Commish question - not sure how to handle a trade (1 Viewer)

[Rounders]

I'm the commish of 10 team league that has been together for 12 years. We are all good friends and play for some $$.

Over the years I have made some trades that when you look back at them clearly benefitted my team in the end. Of course being the nature of FF, my buddies always bring it up, "remember the time you screwed so and so"

Fast forward to 5 minutes ago, I get offered this trade:

I get: LaMont Jordan, Randy McMichael and Steve Smith

for

I give: Reggie Bush, Laveranues Coles and Todd Heap.

Clearly I love the trade, I think that I really make out here.....but I'm afraid to accept it for the reprecussions from the league.

To make the situation a little more muddy, I'm the commish and the trade rules read as follows:

Any attempt to dump players, stack teams or conduct trades otherwise viewed as one-sided, unethical or involving the exchange of money or other goods is strictly illegal. Such trades may be vetoed immediately by the commissioner and upheld by the owners in the league.

All trades are subject to approval from the commissioner. The only reasons that a trade may be vetoed is if it is deemed a clear case of collusion and/or cheating. If a trade is denied by the commissioner, he must provide a reason to which the trade has been denied, and must be for the good of the league. This prevents obvious collusion and cheating.

A trade may be disputed and if so a complaint must be filed with the commissioner via email.

When a trade is being investigated (appealed) both owners must state their reasons for conducting the trade (ie how the trade benefits their team).

If a trade is disputed the ruling will be left in the hands of a 3 person committee. These people will decide if there is a possible cheating infraction. The committee must act on behalf or the league and not themselves. The committee will be chosen by random once a trade is being disputed. You will not be able to be part of a 2nd committee until everyone has served at least once.

Any owner may appeal a committee's decision. Each owner is allowed 1 appeal per year. In order to overturn a committee's decision a league vote will take place. Only the owners not involved (the remaining 5) in the trade and the committee can vote to overturn the committee's decision. A 60% vote will be needed to overturn (3 of 5).

Has any other commish's faced a similar situation? How did you handle the situation?

 

[Iceman66]

not that one sided, will not be protested ar all, why worry about it. If you like the deal, take it.

 

[NOONAN]

Is this a redraft, keeper or dynasty? My 18-year commish opinion would be different for each. I think the big distinction here is you are being OFFERED the trade. It is not so one-sided(esp. in keeper or dynasty) to appear improper. With that, I can't see how others could complain too much. Good luck.

 

[my man otis]

why don't you have an asst commish - one of his/her duties is to approve trades involving you.

 

[roboticelephant]

Whats the problem? Doesn't seem that unbalanced to me. Theres plent of reason to belive Bush will be better than Jordan and Heap will be better than Mc Michael. Coles has been pretty good so far.

 

[flipya4real]

Add in the rule...commish vetoes/ratifies trades....any decision that the league does not like can be overturned by a simple majority of the owners.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

I always make trades in the hope that I will benefit. The people who I trade with do the same. What's the issue?

 

[Sinrman]

not that one sided, will not be protested ar all, why worry about it. If you like the deal, take it.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Add in the rule...commish vetoes/ratifies trades....any decision that the league does not like can be overturned by a simple majority of the owners.

Neither the commish nor the league should be involving themselves in trades. If two owners want to trade, that's their business. Leagues that allow a 3rd parties to veto trades are not leagues you want to be involvedd with(especially if there's money on the line). What ends up happening is that trades get vetoed by people because they don't want to see other teams improve. Might as well not allow trades.

 

[Marc Levin]

Such detailed rules on approval of trades and no provision for when the commish is involved in a trade? Make sure to write that in next year.

For now, make the trade if you feel it is good for you and see if it is disputed - if it is, it is out of your hands (it goes to the three person committee, correct?)

 

[Bertha]

Seems like a pretty even trade to me.

 

[Marc Levin]

Add in the rule...commish vetoes/ratifies trades....any decision that the league does not like can be overturned by a simple majority of the owners.

Neither the commish nor the league should be involving themselves in trades. If two owners want to trade, that's their business. Leagues that allow a 3rd parties to veto trades are not leagues you want to be involvedd with(especially if there's money on the line). What ends up happening is that trades get vetoed by people because they don't want to see other teams improve. Might as well not allow trades.

Agreed.However, the commish should have the power to veto lopsided trades if they disrupt the competitive balance of the league (such as trade-back deals or a losing team stacking a playoff-bound team) or if there is collusion.

 

[Rounders]

Such detailed rules on approval of trades and no provision for when the commish is involved in a trade? Make sure to write that in next year.For now, make the trade if you feel it is good for you and see if it is disputed - if it is, it is out of your hands (it goes to the three person committee, correct?)

