Commish need help on ruling (1 Viewer)

[hotboyz]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal

The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

 

[Arizona Ron]

If you need help making the call on this one, you really shouldn't be Commish.

 

[hotboyz]

If you need help making the call on this one, you really shouldn't be Commish.

so what you mean by that

 

[latrops]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

It's obviously lopsided. Who wants Todd Heap anymore? Doesn't your league have a system for dealing with questionable trades? If it is "commish must approve"...then you disapprove and case is closed. If it needs to go to a league vote, then do that.

 

[Silver & Black]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

First things first, you need to get rid of the veto. No matter what you do or how you explain yourself, someone is going to be upset. I have run a friends league for 10 years now and we started with a veto. It never works. Our rule now is very simple, BUYER BEWARE. Any trade, (unless you have obvious collusion decided by the commish) stands, period. If a shark owner takes advantage of a rookie, that's just part of the learning curve for the rookie. When the other owners bust his chops, he'll learn fast enough. And kudos to the shard that raped the rookie. Thats what sharks do!Anyway, as for your current situation, it certainly looks like a bad deal. But I wouldn't veto it. Maybe the rookie is a Charger fan and loves Jackson or maybe he's worried that Warner will crap out and doesn't like Leinert throwing to him. And Olsen is far from a sure thing to post good numbers...and maybe the rookie thinks this is the year that Heap finally stays healthy!!!No, I don't necessarily buy any of that, but the fact is, thats what trades are all about. The only deal I would consider vetoing is if the trade were Fitz and Olsen for a guy like Cotchery and a scrub. IMO, to veto a deal, it has to be TOTALLY out of whack. I mean completely!! Just my

 

[hotboyz]

I guess my whole problem with the trade is that it doesnt just effect those two teams it effects the teams in both there respective divisions

 

[caglassc]

As a commish I would not veto the trade. Unless there is collusion involved and it is blatantly obvious I would not veto it. First, if an owner wants to "take advantage" of someone then so be it; that is just a perception. Yes on the surface a trade may look lopsided but this is fantasy football and you never know how players will perform. Also, when an owner repeatedly takes advantage of others owners he develops a reputation and in the end from my experience it causes him more harm than good.

 

[Silver & Black]

I guess my whole problem with the trade is that it doesnt just effect those two teams it effects the teams in both there respective divisions

That's life bro. We have a web site on MFL and when something like this happens, we discuss it at great length there. People vent, bust chops etc...but in the end, the rookies learn. Some guys even post a potential trade and look for feedback from the other owners. I like that, and in fact, tell everyone in my league not to pull the trigger on any deal before talking to me since I can almost certainly offer more!! Trading, IMO, is the best part of fantasy football. Good or bad, its what makes the game fun.

 

[Pipes]

You have to veto this trade. While you can't prove collusion (when can you really?) it does smell fishy since this guy recruited the new guy in the league. One of your jobs as the commish is to protect the integrity of the league and while that doesn't mean to go on a power trip and start vetoing a bunch of trades in this case it's an absolute must.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Same thing different year.

You're a commish.

You are not running day care center.

Absent evidence of collusion, every owner is free to manage their teams as they see fit.

If you don't like these kind of trades then RECRUIT BETTER OWNERS next time.

 

[gianmarco]

Fitz was on the cover of Madden. Looks like the rookie is the shark here.

Todd Heap is about to put up the best season by a TE ever.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal

The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

First things first, you need to get rid of the veto. No matter what you do or how you explain yourself, someone is going to be upset. I have run a friends league for 10 years now and we started with a veto. It never works. Our rule now is very simple, BUYER BEWARE. Any trade, (unless you have obvious collusion decided by the commish) stands, period. If a shark owner takes advantage of a rookie, that's just part of the learning curve for the rookie. When the other owners bust his chops, he'll learn fast enough. And kudos to the shard that raped the rookie. Thats what sharks do!Anyway, as for your current situation, it certainly looks like a bad deal. But I wouldn't veto it. Maybe the rookie is a Charger fan and loves Jackson or maybe he's worried that Warner will crap out and doesn't like Leinert throwing to him. And Olsen is far from a sure thing to post good numbers...and maybe the rookie thinks this is the year that Heap finally stays healthy!!!

