Commish question regarding a trade (1 Viewer)

[sidetrax]

Sorry for the long read, but I want to give a bit of background here.

I’m the commissioner of a 10 team auction league that’s in its 5th year now and we have an owner that really doesn’t follow conventional Fantasy thought processes – I’m putting that lightly BTW. In this year’s draft the owner in question (Owner A) passed on many ‘better’ or higher ranked players to ensure that he could get Carson Palmer, Ochocinco, and TO – and we were all stupid for letting him get the trifecta. Now I’m being approached by another owner (Owner B) in the league who I have no issues with that he a trade working with Owner A – he wants to send the CIN TE Gresham to Owner A for Ronnie Brown because Owner A just has to have quadro-fecta or whatever it would be called. I don’t believe as the commissioner it’s my job/duty to protect an owner from his own stupidity, but I do believe I should protect the rest of the league from him should he get stupid enough. I haven’t given an answer to Owner B at this point except that I suggested he try and work on something a bit more equitable. Another twist here is that we allow for the trading of draft points for the following years draft with a min/max of 20 points added or subtracted to the 200 each owner starts with – I suggested that the trade as proposed plus 8 points would be something I could at least begin to think about. We’ve set a precedent over the years that an RB2 goes for 10-12 points if traded with no player in return.

What if anything do the sharks have to say on this?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[comfortably numb]

Sorry for the long read, but I want to give a bit of background here.I’m the commissioner of a 10 team auction league that’s in its 5th year now and we have an owner that really doesn’t follow conventional Fantasy thought processes – I’m putting that lightly BTW. In this year’s draft the owner in question (Owner A) passed on many ‘better’ or higher ranked players to ensure that he could get Carson Palmer, Ochocinco, and TO – and we were all stupid for letting him get the trifecta. Now I’m being approached by another owner (Owner B) in the league who I have no issues with that he a trade working with Owner A – he wants to send the CIN TE Gresham to Owner A for Ronnie Brown because Owner A just has to have quadro-fecta or whatever it would be called. I don’t believe as the commissioner it’s my job/duty to protect an owner from his own stupidity, but I do believe I should protect the rest of the league from him should he get stupid enough. I haven’t given an answer to Owner B at this point except that I suggested he try and work on something a bit more equitable. Another twist here is that we allow for the trading of draft points for the following years draft with a min/max of 20 points added or subtracted to the 200 each owner starts with – I suggested that the trade as proposed plus 8 points would be something I could at least begin to think about. We’ve set a precedent over the years that an RB2 goes for 10-12 points if traded with no player in return.What if anything do the sharks have to say on this?Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Don't do anything.What if at year's end Palmer is QB#1Owens is WR#4Ocho is WR#8Greshem is TE#6

 

[Chaka]

There's one in every league, let it go.

And apparently you didn't get the memo you need to ask the Hawks instead of sharks. Sharks are going the way of the Do-do.

 

[RTB1]

Sorry for the long read, but I want to give a bit of background here.I’m the commissioner of a 10 team auction league that’s in its 5th year now and we have an owner that really doesn’t follow conventional Fantasy thought processes – I’m putting that lightly BTW. In this year’s draft the owner in question (Owner A) passed on many ‘better’ or higher ranked players to ensure that he could get Carson Palmer, Ochocinco, and TO – and we were all stupid for letting him get the trifecta. Now I’m being approached by another owner (Owner B) in the league who I have no issues with that he a trade working with Owner A – he wants to send the CIN TE Gresham to Owner A for Ronnie Brown because Owner A just has to have quadro-fecta or whatever it would be called. I don’t believe as the commissioner it’s my job/duty to protect an owner from his own stupidity, but I do believe I should protect the rest of the league from him should he get stupid enough. I haven’t given an answer to Owner B at this point except that I suggested he try and work on something a bit more equitable. Another twist here is that we allow for the trading of draft points for the following years draft with a min/max of 20 points added or subtracted to the 200 each owner starts with – I suggested that the trade as proposed plus 8 points would be something I could at least begin to think about. We’ve set a precedent over the years that an RB2 goes for 10-12 points if traded with no player in return.What if anything do the sharks have to say on this?Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Do you play owner A during the Bengals' bye week? If so, approve the trade.

