Can't believe it (1 Viewer)

[-fish-]

I know, I know...

Never vetoed a trade. No league voting on trades, but commish (me) has authority to act in best interest of league under the rules.

Redraft PPR. Start 2 RB, 3 WR, no flex.

Can there be any justification for Larry Fitzgerald for Reggie Bush?

Overall, Fitz is ranked 11 overall, 4th WR . Bush is 101 overall, 27th RB. Fitz owner eliminated from playoffs yesterday. Bush owner is one game out of a wild card spot.

At this point I'm thinking let it stand because collusion can't be proven, finish the season and then quit.

 

[Sleeping King]

Just ask (politely) for the person trading Fitz to explain to the league what his rationale is.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

 

[basher]

that is probably one of the cases where i would veto it

 

[KyleBasa]

By letting that stand, you are not doing your job as commissioner. Veto would be (in your words) in the best interest of the league.

 

[-fish-]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

 

[-fish-]

By letting that stand, you are not doing your job as commissioner. Veto would be (in your words) in the best interest of the league.

Why? I subscribe to the rule that no trade should ever be vetoed except for collusion. How do you know this is collusion?

 

[KyleBasa]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

You can't "prove" anything is collusion unless you've tapped their phones or hacked into their private chat room, etc. As commissioner, you have to make a judgement on what is best for the league. I would imagine that there are probably better players on the WW than Bush, so the need to fill Bradshaw's shoes can be met through other means. Face it, this is collusion. The league has a right to be pissed if you do not act. Seriously..., the other team was willing to trade away Bush, but would make the deal for nothing less than the best WR in the NFL. How does that sound?

Do the right thing.

 

[Rodeojones]

By letting that stand, you are not doing your job as commissioner. Veto would be (in your words) in the best interest of the league.

Why? I subscribe to the rule that no trade should ever be vetoed except for collusion. How do you know this is collusion?

Then this whole thread is a mute point...why did you even post if your mind is made up?

 

[-fish-]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

You can't "prove" anything is collusion unless you've tapped their phones or hacked into their private chat room, etc. As commissioner, you have to make a judgement on what is best for the league. I would imagine that there are probably better players on the WW than Bush, so the need to fill Bradshaw's shoes can be met through other means. Face it, this is collusion. The league has a right to be pissed if you do not act. Do the right thing.

Hadn't thought of that, so I went and checked. Best RB available is Fred Jackson, ranked RB 26, but now splitting carries with Lynch and most of his scoring was in the first 4 weeks. Bush is a better option than anything on waivers.My problem is that it's a top WR1 for a marginal RB2. He still fields 3 decent WRs. How do you tell stupid from collusive?

 

[-fish-]

By letting that stand, you are not doing your job as commissioner. Veto would be (in your words) in the best interest of the league.

Why? I subscribe to the rule that no trade should ever be vetoed except for collusion. How do you know this is collusion?

Then this whole thread is a mute point...why did you even post if your mind is made up?

moot? my mind isn't made up...I'm leaning in the direction of letting it stand, but I don't like it. I'm willing to be convinced that it should be reversed.

 

[KyleBasa]

Do you honestly think the deal would be made if the team trading away Fitz was out of the playoffs? I know that there are some leagues that forbid trades from teams that are eliminated - for this very reason.

As far as the WW goes, you cannot simply look at who is the next guy on the list. There are many names out there that are better than Bush that have to be out there. Take a look at any rankings for week 9 and see how many WW players outrank him. Besides, Jackson and Smith are clearly better options than Bush. There is no need for any action.

Regardless, you need to contact the owners and get them to be men and agree to rescind the trade. Otherwise your league may fall into chaos.

 

[Abrantes]

Ask the other owners if anyone else would be willing to offer more for Fitz. I'm sure there would be takers. If he's still adamant on trading with that particular owner for Reggie Bush, or changes his mind about trading when offered more, it definitely reeks of collusion.

 

[-fish-]

Do you honestly think the deal would be made if the team trading away Fitz was out of the playoffs? I know that there are some leagues that forbid trades from teams that are eliminated - for this very reason. As far as the WW goes, you cannot simply look at who is the next guy on the list. There are many names out there that are better than Bush that have to be out there. Take a look at any rankings for week 9 and see how many WW players outrank him.Regardless, you need to contact the owners and get them to be men and agree to rescind the trade. Otherwise your league may fall into chaos.