No, I don't necessarily buy any of that, but the fact is, thats what trades are all about. The only deal I would consider vetoing is if the trade were Fitz and Olsen for a guy like Cotchery and a scrub. IMO, to veto a deal, it has to be TOTALLY out of whack. I mean completely!! Just my

You were wrong for vetoing it. The rookie believes he made a good trade. It's not your job to save him from himself.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Same thing different year.

You're a commish.

You are not running day care center.

Absent evidence of collusion, every owner is free to manage their teams as they see fit.

If you don't like these kind of trades then RECRUIT BETTER OWNERS next time.

Bingo.

 

[Bert]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

 

[dornado]

I normally subscribe to the rule that if there's no collusion you let it go.... this may not be a couple of guys conspiring, but recruiting a guy as a last minute replacement so that you can take advantage of him is pretty close.

I guess I'd give the new guy one last chance to back out.

 

[Pipes]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

It's in the 1st thread that the guy who's trying to rape the rookie owner recruited him.

 

[frogpond11]

I know some think you should let it pass, but I don't think you should let that trade stand. Fitz is a legitimate 1st round pick this year and Olsen is a MUCH better tight end than Heap..who doesn't even get drafted in most leagues at all. So then you compare Fitz and Vincent Jackson...really? VJAX is at best a WR2...Fitz might be the #1 WR in the league. I think you should poll the league owners and ask them what they think...and that should be the ultimate decision, that way...nobody can complain to you about the ruling, because it was a league concensus. Trades like that very much harm the integrity of a league in my opinion.

 

[Todem]

I just don't understand why the noob did not draft Vincent Jackson in round one where he took Fitzgerald.

It is a disgusting trade....but unless you truly believe collusion is on the table....it is a redraft and anything goes for the most part.

Dynasty...another story...this trade is BS in a dynasty league where you expect owners to have some sense of knowledge. A trade like this can ruin a dynasty league for years and cause savey owners to run for the hills.

Also who made the inital offer...and what are his reasons for this trade.

 

[Todem]

I know some think you should let it pass, but I don't think you should let that trade stand. Fitz is a legitimate 1st round pick this year and Olsen is a MUCH better tight end than Heap..who doesn't even get drafted in most leagues at all. So then you compare Fitz and Vincent Jackson...really? VJAX is at best a WR2...Fitz might be the #1 WR in the league. I think you should poll the league owners and ask them what they think...and that should be the ultimate decision, that way...nobody can complain to you about the ruling, because it was a league concensus. Trades like that very much harm the integrity of a league in my opinion.

 

[Todem]

Same thing different year.

You're a commish.

You are not running day care center.

Absent evidence of collusion, every owner is free to manage their teams as they see fit.

If you don't like these kind of trades then RECRUIT BETTER OWNERS next time.

Bingo.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

 

[Catbird]

I hate systems where the league can vote down a trade. If a trade makes both teams better, the other owners have a strong interest in stopping that from happening. Its none of their business. Should the Vikings get to vote on the Cutler to Bears trade? Its a trade killer where trades are among the most fun things in fantasy and IMO happen way too seldom already. And a commish stepping in to do that on his own is no better. He has a vested interest in no teams getting better but his own. I think nearly all good leagues have realized that you have to get good owners and let them wheel and deal - whether the trade looks good or bad. Many times the guy with the seemingly weaker side just knows a lot more than you do.

This particular one is bad because the trade is SO lopsided and for all you know the new owner may well continue to feed good players to the guy who recruited him and then just quit - potentially hurting the league balance for years to come. I think you have to decide whether the league needs to take over this new guy's team and get a legit owner, or let the trade stand. I guess I would get the league together before Week 1 on that question and take it from there.

 

[Black]

It's obviously lopsided. Who wants Todd Heap anymore? Doesn't your league have a system for dealing with questionable trades? If it is "commish must approve"...then you disapprove and case is closed. If it needs to go to a league vote, then do that.

Agree. Stupid trade. Ask the league if it feels too lopsided if you have trouble deciding.I think the above poster was saying as Commish, just make the decision. Make the decision that keeps the integrity and competitiveness of the league.