 

[firstseason1988]

Sorry for the long read, but I want to give a bit of background here.I’m the commissioner of a 10 team auction league that’s in its 5th year now and we have an owner that really doesn’t follow conventional Fantasy thought processes – I’m putting that lightly BTW. In this year’s draft the owner in question (Owner A) passed on many ‘better’ or higher ranked players to ensure that he could get Carson Palmer, Ochocinco, and TO – and we were all stupid for letting him get the trifecta. Now I’m being approached by another owner (Owner B) in the league who I have no issues with that he a trade working with Owner A – he wants to send the CIN TE Gresham to Owner A for Ronnie Brown because Owner A just has to have quadro-fecta or whatever it would be called. I don’t believe as the commissioner it’s my job/duty to protect an owner from his own stupidity, but I do believe I should protect the rest of the league from him should he get stupid enough. I haven’t given an answer to Owner B at this point except that I suggested he try and work on something a bit more equitable. Another twist here is that we allow for the trading of draft points for the following years draft with a min/max of 20 points added or subtracted to the 200 each owner starts with – I suggested that the trade as proposed plus 8 points would be something I could at least begin to think about. We’ve set a precedent over the years that an RB2 goes for 10-12 points if traded with no player in return.What if anything do the sharks have to say on this?Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Don't do anything.What if at year's end Palmer is QB#1Owens is WR#4Ocho is WR#8Greshem is TE#6

Palmer is right, TO and ocho and gresh should be higher. dude knows his game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Explain to the Bengals nut why it's not fair to the rest of the league to allow trades like that to go through, and veto it. Then start looking for a new owner for next year.

 

[glumpy]

Don't do anything.What if at year's end Palmer is QB#1Owens is WR#4Ocho is WR#8Greshem is TE#6

That would work by me--I picked up Palmer for having Owens and Owens for having attitude just in case anything close to that scenario should occur!

 

[ponchsox]

Nothing you can do. Let the dolt have his Bengals players. Sux to have someone like that in a competitive league.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Nothing you can do. Let the dolt have his Bengals players. Sux to have someone like that in a competitive league.

Of course there's something he can do. He's the commissioner. If there's something about the league that "sux" it's his responsibility to the rest of the owners to address it. That's why you have a commissioner.I've been a commissioner before and I always adopted a generally hands-off philosophy. It's not the commissioner's job to impose his own player valuations on other owners. But at a certain point the commissioner has to step in. It doesn't sound like this guy is trading for Gresham because he thinks Gresham is as valuable as Brown. He's making the trade because he wants a ton of Bengals on his team. That's an unacceptable way to manage a team if you want the league to remain competitive.There's a Detroit homer in one of my local leagues. Whenever possible he tries to get as many Lions on his team as possible. Surprisingly, he always fields a very competitive team - partly because he's owned Peyton Manning as a keeper for years, but also because he doesn't make stupid trades just for the sake of acquiring Lions.

 

[videoguy505]

Quadfecta is the term.

 

[redBourne]

Tough call. My league wants to stay competitive, but so far we always seem to have "that guy" in our league, who then drops the league in late July. This guy doesn't seem to field a competitive team whether it be homer-ism teams or just out right ignorance. So it's not like you can weed out the do-do's even if you tried.

I say, if this is a pay league, and the guy pay's his dues, let him play. But if the trades are incredibly lopsided, you have to step in. This trade seems to me, a bit too lopsided, and I would also propose some sort of 'tax' to make it more even.

If it's a free league, who cares? Don't let a simple ff-dunce ruin the fun of everyone. Trust me, if you drag this out it makes it less fun in the long run. If you allow the guy to get what he wants and just move on you're doing more PR control and everyone has a better time. This isn't a Gresham for Tom Brady or anything.

 

[sidetrax]

Thanks for the thoughts.The owner looking to get Gresham already has Cooley and TGon so he has no other reason than loading up on Bengals to get him.

I say, if this is a pay league, and the guy pay's his dues, let him play. But if the trades are incredibly lopsided, you have to step in. This trade seems to me, a bit too lopsided, and I would also propose some sort of 'tax' to make it more even.

This is a pay league and I like the idea of a tax - the owner looking to get Brown has so far balked at the thought of giving away next year's draft point before week 1.

Nothing you can do. Let the dolt have his Bengals players. Sux to have someone like that in a competitive league.

