Commish needs help on approving trade (1 Viewer)

[statman]

In our 14 team redraft league, the following trade has been made and needs Commish approval.

Brees, M.Booker and E.Johnson

for

Garcia, Stallworth and B.Watson

While I NEVER veto trades, This one just seems so one-sided to me that I don't know what to do.

Any and all feedback is appreciated.

 

[Ozymandias]

Leave it as is. It's all about what the managers believe about the future.

 

[parrot]

One sided for who?

 

[LionsFan78]

Nothing wrong with it if both guys have agreed to it. Guy gets much inferior QB, but upgrades at WR/TE. If that's what he wants, I wouldn't try to micromanage thier teams.

Not even close to veto material.

 

[BroadwayG]

These threads never get old.

 

[AB in DC]

Doesn't seem too bad. Eric Johnson could be a one-game wonder, and Booker is basically worthless. If that team thinks that Stallworth will have a huge year, then it's a very good deal.

The only issue I see is to make sure that this trade doesn't take effect until after week one is complete.

 

[rikishiboy]

If he has a qb that is a tier below Brees then it is okay.

 

[bryhamm]

These threads never get old.

VERY

 

[CrossEyed]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.

That is all.

 

[maxwell1295]

It really doesn't look that bad. Maybe the one guy doesn't think Brees is going to live up to his ADP. Maybe he's a Pats fan who has man-love for Stallworth and Watson. Bottom line: Unless you have a good reason to think there's come collusion going on, you should let it go through...

 

[BroadwayG]

Wait, did you mean you lost the commish password and need assistance cracking it in order to approve the trade?

 

[statman]

Guys,

thanks for the quick responses.

I guess I was letting my own personal biases towards certain players potentially affect my judgment.

Cheers.

 

[Phurfur]

Guys,thanks for the quick responses.I guess I was letting my own personal biases towards certain players potentially affect my judgment.Cheers.

Yes, that is what always happens. Trades should always go through.

 

[phthalatemagic]

statman - you should not be a commish

 

[boom king]

statman - you should not be a commish

i wish we could all be fantasy football masterminds like phthalatmagic!dude, not everyone has been a commisioner before. give the guy a break

 

[GregR_2]

statman - you should not be a commish

Easy there guy. I know very few people who started out in FF and immediately understood what goes on with vetoing and why teams should be allowed to think for themselves. People's initial reaction seems to be to want to be able to veto other's trades, and it isn't until they go through some incidents that they understand why that is such a poor idea.So he's learned something from the experience. Give him credit for it, because a lot of people wouldn't bother to seek out advice, and fewer would bother to actually listen to it when it didn't agree with their initial thought.

 

[1huskerfan]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

 

[statman]

statman - you should not be a commish

With all due respect phthalatemagic, go suck balls. I've been a commish for 11 years.This league had a 'no trade' clause for the past 2 seasons because of whiny owners. Trades have been voted back in this year, but they must be approved by a 3 member panel. The last thing I wanted was to start the season with more complaining from owners saying that this deal was unfair.Thanks to everyone else who had something constructive to add.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Sorry, I was harsh.

 

[phthalatemagic]

statman - let me try to positively add to the thread:

This is where your value as a commish comes through! I think you should respect your fellow owners and their thoughts, although they may be different with respect to particular players' value, you must assume they know what they are doing. Even if they do not know what they are doing, they paid (most likely) to play this game and to learn from this game. Let them make mistakes to learn from, protecting them from themselves does not make a league better.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

statman - you should not be a commish

With all due respect phthalatemagic, go suck balls. I've been a commish for 11 years.This league had a 'no trade' clause for the past 2 seasons because of whiny owners. Trades have been voted back in this year, but they must be approved by a 3 member panel. The last thing I wanted was to start the season with more complaining from owners saying that this deal was unfair.Thanks to everyone else who had something constructive to add.