 

[redsoxfan]

I think you also have to have a further conversation with both owners just to make sure there isn't collusion here. The shark says that the only player the newbie has that he would trade for Heap is Fitzgerald. Seriously? If he were offered Antonio Gates for Heap he wouldn't jump all over that? And if the newbie wanted Heap SOOO badly, why didn't he just draft him with his first round pick. The fact that the shark recruited the newbie raises some suspicion here - so you need to really investigate this.

I generally agree with people that any trade should stand, but in spite of that I would seriously consider vetoing this one. It's going to piss off every other owner in the league. And if the newbie pulls off another trade or two like this his team will have nothing left and chances are high that he will just abandon the team. That will cause more problems. So, I think it's in the best interest of the league to consider overturning it.

 

[uwftbl]

I think you also have to have a further conversation with both owners just to make sure there isn't collusion here. The shark says that the only player the newbie has that he would trade for Heap is Fitzgerald. Seriously? If he were offered Antonio Gates for Heap he wouldn't jump all over that? And if the newbie wanted Heap SOOO badly, why didn't he just draft him with his first round pick. The fact that the shark recruited the newbie raises some suspicion here - so you need to really investigate this.I generally agree with people that any trade should stand, but in spite of that I would seriously consider vetoing this one. It's going to piss off every other owner in the league. And if the newbie pulls off another trade or two like this his team will have nothing left and chances are high that he will just abandon the team. That will cause more problems. So, I think it's in the best interest of the league to consider overturning it.

No collusion, no veto, no team owner vote. You would be harming the integrity of the league more by doing that, and you would be setting a terrible precident to be lived with for years to come. Live with it this year and get another owner for his/their spot next year.

 

[texasheat]

I can't believe how many of you are saying to let the trade stand.

Some things need to be done to maintain the integrity of the league. Vetoing this trade does just that.

 

[Slinger]

You did the right thing by veto'ing. Either the new guy drools when he speaks or he's buds with the owner he tried to make this trade with. Like you said, he was hand picked by him.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I can't believe how many of you are saying to let the trade stand. Some things need to be done to maintain the integrity of the league. Vetoing this trade does just that.

i am shocked as well.I would go so far as to say this is obvious collusion. Guy recruits dummy, knows dummy will trade with him. The reason dummy gives is because he really wants Todd Heap? This stinks like something and it isnt a rookie mistake.

 

[DoubleG]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

It's in the 1st thread that the guy who's trying to rape the rookie owner recruited him.

Everyone keeps saying "no colusion, no veto"The bolded part is why this trade stinks of collusion. I'd put it to the league - not based on fairness, based on possible collusion. The ability to veto trades is not in itself bad. It's only bad if the power is used to often and in the wrong circumstances. Collusion is the correct time. Can collusion be proven? Not usually. But if a trade is highly suspect (and good players from a team that just joined the league going to his buddy for crappy players does seem highly suspect) it should be looked at. I prefer by the whole league - but again, only in cases of suspected collusion.

BTW, who paid for the other (crappy) owner's entry fee?

 

[Ray_T]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

Instead of approving or rejecting the deal outright. why dont you just talk to the rookie GM. tell him you feel the deal is a bit lopsided and ask him why he wants to make the deal. Give him one chance to back out of the deal if he wants to. (if he decides not to do the deal, you do it as a veto)If he insists he wants to do the deal and if there is any kind of logic and reason in the explanation that makes sense, then let the deal go through.otherwise, a franchise WR along with a TE on the rise for a solid WR and a TE some would say is washed up seems a bit odd.I doubt there is collusion, but it does seem funny. have any of the other league members complained about the deal yet? or do they even know about it?

 

[burd]

at first, i thought it was just another case of rookie owner being taken advantage of ... no rule against that. He'll learn from his mistake and be better for it next year.

The fact that he was recruited by the guy who's trying to take advantage of him is very fishy, but unless your positive that they are colluding, you shouldn't veto the trade. But my gut says that the rook is atleast being very accomadating to his friend and that the friend is using this to his own advantage. Do they have a "deal" in place? Doubtful but possible. I think it's more of a friend trying to be the good guy towards his friend.