Of course there's something he can do. He's the commissioner. If there's something about the league that "sux" it's his responsibility to the rest of the owners to address it. That's why you have a commissioner.I've been a commissioner before and I always adopted a generally hands-off philosophy. It's not the commissioner's job to impose his own player valuations on other owners. But at a certain point the commissioner has to step in. It doesn't sound like this guy is trading for Gresham because he thinks Gresham is as valuable as Brown. He's making the trade because he wants a ton of Bengals on his team. That's an unacceptable way to manage a team if you want the league to remain competitive.

This is right where my thinking lies in general I try to step far back and let the trades go through with maybe a little tweak here and there when it comes down to trading for draft points at the end of the year. This is the first time thought a trade this lopsided has come to me so early in the year. We have a limited keeper system in place so if the Bengals lover came to me at the end of the year and wanted to make this trade I would let it go through with the same 8 (or so) draft points included I've asked to have added in now.Thanks again for all the replies.

 

[u999spf]

There is always a bunch of trade issue threads that pop up each year. They all give the specifics and then ask if the trade should be allowed. I commish 5 leagues and the only reason you should ever even think about stopping a trade is if you suspect cheating or someone maliciously trying to destroy the league.

You cannot decide for other people what is fair value. No one can know for sure how any trade will work out. You don't know if/when a season ending injury could occur. -Brady narrowly avoided one today in a car accident. You can't protect people from themselves. If they pay their money, they have every right to run their team as they want.

Now, with all that...there are plenty of seemingly lopsided trades that occur every year in many leagues across the country. What can you do to try and limit these from occurring? There are a few things you could do or not do....

1- Do not have a league vote or a committee vote on trades. THIS NEVER WORKS. Everyone has their own agenda, values and reasons and it never works successfully. I can tell you right now, that if i was in a league where my trade was voted down I would quit on the spot.

2 - You could institute a review period of 24-48 hrs, where the trade is made public on the site. The rest of the owners could see the proposed trade and make counter offers to see if they can get a better, more fair deal made. - I wouldn't really prefer this option myself as now you have to worry about someone else beating your deal, after you put in the work etc...However- In a free market, public system this would probably be the best way to ensure the fairest deals were being made in your league. If no one beats that deal, and everyone knew about it, they can't complain about it once it goes thru.

3- You could make it so all trades go thru you first. If you get wind of a perceived lopsided trade, you could reach out the person on the wrong end and suggest that they may want to ask for a better deal, or have him email or post on the site that player A is on the block and here is what i'm looking for and see if they get a better offer. That way the team on the wrong side could work a better trade then they thought was possible. Don't wait until after the deal is made, because they would be reluctant to go back on their word. So make a rule that all trades are proposed trades and need to go thru the commissioner before becoming legal, then this is where you step in.

4- Do nothing and let it play out. Except you need to dump this guy next season. You could have a conversation with him and say, "look, a lot of other owners are coming to me concerned about your trades over the past few years. They feel that they are lopsided trades and never in your favor. Multiple owners are talking about dropping out of the league unless we do something. Work with me....run your trades thru me and ask for some advice, be more active and post to all owners, when a trade is proposed to you that you like and give others a chance to beat it. Or how about you try not to make any trades for a season and see how that works out. You may find that your team actually does better." - Basically your putting him on a type of secret probation for a season and see how it goes. If it doesn't improve, tell him you are going to need to dump him because finding one new owner is easier than finding 6 new owners.

Sorry for the long post, but hope it helps. - Oh yeah and in keeping with all the Finley is the new Football Jesus comments he should have 10/172/4tds this week by halftime.

 

[flooredyas]

Has he offered Chris Johnson for Benson yet?

Maintain the integrity and competitive balance. You have offered a decent option in the 8 point add on.

 

[kevyeager]

Has he offered Chris Johnson for Benson yet?Maintain the integrity and competitive balance. You have offered a decent option in the 8 point add on.

Donation!

 

[Bri]

you got some good advice above.

Every year someone makes this point so I wanted to do it this year, because it's effective in many different ways-positive and negative.

"If you are about to ask for commish advice, you probably shouldn't be one."

You can get all worked up about that or be the confident leader of that league and run things smoothly

 

[dagwood]

I actually think Gresham could be very good.

Wonder what he will give me for Cedric Benson. I need to ring him up!

 

[sidetrax]

Has he offered Chris Johnson for Benson yet?Maintain the integrity and competitive balance. You have offered a decent option in the 8 point add on.