All valid points. We don't have a rule locking out teams that have been eliminated in this particular league. Agree it should be there, but it isn't. It's a 5 year old league and there has only been one questionable trade ever (year 1) involving a player being traded back from one team to another (wasn't clear-cut borrowing to cover a bye, but could have been). Put in a rule to deal with that.There really isn't anything better on waivers. I don't really see how that's relevant. I asked them to agree to rescind it, and asked for an explanation. They won't, and I posted the explanation.As I see it, I can reverse it, finish the season and kick them both out of the league next year or I can leave it, finish the season and quit. Either way, I don't want to be playing in a money league with either of these guys again.

 

[-fish-]

Ask the other owners if anyone else would be willing to offer more for Fitz. I'm sure there would be takers. If he's still adamant on trading with that particular owner for Reggie Bush, or changes his mind about trading when offered more, it definitely reeks of collusion.

this would be a great idea if it was in our rules.

 

[KyleBasa]

If I am in your shoes, I reverse it and not kick anyone out. They made an unreasonable trade request, you rule against it, and the league moves on. If they give you trouble after the ruling, then consider kicking them out. I'm positive that the rest of your league will support your decision.

If you don't veto, quitting the league is your best move. You'll be asked to step down anyways.

You may just want to quit now.

 

[two_dollars]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

 

[-fish-]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

This is the problem. I've consistently been in the "stupidity isn't grounds for a veto" and "once people pay their league fee it gives them the right to manage their team the way they want" camp.This trade clearly sucks, and I have no interest in playing with owners like this again. BUT, our rules aren't clear that this is illegal and there is a justification, however thin, for the trade.If Bush blows up and Fitzgerald tanks the rest of the year, I'd hate to be the guy that vetoed the trade.

 

[FallenHero32]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

This is the problem. I've consistently been in the "stupidity isn't grounds for a veto" and "once people pay their league fee it gives them the right to manage their team the way they want" camp.This trade clearly sucks, and I have no interest in playing with owners like this again. BUT, our rules aren't clear that this is illegal and there is a justification, however thin, for the trade.If Bush blows up and Fitzgerald tanks the rest of the year, I'd hate to be the guy that vetoed the trade.

Bush won't blow up, and Fitz won't tank.

 

[-fish-]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

This is the problem. I've consistently been in the "stupidity isn't grounds for a veto" and "once people pay their league fee it gives them the right to manage their team the way they want" camp.This trade clearly sucks, and I have no interest in playing with owners like this again. BUT, our rules aren't clear that this is illegal and there is a justification, however thin, for the trade.If Bush blows up and Fitzgerald tanks the rest of the year, I'd hate to be the guy that vetoed the trade.

Bush won't blow up, and Fitz won't tank.

Thanks, Nostradamus.

 

[orion]

I think you need to use your power for what is "best for the league" on this one and veto it. If the Fitz owner is already out of the playoffs why would he be making any trades? He has nothing to gain from this and the other guy has everything to gain. Being a commish can be a pain in the butt sometimes and they may not like it but this one should NOT be allowed.

 

[-fish-]

I think you need to use your power for what is "best for the league" on this one and veto it. If the Fitz owner is already out of the playoffs why would he be making any trades? He has nothing to gain from this and the other guy has everything to gain. Being a commish can be a pain in the butt sometimes and they may not like it but this one should NOT be allowed.

Guy trading Fitz is saying he's trying to be competitive, including this week, when his only other option at RB is Kevin Smith facing one of the best run defenses in the league.Other than the fact that this looks like a bad trade, what's my basis for this? What if it was Fitz for Pierre Thomas? Ryan Grant? Julius Jones? How bad does the player have to be for me to say that my opinion of their trade matters more than theirs does?

 

[Truman]

I think you need to use your power for what is "best for the league" on this one and veto it. If the Fitz owner is already out of the playoffs why would he be making any trades? He has nothing to gain from this and the other guy has everything to gain. Being a commish can be a pain in the butt sometimes and they may not like it but this one should NOT be allowed.

Guy trading Fitz is saying he's trying to be competitive, including this week, when his only other option at RB is Kevin Smith facing one of the best run defenses in the league.Other than the fact that this looks like a bad trade, what's my basis for this? What if it was Fitz for Pierre Thomas? Ryan Grant? Julius Jones? How bad does the player have to be for me to say that my opinion of their trade matters more than theirs does?

So who is his replacement receiver?