You should accept this and take it as a learning experience. Put in a rule that owners have to majority vote to veto a trade. This way, if there's the hint that collusion is going on but there is no proof, by going w/ the majority opinion, your taking the pressure off yourself while putting the focus on the other owners opinions'. This isn't perfect but atleast the views of the majority are being addressed.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

It's in the 1st thread that the guy who's trying to rape the rookie owner recruited him.

Everyone keeps saying "no colusion, no veto"The bolded part is why this trade stinks of collusion. I'd put it to the league - not based on fairness, based on possible collusion. The ability to veto trades is not in itself bad. It's only bad if the power is used to often and in the wrong circumstances. Collusion is the correct time. Can collusion be proven? Not usually. But if a trade is highly suspect (and good players from a team that just joined the league going to his buddy for crappy players does seem highly suspect) it should be looked at. I prefer by the whole league - but again, only in cases of suspected collusion.

BTW, who paid for the other (crappy) owner's entry fee?

The only problem I have with a league vote is that the circumstances of the situation are already tilted. 11 of the 12 owners benefit by vetoing this trade. If you allow me a vote as to if a trade should stand that saw another owner basically swap out V. Jackson for Fitzgerald while giving up nothing of relevance...hell yes I'm voting no. That like assembling a jury of 12 people and saying, by the way - there's a C-Note in it for you if you find him guilty.

 

[DoubleG]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

It's in the 1st thread that the guy who's trying to rape the rookie owner recruited him.

Everyone keeps saying "no colusion, no veto"The bolded part is why this trade stinks of collusion. I'd put it to the league - not based on fairness, based on possible collusion. The ability to veto trades is not in itself bad. It's only bad if the power is used to often and in the wrong circumstances. Collusion is the correct time. Can collusion be proven? Not usually. But if a trade is highly suspect (and good players from a team that just joined the league going to his buddy for crappy players does seem highly suspect) it should be looked at. I prefer by the whole league - but again, only in cases of suspected collusion.

BTW, who paid for the other (crappy) owner's entry fee?

The only problem I have with a league vote is that the circumstances of the situation are already tilted. 11 of the 12 owners benefit by vetoing this trade. If you allow me a vote as to if a trade should stand that saw another owner basically swap out V. Jackson for Fitzgerald while giving up nothing of relevance...hell yes I'm voting no. That like assembling a jury of 12 people and saying, by the way - there's a C-Note in it for you if you find him guilty.

How is that better than allowing the decision to rest with one person? At least with a league-wide vote, you have the hope that at least some of them are acting with a conscience. It's tempting to say "Well, I'm the Commish, and I will only rule fairly - it's just the rest of you I don't trust". Your leaguemates probably feel the same way the commish. The veto power should be about vetoing collusion - that doesn't (shouldn't) change whether it's 11 people voting for/against it or not. If you think 11 people are going to vote to veto the trade because it helps them, why would you hold the commish to a higher moral standard?When putting together league rules, if you are going to allow trade vetoes, the language should clearly state that the only reason to vote to veto a trade is when collusion (which also should be fully explained) is suspected.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think you also have to have a further conversation with both owners just to make sure there isn't collusion here. The shark says that the only player the newbie has that he would trade for Heap is Fitzgerald. Seriously? If he were offered Antonio Gates for Heap he wouldn't jump all over that? And if the newbie wanted Heap SOOO badly, why didn't he just draft him with his first round pick. The fact that the shark recruited the newbie raises some suspicion here - so you need to really investigate this.

I generally agree with people that any trade should stand, but in spite of that I would seriously consider vetoing this one. It's going to piss off every other owner in the league. And if the newbie pulls off another trade or two like this his team will have nothing left and chances are high that he will just abandon the team. That will cause more problems. So, I think it's in the best interest of the league to consider overturning it.

No collusion, no veto, no team owner vote. You would be harming the integrity of the league more by doing that, and you would be setting a terrible precident to be lived with for years to come. Live with it this year and get another owner for his/their spot next year.

I agree with that generally but there is evidence of collusion here that at the very least demands some investigation:1. A new owner brought into the league at the last minute by his trade partner.