Do away with the approval process. If you are worried about collusion then your league needs to find owners whowon't collude. You will never, in a million years, find a trade that's "fair". Each owner does what he does in an attempt to makehis starting lineup better. Then along comes the approval committe to veto the trade because they don't think it's fair to THEM. Sure, they can give a million reasons why the trade shouldn't go through. They have their stats and their charts and their graphs. What they don't have is the crystal ball to tell them what's going to happen.They also don't realize that some owners aren't concerned about the overall "value" of a player. If I'm stacked at running back and thin at wr, I might be willing to give up a running back(a back I can't start) for the wr even if the running back's value is much higher. And if this is a money league, you really have no right to tell people how to manage their team. I'd suggest that ownes who are worried about collusion are the first ones you want to replace for it is they who are the ones who are engaged in "projecting". After almost 20 years collusion has NEVER been an issue in our league. Tell me, why would owners not involved in a trade have any interest in approving a trade that would make both teams better?Sorry, the self interest of the owners not involved in the trade will always trump concerns for whether or not it's a good trade(mostly since there's no clear cut way to quantify a "fair" trade). Ditch the committee and let the chips fall where they may. It's the only civilized thing to do.

 

[Marc Levin]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

I am normally of the camp that says: "only veto trades if there is collusion and don't micro-manage your fellow owners"However, that is true only in leagues that either have no rule or have a rule that states trades will be vetoed only for either collusion or competitive imbalance. Competitive imbalance, to me, does not mean the trade itself is lopsided. Competitive imbalance is a trade that smells of collusion and results in a team with a significant competitive edge (this is designed to prevent those teams eliminated from the playoffs from trading a player of significance to a team competing for the playoffs in exchange for a bunch of dreck - the classic week 12 trade of LT for 4 bench players)In a league that has explicitly chosen to put trades up to league vote, or explicitly states that the commish should examine the trade for fairness, I don't see anything wrong with evaluating such a trade. "Fairness" usually means he evaluates whether either party is "getting screwed." If he thinks one party IS getting screwed, I think it is the commish's duty, before arbitrarily veto'ing a trade, to ask the party "getting screwed" whether he knows what he is doing.Different strokes. As we always say, your league's rules control all, even if we don't like the rule.

 

[The Bad CEO]

If you can't make this call, you shouldn't be Commish.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

Guys,thanks for the quick responses.I guess I was letting my own personal biases towards certain players potentially affect my judgment.Cheers.

If you cannot leave your personal opinions out of the decisions, you really should not be a commish. Some people are just wired that way. Its not meant as an insult, its just the way we are. Personally I think the trade sucks, but I can see why someone might not think it sucks, and therefore have no problem with it.

 

[BroadwayG]

At least he didn't reset the entire league the night before the first game.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

statman - you should not be a commish

With all due respect phthalatemagic, go suck balls. I've been a commish for 11 years.This league had a 'no trade' clause for the past 2 seasons because of whiny owners. Trades have been voted back in this year, but they must be approved by a 3 member panel. The last thing I wanted was to start the season with more complaining from owners saying that this deal was unfair.Thanks to everyone else who had something constructive to add.

Even the best of deals will be seen as "unfair" by the other owners. It's self interest. Why would they want two other owners to improve their teams? They wouldn't. So, what they do is find a reason to nix the deal by tossing around words like "fair" and "value". A fair deal is one in which both owners agree. It doesn't matter if you are talking about business or fantasy football. Leave em along and let em play their teams as they see fit. Tell the other owners to worry about their own teams. It's the way that works best. Anything else is uncivilized.

 

[JHuber77]

REPEAT AFTER ME............ ALL TRADES ARE GOOD UNLESS IT IS COLLUSION

 

[CrossEyed]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

That wasn't my point. Having veto power is necessary in cases of collusion. But it isn't necessary for a commissioner to think that every trade is completely even in order to allow it. People value players differently.