 

[-fish-]

I think you need to use your power for what is "best for the league" on this one and veto it. If the Fitz owner is already out of the playoffs why would he be making any trades? He has nothing to gain from this and the other guy has everything to gain. Being a commish can be a pain in the butt sometimes and they may not like it but this one should NOT be allowed.

Guy trading Fitz is saying he's trying to be competitive, including this week, when his only other option at RB is Kevin Smith facing one of the best run defenses in the league.Other than the fact that this looks like a bad trade, what's my basis for this? What if it was Fitz for Pierre Thomas? Ryan Grant? Julius Jones? How bad does the player have to be for me to say that my opinion of their trade matters more than theirs does?

So who is his replacement receiver?

Sidney Rice would be his WR3 this week. He's fairly deep at WR. Downgrading from the WR4 to WR 19. Wait..if you go by rankings, it's actually Greg Jennings. He drafted Jennings early, Rice late and picked up Sims-Walker off waivers early in the season. It was the Fitz/Jennings draft, coupled with counting on Stephen Jackson, that made him thin at RB and is the reason he has such a bad record.

 

[FallenHero32]

Bush won't blow up, and Fitz won't tank.

Thanks, Nostradamus.

I'm just saying you can't take that attitude in a deal like this. You can't look at it in terms of "what ifs." Current value and projected value, yes, but not what if's. What if Fitz goes home and cuts off his own leg in a fit of rage? Are you supposed to be at fault for that too because you did or did not let the trade go through?

 

[SSOG]

I agree that you have to let it through. It's the league's own fault for not having a rule against eliminated teams making trades. Over the offseason, instead of quitting, you might instead consider beefing the hell out of the league rules. There's a thread around here titled "rules every league should have" or something of that nature, and I'd recommend adding every rule in the thread to prevent this type of situation from ever happening again.

 

[-fish-]

Bush won't blow up, and Fitz won't tank.

Thanks, Nostradamus.

I'm just saying you can't take that attitude in a deal like this. You can't look at it in terms of "what ifs." Current value and projected value, yes, but not what if's. What if Fitz goes home and cuts off his own leg in a fit of rage? Are you supposed to be at fault for that too because you did or did not let the trade go through?

Whose projections?

 

[-fish-]

I agree that you have to let it through. It's the league's own fault for not having a rule against eliminated teams making trades. Over the offseason, instead of quitting, you might instead consider beefing the hell out of the league rules. There's a thread around here titled "rules every league should have" or something of that nature, and I'd recommend adding every rule in the thread to prevent this type of situation from ever happening again.

I think this may be right, except I'm really not interested in continuing to play in a league with guys that would pull this type of thing. If there was going to be another season of this league, it would definitely need better rules...the problem was that when it was first formed, they wanted to have a strong commish and they just relied on the "best interests" thing. It's been fine for four years, and it seemed like a good group of players where this type of BS wasn't going to come up. Once I said as commish I'm asking you to voluntarily unwind the deal and they refused, our rules became a problem and placed me in a bad position. I'm still working one angle toward a solution that won't kill the league, but really wanted to see if there was a strong consensus either way. I see a lot of these where someone asks a question and every response is "you can't veto that." This seems to be on the other side of the line, but the rules make it a touchy issue.

 

[utche96]

It is impossible to prove collusion. The best policy is to have each owner approve the trade based on the criteria that the trade improves both teams. There is no chance that I approve this trade. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[The Comedian]

Reverse the trade. I understand it's important to stick by the letter of the rules, but nobody in your league other than these two teams will give you grief for this - the trade is so bad on it's face there's a 99% chance it's collusion, and even if it was the 1%, the worst case scenario is that you take a small step outside of your responsibilities as commissioner to reverse a horrendously lop-sided trade that will piss off the rest of the league.

 

[Dug565]

Reverse the trade. I understand it's important to stick by the letter of the rules, but nobody in your league other than these two teams will give you grief for this - the trade is so bad on it's face there's a 99% chance it's collusion, and even if it was the 1%, the worst case scenario is that you take a small step outside of your responsibilities as commissioner to reverse a horrendously lop-sided trade that will piss off the rest of the league.

Yes. The problem with the collusion only argument is that you can very, very rarely ever prove collusion. What do you need to prove it? You asked for a good argument as to why the owner would do the trade. You didn't get one, he stated a case for trading for a RB in general, NOT for Reggie Bush. Last time I checked Fitz makes a team competitive, Reggie Bush does not. Veto the trade.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I know, I know...Never vetoed a trade. No league voting on trades, but commish (me) has authority to act in best interest of league under the rules. Redraft PPR. Start 2 RB, 3 WR, no flex.Can there be any justification for Larry Fitzgerald for Reggie Bush?Overall, Fitz is ranked 11 overall, 4th WR . Bush is 101 overall, 27th RB. Fitz owner eliminated from playoffs yesterday. Bush owner is one game out of a wild card spot.At this point I'm thinking let it stand because collusion can't be proven, finish the season and then quit.