2. A trade so seriously lopsided that one would be hard pressed to defend it. I realize that everyone values players differently, but taking Fitzgerald in round 1 shows that the newbie places first round value on him. My guess is Jackson was drafted sometime after Round 5 and Heap was drafted really late (and well after Olsen).

Why the sudden urge to acquire Heap when he could have drafted him a few rounds earlier if he really wanted him? What has changed since the draft that would make some one beleive that two players drafted well after two other players are suddenly worth equal price?

Like I said this one at least bears further investigation to see if there is collusion.

 

[texasheat]

Some of you are missing the point. Collusion or not, the trade is not good for the league.

 

[Ray_T]

Some of you are missing the point. Collusion or not, the trade is not good for the league.

irrelevant.If the first place team makes a deal with the last place team and improves his team, you dont just veto because it's good for the league.You need GOOD REASON to veto a deal.on questionable trades, you should at least follow up with the person who got the short end of the stick(so to speak) and see why they want to do this?All I want as a commish is good logic & reason as to why the deal works. I dont have to agree with such logic, but the logic has to be there.in this case I can see it being possible. suppose the new owner is a guppie(not an unrealistic explanation). and he is not totally up to date on football news.1 year ago, Fitz was a #1, but not a franchise #1 WR. 2 years ago, Olsen was a nobody and Heap was the man. If he thinks Heap will again be the man, and hates olsen, I'm not gonna argue with that even if I dont agree.as for Fitz, he could make a point that he thinks Warner is finished and that his numbers will slide in a big way this year. Personally, I think Fitz will have a great year whether it will be Warner, Leinart, or whoever at QB. but this is an opinion.if the new owner shows some kind of logic, and can make the deal look close to fair, you gotta let it go through.If the commish is rejecting trades just cuz it helps the first place team, I'm out of that league.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I don't think you should veto. My question is where did you find the idiot rookie?

It's in the 1st thread that the guy who's trying to rape the rookie owner recruited him.

Everyone keeps saying "no colusion, no veto"The bolded part is why this trade stinks of collusion. I'd put it to the league - not based on fairness, based on possible collusion. The ability to veto trades is not in itself bad. It's only bad if the power is used to often and in the wrong circumstances. Collusion is the correct time. Can collusion be proven? Not usually. But if a trade is highly suspect (and good players from a team that just joined the league going to his buddy for crappy players does seem highly suspect) it should be looked at. I prefer by the whole league - but again, only in cases of suspected collusion.

BTW, who paid for the other (crappy) owner's entry fee?

The only problem I have with a league vote is that the circumstances of the situation are already tilted. 11 of the 12 owners benefit by vetoing this trade. If you allow me a vote as to if a trade should stand that saw another owner basically swap out V. Jackson for Fitzgerald while giving up nothing of relevance...hell yes I'm voting no. That like assembling a jury of 12 people and saying, by the way - there's a C-Note in it for you if you find him guilty.

How is that better than allowing the decision to rest with one person? At least with a league-wide vote, you have the hope that at least some of them are acting with a conscience. It's tempting to say "Well, I'm the Commish, and I will only rule fairly - it's just the rest of you I don't trust". Your leaguemates probably feel the same way the commish. The veto power should be about vetoing collusion - that doesn't (shouldn't) change whether it's 11 people voting for/against it or not. If you think 11 people are going to vote to veto the trade because it helps them, why would you hold the commish to a higher moral standard?When putting together league rules, if you are going to allow trade vetoes, the language should clearly state that the only reason to vote to veto a trade is when collusion (which also should be fully explained) is suspected.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of vetoing trades...EVER. I believe if you have rules in your league allowing trades to be veto'd you're playing a crippled game. So I only view commish veto power vs. league vote as the lesser of two evils.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Some of you are missing the point. Collusion or not, the trade is not good for the league.

And this is what it really comes down to isn't it? The trade isn't good for 11 of the 12 owners in the league. Never mind that it wasn't necessarily against the rules as they've been established.

 

[Wrigley]

I commish a league, and this trade would not stand, period.