 

[Marc Levin]

statman - you should not be a commish

With all due respect phthalatemagic, go suck balls. I've been a commish for 11 years.This league had a 'no trade' clause for the past 2 seasons because of whiny owners. Trades have been voted back in this year, but they must be approved by a 3 member panel. The last thing I wanted was to start the season with more complaining from owners saying that this deal was unfair.Thanks to everyone else who had something constructive to add.

Do away with the approval process. If you are worried about collusion then your league needs to find owners whowon't collude. You will never, in a million years, find a trade that's "fair". Each owner does what he does in an attempt to makehis starting lineup better. Then along comes the approval committe to veto the trade because they don't think it's fair to THEM. Sure, they can give a million reasons why the trade shouldn't go through. They have their stats and their charts and their graphs. What they don't have is the crystal ball to tell them what's going to happen.They also don't realize that some owners aren't concerned about the overall "value" of a player. If I'm stacked at running back and thin at wr, I might be willing to give up a running back(a back I can't start) for the wr even if the running back's value is much higher. And if this is a money league, you really have no right to tell people how to manage their team. I'd suggest that ownes who are worried about collusion are the first ones you want to replace for it is they who are the ones who are engaged in "projecting". After almost 20 years collusion has NEVER been an issue in our league. Tell me, why would owners not involved in a trade have any interest in approving a trade that would make both teams better?Sorry, the self interest of the owners not involved in the trade will always trump concerns for whether or not it's a good trade(mostly since there's no clear cut way to quantify a "fair" trade). Ditch the committee and let the chips fall where they may. It's the only civilized thing to do.

I think you have missed the point of statman's trade approval process - it is not to prevent collusion. It is to prevent the perception that a trade favors one side. That, in itself is a but we are not in that league, so why dictate their policy? They had to revert to a no trade clause because of whiny owners - that sounds like a lot of owners complaining about one team improving itself through a trade. The league has a problem with the concept of trades, not a problem with collusion.

 

[JHuber77]

If they have a problem with trades, they should go play tiddlywinks or something like that. Maybe lawn darts.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I'm glad my commish is cool. i traded Curry (my WR6) for Leftwich AFTER he was dumped. Dynasty league and I needed cap space and Leftwich is still young enough to be useful next year. I'm sure a large number of commishs would be yelling about how unfair it was.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Lord have mercy, it's not a "would I do this trade" part of your job. The only time you should EVER think about vetoing is when you strongly feel collusion is involved. Everyone places value differently on other players and depth and such also have to be considered. It's not the commish's job to approve or disapprove trades on the basis if he likes it or not. Your job is to uphold the integrity of the league.

 

[CrossEyed]

If they have a problem with trades, they should go play tiddlywinks or something like that. Maybe lawn darts.

Those things can hurt you.

 

[1huskerfan]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

That wasn't my point. Having veto power is necessary in cases of collusion. But it isn't necessary for a commissioner to think that every trade is completely even in order to allow it. People value players differently.

You have no clue what the role of the veto is for his league, and for anyone else's league for that matter. If a league has a rule set in place to overturn unbalanced trades, that is their prerogative.

 

[lumpas]

Back up a sec.

Fantasy football... no trades.

WTF!?!

You, as a commish, are OK.

Your league, however, should be broken up!

No trades - I don't believe it. Must be a really sickening, whiney, paranoid bunch.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

That wasn't my point. Having veto power is necessary in cases of collusion. But it isn't necessary for a commissioner to think that every trade is completely even in order to allow it. People value players differently.

You have no clue what the role of the veto is for his league, and for anyone else's league for that matter. If a league has a rule set in place to overturn unbalanced trades, that is their prerogative.

I don't make trades with "balance" in mind. I expect to gain. So does any other owner involved. All you do is pander to the self interest of the other owners when you have an approval process. Do you make a trade with the expectation of it being "balanced" or do you expect to gain? Why on earth would you want to interfere with the law of supply and demand?

 

[Skinsfansince72]

statman - you should not be a commish

With all due respect phthalatemagic, go suck balls. I've been a commish for 11 years.This league had a 'no trade' clause for the past 2 seasons because of whiny owners. Trades have been voted back in this year, but they must be approved by a 3 member panel. The last thing I wanted was to start the season with more complaining from owners saying that this deal was unfair.Thanks to everyone else who had something constructive to add.