This is why in my redraft league teams that are eliminated are precluded from trading. That said, i'd veto that. Bush isn't even the #2 back on his team

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

By letting that stand, you are not doing your job as commissioner. Veto would be (in your words) in the best interest of the league.

Why? I subscribe to the rule that no trade should ever be vetoed except for collusion. How do you know this is collusion?

since the team trading is eliminated how can he be acting in his best interest? He has no interest.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

so what if bradshaw is on bye? he is eliminated. Why is he pining for that one win? He isn't. What is the relationship between the two owners? This has "I'll buy your drinks Friday" written all over it.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

This is the problem. I've consistently been in the "stupidity isn't grounds for a veto" and "once people pay their league fee it gives them the right to manage their team the way they want" camp.This trade clearly sucks, and I have no interest in playing with owners like this again. BUT, our rules aren't clear that this is illegal and there is a justification, however thin, for the trade.If Bush blows up and Fitzgerald tanks the rest of the year, I'd hate to be the guy that vetoed the trade.

This kind of trade is exactly why your league has an "integrity of the league" option for veto. An eliminated team trades on of the top players at his position for someone who likely isn't in the top 30 at his. If you don't veto this trade under "integrity of the league" what trades do you veto under that clause?Collusive trades are by definition illegal. This trdae is either collusive, or destroys the integrity of the league. Easy decision (and I am usually in the no trade veto camp)Would you say the same thing if he traded Fitzgerald for a kicker?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

its funny that not too long ago, this trade probably wouldnt have raised a single eye brow in a PPR league. could be a case of an owner just trading on name alone. if there are no rules in place, you have to let this trade slide. lets not forget that by your own definition, he is loaded at wr. i'm in the camp that commishes should NEVER place their values in the middle of a trade if there is any logic to it at all. and altho the logic here is weak, there was a logic to the owner's trade.

 

[Jersey35]

I am 100% against vetos except in the case of collusion. However, this is a trade that should not go through. The reasons have already been given:

It is detrimental to the balance of the league in the extreme and reeks of collusion (though can't be proven).

What you need, as a commissioner, is a legitimate, rational excuse for the veto that allows you to feel as though you made the right choice and that you believe will allow you to maintain the respect of the other owners. This also is present:

Team A is out of the playoffs, Team B is fighting for them.

Unless this is a dynasty league, there is no rational argument that Team A can make that he is improving his team or becoming more competitive. The teams ARE colluding - whether intentionally or accidentally. This move improves one team and indisputably does NOT improve the other. It doesn't matter if Bush outscores Fitz the rest of the way, because the additional points do not help Team A.

If you need more ammunition, I've always taken the approach that no rules may be changed or added midseason, unless necessary to fix a grave oversight in the rules. I've had to do it twice in a decade, and after my explanation, nobody ever argued. I don't believe that the lack of a rule banning something means you must allow it. You should really stop wringing your hands and go fix your league. Add the rule right now: teams out of contention may not make trades. Nobody can argue the logic of it. Nobody.

The tough decision for you will be when the two guys stay (because they know they were in the wrong) and you have to decide whether to kick them out for colluding. If they both quit, it's more likely that they were honest.

 

[tbglog]

Why would he start Bush over Smith even if he had Bush on his roster to begin with? I guess I would ask him would he be willing to drop Fitz and p/up Bush for 1 week to cover a bye and run the risk of someone picking him up other than his buddy? I cant imagine in any senario where someone gives up Fitz for any of the RB's mentioned in this mess. Jackson for Fitz, NOPE, Smith,NOPE Bradshaw,NOPE Bush,NOPE.

Smith went 23/85 rushing 2/10 rec against the Vikes week 2. Thats a month worth of work for Bush this year. Iknow, I drafted him and he is a ghost the last few weeks, short of some goal line work that he actually did get in on.

Not sure how you dont squash this trade for the good of the league. He is out of the fricken payoffs for your league already, he should not be allowed to alter the competetive nature of the league going forward.

 

[gdg76]

This one's easy. Veto the trade and tell him to find a better RB to trade for. There should be at least 3-4 other suitors with RBs that put Bush to shame. You're screwing the other teams f you don't.