And this would be the first trade I've ever shot down..........but then again, I've been playing with the same group of guys the past 10 years

League integrity is very important, and I feel it's your job as commish to keep this intact.

 

[3C's]

dynasty or redraft? I'd have to think redraft since Fitzgerald was available. if it's redraft, heap was available. If he wanted heap so bad why would he draft olsen AND gates? sounds fishy.

 

[the rover]

Some of you are missing the point. Collusion or not, having idiot owners the trade is not good for the league.

 

[runner06]

I think you also have to have a further conversation with both owners just to make sure there isn't collusion here. The shark says that the only player the newbie has that he would trade for Heap is Fitzgerald. Seriously? If he were offered Antonio Gates for Heap he wouldn't jump all over that? And if the newbie wanted Heap SOOO badly, why didn't he just draft him with his first round pick. The fact that the shark recruited the newbie raises some suspicion here - so you need to really investigate this.I generally agree with people that any trade should stand, but in spite of that I would seriously consider vetoing this one. It's going to piss off every other owner in the league. And if the newbie pulls off another trade or two like this his team will have nothing left and chances are high that he will just abandon the team. That will cause more problems. So, I think it's in the best interest of the league to consider overturning it.

Agree with this. I think a much more likely scenario then collusion here is that the shark recruited this owner because he figured he could take advantage of him. If I were another owner in this league, I don't think I would just assume someone is an idiot so to me this extra "knowledge" gives the shark a competitive and unfair advantage over the other owners. I'm against vetoing trades in almost every circumstance, but I would lean towards vetoing this trade (and would lean against if any other owner in the league had recruited the newbie).

 

[Billy Bats]

Why is fantasy football so complicated when it comes to trades?? Did the NFL veto the Herschel Walker trade to Minnesota? Wasn't that a lopsided trade, and "unfair" to the rest of the league? But they didn't take a league vote and the commissioner let it stand. All you guys sayin veto are the ones who get mad because you weren't smart enough to make a trade with that team. Let the trade stand. A rookie has to learn somewhere, you can't take them by the hand, or just don't let them in the league to begin with.

 

[lynx4ben]

Same thing different year.You're a commish.You are not running day care center.Absent evidence of collusion, every owner is free to manage their teams as they see fit.If you don't like these kind of trades then RECRUIT BETTER OWNERS next time.

Best response period. I've seen bad owners really hurt leagues. I learned this lesson the hard way several times. As commish going forward I won't even start a if I feel like I have a bad owner.Usually before inviting someone into my league I'll talk football with them for five minutes. It usually gives me enough time to tell.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Ah, the only-veto-if-collusion dogs are out again.

You CANNOT prove collusion without a confession.

So there has to be a line that cannot be crossed SOMEWHERE.

If the rookie traded his 1st rounder and 8th for a 5th rounder and 18th, would that trade be okay? That's about what he did.

What if he traded Adrian Peterson for Samkon Gado? Maybe he is the president and founder of Samkon's fan club.... plus Steven Jackson is getting hurt, so Samkon will be a STUD!

No collusion, trade stands.

Where to draw the line is the hard part.

ETA: recruit better owners is the most important thing, but that's not always an option.

 

[stevegamer]

I'd veto this, as it smells funny - particularly since this guy was recruited by the owner gettign Fitz.

And I wouldn't let anyone he "recruits" into the league in the future.

 

[da_budman]

Why is fantasy football so complicated when it comes to trades?? Did the NFL veto the Herschel Walker trade to Minnesota? Wasn't that a lopsided trade, and "unfair" to the rest of the league? But they didn't take a league vote and the commissioner let it stand. All you guys sayin veto are the ones who get mad because you weren't smart enough to make a trade with that team. Let the trade stand. A rookie has to learn somewhere, you can't take them by the hand, or just don't let them in the league to begin with.

