an important part of a review, IMHO.

Precisely. I just use the standard tool to show that there's objectively no reason the trade should be made - thus shifting the burden to the owner to justify the trade and a decision to be made by the executive committee. Any trade that does not get to that threshold goes through w/o review.

 

[corpcow]

Well, one justification for this is that at least in the waiver process the owner is completlely in control of his decision. In the trade situation, it takes two sides to agree, and a delay on the other side in accepting (i.e., even if you've agreed to it before) could adversely affect the trade going through. (Especially if it was a situation where one side proposes the trade "under the condition" that it's made this week, and then the other owner just doesn't get around to accepting right away for whatever reason).

Still, you have to be aware of the rules. I've been in that situation, and when I prosed the trade to an owner who is notriously slow, I was certain to remind him that we had to get the trade in by a certain time to meet the league deadline. I then notified the commissioner that a trade was in the works and detailed it to him and explained the timing issue (Firewalls at work blocking access) - well ahead of the deadline.

I don't disagree - I'm just saying that's one reason why there might be more flexibility given in the trade scenario vs. the waiver scenario.

 

[GregR_2]

...Personally, I'd let anything go. Who am I to judge?

I don't believe "anything" should go. I believe the measure should be something like, "could a reasonable person believe this trade is in their benefit". That doesn't mean, "a person showing good judgement". It just means that LT for Michael Robinson, I would not believe a reasonable person could think was beneficial to them.

I tend to question/bring up any trade where the FBG Trade Dominator shows a % change greater than 50% in either direction. (In the case of LT vs. Stallworth, it would be a 99.34% change... and Michael Robinson, well... yeah no ####)

Right, LT vs Stallworth would also take a leap to find it something a reasonable person would believe. And for what it's worth, what should be getting judged here is the owner's statement as to why he thinks it helps his team. Not my own assumptions as to why the owner would consider it to be reasonable. Letting the owner speak for himself as to why he made the trade is an important part of a review, IMHO.

Precisely. I just use the standard tool to show that there's objectively no reason the trade should be made - thus shifting the burden to the owner to justify the trade and a decision to be made by the executive committee. Any trade that does not get to that threshold goes through w/o review.

Also, see my edit to that post that I was too slow in adding before the quoting.

 

[Dreamer]

I think this all goes without saying in good leagues. If it's even close to reasonable, and no collusion exists, it should be fine. And I hate leagues that vote on trades, that has to be the worst idea ever. Who would vote to allow other teams to improve themselves in a money league?

 

[madd futher]

Most FF leagues start out as social/small money leagues where most know each other through a network of friends, co-workers, and friends-of-friends. Since all these league members are co-equals, there is a nominal commish (often the guy who said 'put together a league'), but since no one wants to set 'this is how it works' rules, the league becomes a 'democracy', which, we all know leads to nothing but problems. Many of these leagues have informally evolved 'rules' based on past situations with nothing in writing other than the scoring 'settings' on the website.

The situation described in this post appears to be exactly the result of this type of league evolution. As described in the "Sticky" about Rules every league should have, you as commishioner should have put the rules in writing the way they make the most sense to you, and then well prior to the draft said "look guys, these are the rules for 2007. Does anybody have a problem with them? Since that does not appear to have been done, you now must address this specicific circumstance in the best and fairest way you can, and then say "look guys, because of this situation, I've written down some rules. If we can get a majority to adopt them, as commish, I will police them. Otherwise we need to find a new commish for this year."

This year I took over as commish for a league that was falling apart (one that had started as a democracy) and established 15 rules in writing. No one objected to the rules I laid down, they were just happy that somebody finally took control.

Rules 7 - 9 are related to trades and were based on my prior FF experiences:

7. The commishioner has the authority to approve all trades and establish additional procedures as necessary for the conduct of the league, subject to teh following appeal process: Any two owners may appeal a commishioner's ruling. in that event, the remaining (non-protesting) members will be polled by the commish, and if the majority vote against the ruling, it will be reversed. In the event of a trade appeal, the commishioner, the two appealing members, and the trade participants will be excluded from participating in the vote, and the remaining majority rules. Trade appeals may only be filed within 24 hours after a trade is posted. This allows for ONE DAY time for final trade approval. (note: in a 12 team league, as commish, i only need 4 of the 9 eligible voters to agree to pass on the trade; in practice, since I have already conditionally approved it, owners realize that the appeal process is stacked against over-ruling the commish. We have had 3 trades so far this year and NO protesting owners)

8. I believe that once you commit to a trade you have a moral obligation to go through with it, BUT as commish, my rule must be that there is not a binding trade unless/until it has been offered and accepted through the website, at which time the TRADE IS BINDING, unless vetoed, or overruled by the above appeal procedure. Trading is encouraged in this league and will only be vetoed, if, in the opinion of the commish, they are so GROSSLY UNFAIR so as to have the potential to destroy the league. (by stating the league's philosophy in the 'rules', owners understand and tacitly agree that only the most blatantly bad trades have a chance fo being vetoed in the first place)

9. Trade offers through the website are valid offers until accepted or revoked. Owners are responsible for revoking any open trade offers they have made. i highly recommend that owners negotiate their trades outside the website, and use the website only to comsummate official trades. I also recommend that owners withdraw any unaccepted trade offers at least 48 hours before the next weekend's games are to begin.

This has been a good way to transition this league from a disfunctional 'democracy' to one based on 'bylaws'. As stated in the "Sticky", it doesn't matter whether you agree with or adopt THESE rules, the important thing is to HAVE rules - in WRITING -as well as a procedure for changing league rules.

 

[flooredyas]

All of my leagues are on a Trade Reviewed By Commissioner basis. League reviews/votes are outdated. If you elect a commissioner, you should trust him to decide fairly if a trade is collusive or not.

We do executive committee - I'm commissioner and I try to be as objective as possible, but having a three-panel committee is a good idea because less are going to question bias etc.

Here is our setup-Trade review committee-By order of command1-Brad Bankord(Commissioner-In case of ties, his vote decides)2-Mike Magyar3-Mike Finkelstein4-Mike Levenbaum(Would replace whichever of the above 3 is involved in a trade or if any one of above is unavailable)5-Omer Clarese(Would only enter review process if 2 of the above are involved in a trade or if any one of above is unavailable)Three members to discuss any trades to accept OR decline all trades with each using fair judgement in determining decision. All decisions are final! Decisions will be made in a punctual manner, usually within 24 hours and prior to that weeks games, when.possible.----------------------In essence, the commish still has controlling decision, a rational group is involved and there is no problems where someone can actually claim that a trade refused was because of bias. In 3 years the committee has rejected one trade, a one week tradeback-due to byes. They instead traded other players. Of course this is a local league and a phone call to the committee people involved allows for quick action. Call the commish Sunday AM and action likely to be taken before gametime that day.

 

[mggoilers]

As Commissioner I process trades, but rarely do I "review" trades. I usually do this to insure anything in the comments is documented. Being a keeper league, I also pay attention to trades involving draft picks.