This is collusion, pure and simple. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

If his team is elimnated from playoff contention while I admire the fact he still cares about his line-up he shouldn't be making an impact trade in order to make a small (if any) upgrade at his RB position. He has the ability to field a full team afterall.In a re-draft when a team is eliminated from the playoffs trades need to be scrutinized a lot more carefully - this one just makes too little sene to not come under "collusion" scrutiny.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Ask the Fitz owner for his rationale.

Is this a money league?

10 teams $75 per.Fitz owner claiming it's because Ahmad Bradshaw is on a bye. His other RBs are Kevin Smith (who may very well do nothing against Min) and Stephen Jackson.

Like I said, I can't prove collusion--it's just a horrible, horrible trade, mainly for the teams that are still competitive. I know it's tanking and collusion, but I can't prove it's tanking and collusion.

I think I have to let it stand. League is pissed, but it's not a democracy.

You can't "prove" anything is collusion unless you've tapped their phones or hacked into their private chat room, etc. As commissioner, you have to make a judgement on what is best for the league. I would imagine that there are probably better players on the WW than Bush, so the need to fill Bradshaw's shoes can be met through other means. Face it, this is collusion. The league has a right to be pissed if you do not act. Do the right thing.

Hadn't thought of that, so I went and checked. Best RB available is Fred Jackson, ranked RB 26, but now splitting carries with Lynch and most of his scoring was in the first 4 weeks. Bush is a better option than anything on waivers.My problem is that it's a top WR1 for a marginal RB2. He still fields 3 decent WRs. How do you tell stupid from collusive?

But Kevin Smith is at least arguably a better option than Bush. He didn't need to make a trade especially since he's out of contention.

 

[belljr]

I know, I know...Never vetoed a trade. No league voting on trades, but commish (me) has authority to act in best interest of league under the rules. Redraft PPR. Start 2 RB, 3 WR, no flex.Can there be any justification for Larry Fitzgerald for Reggie Bush?Overall, Fitz is ranked 11 overall, 4th WR . Bush is 101 overall, 27th RB. Fitz owner eliminated from playoffs yesterday. Bush owner is one game out of a wild card spot.At this point I'm thinking let it stand because collusion can't be proven, finish the season and then quit.

This is why in my redraft league teams that are eliminated are precluded from trading. That said, i'd veto that. Bush isn't even the #2 back on his team

You have teams eliminated already? We have 3 teams that need a prayer but mathematically they can still make the playoffs.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I know, I know...Never vetoed a trade. No league voting on trades, but commish (me) has authority to act in best interest of league under the rules. Redraft PPR. Start 2 RB, 3 WR, no flex.Can there be any justification for Larry Fitzgerald for Reggie Bush?Overall, Fitz is ranked 11 overall, 4th WR . Bush is 101 overall, 27th RB. Fitz owner eliminated from playoffs yesterday. Bush owner is one game out of a wild card spot.At this point I'm thinking let it stand because collusion can't be proven, finish the season and then quit.

There's no good reason for that trade. It's someone trying to slip something by and pay just enough to make an argument that value for value was given. That doesn't mean there's collusion, though. Surprised Bush owner may have just asked and Fitz owner doesn't give a crap anymore and says "yes".In a redraft league, why is a team that can't make the playoffs allowed to trade anyway? When we were doing redraft, we had a trade deadline that mirrored the NFL's and we had a rule where a team out of the running their poor record couldn't trade.

 

[big0mar]

Just a thought, but in the future, you may want to move up the trade deadline. My league's was two weeks ago, to prevent trades from happening after teams were mathematically eliminated.

But in regards to this trade, I would veto. Pretty obvious what is going on.

 

[vandyt]

Surely someone has said this, but:

1) Why in a redraft league, are you still allowing trades once a team has been eliminated from the playoffs? Theres absolutely zero rationale for that.

2) You can't prove this is collusion (its a terrible trade, that I would guess involved some sor to f kickback, but again, absent a smoking gun....) so you have to let it stand and fix your leagues rules.

This is your mistake, for not having the right rules in place.

 

[p00h]

veto it...

last place team in our league tried to pawn off tjones for santonio holmes. Got vetoed quick, and the last place team is likely to not be invited back next year. No place for such tom foolery in our leagues...

 

[p00h]

Really smells like "give me this lopsided trade and if I win I'll cut you in on the money" but it's so hard to prove collusion. This is where I'm glad I'm not a commish as I also subscribe to the no-veto-unless-collusion.