Correct Marc, but the committee has never been used, so if it is this would be a first.I ended up calling the owner and asking him if he was sure about the deal and he went on to explain why he thought the deal was good for his team.After hearing him justify his side, I decided to hit the accept button.We'll see what happens.

 

[fatness king]

why don't you have an asst commish - one of his/her duties is to approve trades involving you.

This is what we do. There are 2 commish for situations such as this. It can also go to league vote if the league believes there is commish collusion.

 

[Rounders]

Is this a redraft, keeper or dynasty? My 18-year commish opinion would be different for each. I think the big distinction here is you are being OFFERED the trade. It is not so one-sided(esp. in keeper or dynasty) to appear improper. With that, I can't see how others could complain too much. Good luck.

NOONAN - if I tell you it's a redraft, no PPR for RB, and that his team is 0-3 does that influence your opinion in any way?

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Add in the rule...commish vetoes/ratifies trades....any decision that the league does not like can be overturned by a simple majority of the owners.

Neither the commish nor the league should be involving themselves in trades. If two owners want to trade, that's their business. Leagues that allow a 3rd parties to veto trades are not leagues you want to be involvedd with(especially if there's money on the line). What ends up happening is that trades get vetoed by people because they don't want to see other teams improve. Might as well not allow trades.

Agreed.However, the commish should have the power to veto lopsided trades if they disrupt the competitive balance of the league (such as trade-back deals or a losing team stacking a playoff-bound team) or if there is collusion.

When you find a commish who can see the future, this might make some sense. In the mean time, there's simply no way to judge. It all gets down to the commish's projections. Screw that. He's no more capable of knowing what's going to happen than anybody else. Our commish cannot veto trades and we've never had a problem.I may have 4 strong rbs on my roster but a bad qb. Given that my starting lineup is weak because of the qb position, I may trade a strong rb for a decent qb just to improve. Then along comes the commish.He vetos because I'm not getting enough in return. The logic of my move completely esacapes him because he's a linear thinker and unable to see that my team has actually become better. All hes' looking at is what he perceives to be "value". Again, screw that. I'll decide what's best for my team. I pay my 3 bills and I run my team the way I want to. I'm not looking to play with people who have the power to decide who is and who is not on my team. Not sure why anybody else would either.

 

[fsufan]

if it is not collusion then make the trade and let other trades go Thur

 

[Killerclown]

doesn't seem bad to me

 

[Marc Levin]

Add in the rule...commish vetoes/ratifies trades....any decision that the league does not like can be overturned by a simple majority of the owners.

Neither the commish nor the league should be involving themselves in trades. If two owners want to trade, that's their business. Leagues that allow a 3rd parties to veto trades are not leagues you want to be involvedd with(especially if there's money on the line). What ends up happening is that trades get vetoed by people because they don't want to see other teams improve. Might as well not allow trades.

Agreed.However, the commish should have the power to veto lopsided trades if they disrupt the competitive balance of the league (such as trade-back deals or a losing team stacking a playoff-bound team) or if there is collusion.

When you find a commish who can see the future, this might make some sense. In the mean time, there's simply no way to judge. It all gets down to the commish's projections. Screw that. He's no more capable of knowing what's going to happen than anybody else. Our commish cannot veto trades and we've never had a problem.I may have 4 strong rbs on my roster but a bad qb. Given that my starting lineup is weak because of the qb position, I may trade a strong rb for a decent qb just to improve. Then along comes the commish.He vetos because I'm not getting enough in return. The logic of my move completely esacapes him because he's a linear thinker and unable to see that my team has actually become better. All hes' looking at is what he perceives to be "value". Again, screw that. I'll decide what's best for my team. I pay my 3 bills and I run my team the way I want to. I'm not looking to play with people who have the power to decide who is and who is not on my team. Not sure why anybody else would either.

Not talking about "uneven" trades - talking about cheating.Collusion and the kind of trades I mentioned above are cheating.

 

[coolnerd]

I would say that I have never questioned the trade of a commish that I trusted. IMO, as long as you are above board in all of your actions no one should have serious reservations about any trade you have made. Some people mught give some business if you are better at trading than many of the players, but I don't think the comments are harmful.

 

[NoFBinLA]

why don't you have an asst commish - one of his/her duties is to approve trades involving you.

This is what we do. There are 2 commish for situations such as this. It can also go to league vote if the league believes there is commish collusion.

Even if it NEVER becomes an issue, it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Esp once $$ is involved even the best of friends can get hinky. A co-commish also lets the league know it's not just the commish out there -- he has someone to help him with any general; league stuff that comes up.Always works in my leagues.

 

[Upchuck]

Really, there shouldn't be a problem here. 'lopsided' trades sometimes 'lop off' the hand that fed it. (whoa. Did I just say that??) Really, I can see both sides going for this one, with both thinking they made out.