The difference there is you KNOW there was no colusion. In this case it is reasonable to suspect it. I have never had to overturn a trade in 14 years as Commish. I HAVE had to sit down several owners and have them TRY to explain to me how a particular trade made their team better ( which is included in the definition of colusion in our league rules). After that discussion, I have had all 3 trades in question rescinded by the owner. Sometimes decent guys just dont get the ramifications of their actions and need it explained to them, after which they become more reasonable.I HATE league wide veto rules for the obvious reason. It is never in the best interest of the other owners to allow a trade. If I ever considered a rule like that the percentage of griping owners to overturn the trade would have to be substantial in order for the reasonable ones who understand to win out in all but the most egregiuos situations. (Im thinking 75 percent or more here)You have a commish who SHOULD BE above reproach in making rulings on situations like this. If you cant trust your commish to handle this you probably shouldnt be in the league.To those who say its so lopsided rescind it (and I agree it is horribly lopsided) where does this slippery slope end? One other point on vetoing trades. All you need is one key injury that happens shortly after you have vetoed a trade to tear a league apart. Injurys after a trade that goes through are bad enough, you dont want to be that guy who just vetoed a trade and have this happen.Long and short of it. Colusion can very seldom be proven. IF you suspect it, go to each owner privately and discuss the situation. I find that has always worked for me. Only after doing that and having it not work do you have to make the tough decision.

 

[runner06]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal

The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

Really surprised this doesn't bother more people. Like I said in my previous post, I think the shark hand picked this guy because he felt he could take advantage of him and not because he thought he'd be a good owner for the league, especially given the guy's history of taking advantage of rookie owners. To me, that's extremely bush league move and in my opinion harms the integrity of your league. If anyone other owner invites the newbie to the league, I almost certainly let the trade stand.

However, since the shark invited the newbie to the league, I almost certainly veto the trade. That's a major red flag to me.

 

[Wrigley]

I have a owner in my league who is notorious for pilvering rookie owners. He has a deal on the table that i vetoed i need to know am i wrong the deal is Rookie owner trades Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olsen for Vincent Jackson and Todd Heap now if this trade was with another veteran owner i would think its a stupid trade but i would let it go but this trade is with a rookie whom by the way was a last minute replacement to the league. Then the rookie showed up to the draft late when he showed up he was on the clock thats when he took Fitzgerald. His reasoning for the trade is he really wants Todd Heap even though he curently own Antonio Gates and Greg Olsen and we only start 1 TE. So the rookie owner tells the vet he wants heap the vet says all u have i want is Fitz and he makes the deal

The only reason i want to veto this is to protect the integrity of the league i dont care bout rookie f'ing his team up but it effects the rest of the league. Oh yea heres the kicker the rookie was handpicked to replace the owner who dropped out at last minute guess who he was handpicked by you guessed it the dude he's now trying to trade with

Really surprised this doesn't bother more people. Like I said in my previous post, I think the shark hand picked this guy because he felt he could take advantage of him and not because he thought he'd be a good owner for the league, especially given the guy's history of taking advantage of rookie owners. To me, that's extremely bush league move and in my opinion harms the integrity of your league. If anyone other owner invites the newbie to the league, I almost certainly let the trade stand.

However, since the shark invited the newbie to the league, I almost certainly veto the trade. That's a major red flag to me.

Not to take advantage of him, more like to have him do what he wants

 

[daveR]

If you are willing to say to the owners, "You planned this out beforehand. The trade will not go through.", then by all means veto the trade. If you don't believe this to be true, then the trade stands.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I don't believe in vetoing trades but I do believe that for league integrity, trades should "make sense" to both teams.

I like the idea of talking with the rookie and having him explain why this trade makes sense to his team. He will either a) provide some kind of logical defense, even if non-consensus, b) provide some silly defense, equivalent to "I like the colors of his uniform," or c) somehow reveal that it was collusion. If a) you allow the trade, if b) you probably have to allow the trade but you might require him to justify all future trades in writing, or something, if c) you veto the trade. One last result may be that, as noted above, he may come to realize what he's done and want to rescind the trade. In that case, I would let him do so, and I would justify it by the circumstances of his recruitment ("dude, you can't recruit a guy to the league and then immediately take massive advantage of him."

I would ask questions like "why did you draft Gates and Olsen if you were willing to swap Olsen for Heap in a start 1 TE league. Why draft Fitzgerald first and then swap him for an afterthought like Jackson. Make him justify it.

If you don't trust the other guy, and this guy sucks, neither one of them should be in the league next year.