This is the problem. I've consistently been in the "stupidity isn't grounds for a veto" and "once people pay their league fee it gives them the right to manage their team the way they want" camp.This trade clearly sucks, and I have no interest in playing with owners like this again. BUT, our rules aren't clear that this is illegal and there is a justification, however thin, for the trade.If Bush blows up and Fitzgerald tanks the rest of the year, I'd hate to be the guy that vetoed the trade.

Bush won't blow up, and Fitz won't tank.

Thanks, Nostradamus.

Fitz can die tomorrow from a car crash, doesn't make the trade any more valid. Trade is stupid, and one MUST assume collusion, or indifference, neither of which has a place in a competitive $$$ league...

 

[The Redbeard]

Surely someone has said this, but:1) Why in a redraft league, are you still allowing trades once a team has been eliminated from the playoffs? Theres absolutely zero rationale for that.2) You can't prove this is collusion (its a terrible trade, that I would guess involved some sor to f kickback, but again, absent a smoking gun....) so you have to let it stand and fix your leagues rules.This is your mistake, for not having the right rules in place.

I totally disagree with your first point - we had an owner who is all but mathematically eliminated make a great trade last week that helped both teams. And his reason - because he wants to do everything he can to play spoiler. He wants to beat people. There is a lot of talk in this thread about "What's he care about a win - he's eliminated." These must be fun leagues where you expect the bottom dwellers to just roll over and let you walk into the playoffs. If your league has a trade deadline, then that should be the only restriction in my book. But that is only if you have owners that you actually trust and a commissioner willing to actually get on the phone and find out what is behind an obvious player dump.And to the original post - I'm sorry, but in a 10 team league, the 11th overall for the 101st? At least throw in some pieces to make it look like it is fair. As a commish in my league, I would have called both owners and gotten ready to break the glass cover to my veto button.

 

[p00h]

if you have both bush and smith on your roster, and 1 starting rb position open that you must decide between the two, who are you starting. I assure you more than 3/4 of the people here will go with smith. even if that is at 50%, this trade needs to be vetoed...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think you need to use your power for what is "best for the league" on this one and veto it. If the Fitz owner is already out of the playoffs why would he be making any trades? He has nothing to gain from this and the other guy has everything to gain. Being a commish can be a pain in the butt sometimes and they may not like it but this one should NOT be allowed.

Guy trading Fitz is saying he's trying to be competitive, including this week, when his only other option at RB is Kevin Smith facing one of the best run defenses in the league.Other than the fact that this looks like a bad trade, what's my basis for this? What if it was Fitz for Pierre Thomas? Ryan Grant? Julius Jones? How bad does the player have to be for me to say that my opinion of their trade matters more than theirs does?

So who is his replacement receiver?

Sidney Rice would be his WR3 this week. He's fairly deep at WR. Downgrading from the WR4 to WR 19. Wait..if you go by rankings, it's actually Greg Jennings. He drafted Jennings early, Rice late and picked up Sims-Walker off waivers early in the season. It was the Fitz/Jennings draft, coupled with counting on Stephen Jackson, that made him thin at RB and is the reason he has such a bad record.

You are never going to be able to "prove" collusion but all the evidence available points to it or at best the guy getting Bush is indifferent and is just appeasing his buddy. This just further "proves" it.So he wants Bush to cover a bye and offers Fitzgerlad when he also has Jennings, Rice and Sims-Walker? As if the guys is not going to move Reggies Bush for one of those three WRs?

Look at the facts:

1. The team on the "bad" side of the deal is eliminated from the playoffs. The team on the "good" side is fighting for a spot.

2. The team on the "bad" side justifies the trade because he "needs" a RB because he'd rather not start Kevin Smith against a tough Minny defense, although he's eliminated from the playoffs anyway. He can field a legit team and doesn't need Bush, who at best is a slight upgrade and in reality isn't an upgrade at all.

3. The team on the "bad" side, trades a top WR for a marginal RB that has done nothing all season.

4. The team on the "bad" side, also had Greg Jennings, Sidney Rice and Mike Sims-Walker to offer for Bush, yet he sends Larry Fitgerald. Is there anyone fighting for a playoff spot that is not going to trade Reggie Bush for Sims-Walker. Even a deal for one of those three would come under scrutitny, but they are at least more palatable.

You have the power as commish to do the right thing. If this isn't "obvious" collusion, what will be?