Do away with the approval process. If you are worried about collusion then your league needs to find owners whowon't collude. You will never, in a million years, find a trade that's "fair". Each owner does what he does in an attempt to makehis starting lineup better. Then along comes the approval committe to veto the trade because they don't think it's fair to THEM. Sure, they can give a million reasons why the trade shouldn't go through. They have their stats and their charts and their graphs. What they don't have is the crystal ball to tell them what's going to happen.They also don't realize that some owners aren't concerned about the overall "value" of a player. If I'm stacked at running back and thin at wr, I might be willing to give up a running back(a back I can't start) for the wr even if the running back's value is much higher. And if this is a money league, you really have no right to tell people how to manage their team. I'd suggest that ownes who are worried about collusion are the first ones you want to replace for it is they who are the ones who are engaged in "projecting". After almost 20 years collusion has NEVER been an issue in our league. Tell me, why would owners not involved in a trade have any interest in approving a trade that would make both teams better?Sorry, the self interest of the owners not involved in the trade will always trump concerns for whether or not it's a good trade(mostly since there's no clear cut way to quantify a "fair" trade). Ditch the committee and let the chips fall where they may. It's the only civilized thing to do.

I think you have missed the point of statman's trade approval process - it is not to prevent collusion. It is to prevent the perception that a trade favors one side. That, in itself is a but we are not in that league, so why dictate their policy? They had to revert to a no trade clause because of whiny owners - that sounds like a lot of owners complaining about one team improving itself through a trade. The league has a problem with the concept of trades, not a problem with collusion.

I understand perfectly. Do away with the approval process and tell the whiny owners to #### and manage their own affairs. Then you replace them next year. And I agree with what you're saying. They do seem to have a problem with the entire concept of what a trade is all about. BUT, giving the competition power over trades is only going to cause other problems.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Back up a sec.

Fantasy football... no trades.

WTF!?!

You, as a commish, are OK.

Your league, however, should be broken up!

No trades - I don't believe it. Must be a really sickening, whiney, paranoid bunch.

Yep. Just the kind of guys you don't want to ever involve yourself with.

 

[1huskerfan]

Attention all commissioners: Stop trying to micromanage your leagues.That is all.

If leagues have trade vetoes and such, that is their decision. He wants advice on whether he should approve th trade, not whether or not it is a valid rule. You guys should quit trying hijacking these threads. We get it. You don't like the rule. That's not the issue. Move along and tell someone else how to run their league now. Nothing to see here.

That wasn't my point. Having veto power is necessary in cases of collusion. But it isn't necessary for a commissioner to think that every trade is completely even in order to allow it. People value players differently.

You have no clue what the role of the veto is for his league, and for anyone else's league for that matter. If a league has a rule set in place to overturn unbalanced trades, that is their prerogative.

I don't make trades with "balance" in mind. I expect to gain. So does any other owner involved. All you do is pander to the self interest of the other owners when you have an approval process. Do you make a trade with the expectation of it being "balanced" or do you expect to gain? Why on earth would you want to interfere with the law of supply and demand?

I am not trying to defend the rule. It is what it is. I just find the holier than thou responses when someone posts looking for advise a little funny. We get it. You don't agree with the rule. Guess what? You're not in the league so you don't have to deal with it. Quit thinking you have to hijack every thread and be the savior of every league that happens to have a trade veto that works in this matter.

 

[1huskerfan]

Back up a sec.

Fantasy football... no trades.

WTF!?!

You, as a commish, are OK.

Your league, however, should be broken up!

No trades - I don't believe it. Must be a really sickening, whiney, paranoid bunch.

Yep. Just the kind of guys you don't want to ever involve yourself with.

Try one with no trades, fixed rosters (ie 2Qbs, 4RBs, ...), and benchmark scoring. Finally got out after 6 years.