The funny thing here is I have Benson - and trust me in a 'I should just say screw it and do it too' kind of way I've played this out in my head. But of course no - it's not how I want the league to run. As has been suggested in other posts my main concern is keeping as many owners as possible coming back year to year.Thanks again to all that have replied!!!

 

[Psychopav]

There's one in every league, let it go.And apparently you didn't get the memo you need to ask the Hawks instead of sharks. Sharks are going the way of the Do-do.

Sharks jumped the hawk 6 months ago.HTH.

 

[SofaCoach]

You gotta let the trade go thru. It is not collusion. In fact, Owner B may have taken Gresham a little earlier than his ADP would normally be with the intention of trading him to owner A, which is good strategy. You can't punish his good forethought by blocking the trade.

 

[Psychopav]

Did the NFL step in when Al Davis made all the idiotic decisions he's made in the past decade?

 

[gregjcross]

Nothing you can do. Let the dolt have his Bengals players. Sux to have someone like that in a competitive league.

Of course there's something he can do. He's the commissioner. If there's something about the league that "sux" it's his responsibility to the rest of the owners to address it. That's why you have a commissioner.I've been a commissioner before and I always adopted a generally hands-off philosophy. It's not the commissioner's job to impose his own player valuations on other owners. But at a certain point the commissioner has to step in. It doesn't sound like this guy is trading for Gresham because he thinks Gresham is as valuable as Brown. He's making the trade because he wants a ton of Bengals on his team. That's an unacceptable way to manage a team if you want the league to remain competitive.There's a Detroit homer in one of my local leagues. Whenever possible he tries to get as many Lions on his team as possible. Surprisingly, he always fields a very competitive team - partly because he's owned Peyton Manning as a keeper for years, but also because he doesn't make stupid trades just for the sake of acquiring Lions.

Yeah but its subjective, the owner is not breaking rules or colluding >Just give him some advice. You cant ban it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2 - You could institute a review period of 24-48 hrs, where the trade is made public on the site. The rest of the owners could see the proposed trade and make counter offers to see if they can get a better, more fair deal made...

3- You could make it so all trades go thru you first. If you get wind of a perceived lopsided trade, you could reach out the person on the wrong end and suggest that they may want to ask for a better deal, or have him email or post on the site that player A is on the block and here is what i'm looking for and see if they get a better offer. That way the team on the wrong side could work a better trade then they thought was possible...

While I've seen both of these strategies employed in leagues, neither of these would be effective at fixing the problem facing the OP. No one else has the CIN TE to offer in trade.That highlights the problem with this deal - this isn't the typical "lopsided" trade that occurs because owners are just valuing players differently (which I agree should normally be allowed to occur, even if you think it's lopsided). The owner trading for Gresham doesn't care what his fantasy value is. He doesn't want Gresham for his fantasy value. That kind of management is detrimental to the league as a whole, and the commissioner has a responsibility to step in and remedy the situation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Nothing you can do. Let the dolt have his Bengals players. Sux to have someone like that in a competitive league.

Of course there's something he can do. He's the commissioner. If there's something about the league that "sux" it's his responsibility to the rest of the owners to address it. That's why you have a commissioner.I've been a commissioner before and I always adopted a generally hands-off philosophy. It's not the commissioner's job to impose his own player valuations on other owners. But at a certain point the commissioner has to step in. It doesn't sound like this guy is trading for Gresham because he thinks Gresham is as valuable as Brown. He's making the trade because he wants a ton of Bengals on his team. That's an unacceptable way to manage a team if you want the league to remain competitive.

There's a Detroit homer in one of my local leagues. Whenever possible he tries to get as many Lions on his team as possible. Surprisingly, he always fields a very competitive team - partly because he's owned Peyton Manning as a keeper for years, but also because he doesn't make stupid trades just for the sake of acquiring Lions.

Yeah but its subjective, the owner is not breaking rules or colluding >Just give him some advice. You cant ban it.

Yes he can. Adopting a philosophy of "no trades can be stopped unless there is definitive evidence of collusion" is just as bad as the commissioner who bans trades left and right because he thinks they're lopsided. They're both too inflexible and shortsighted. This trade doesn't appear to involve any collusion but it goes beyond simple discrepancies in the values of players. The commissioner has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the league. He should definitely talk to the Bengals nut first, and make sure he understands why trades like this can't happen. Try to talk him out of it, without forcefully banning it. But if Bengals nut balks and insists on making the deal, I'd consider vetoing the trade and looking for a new owner.

ETA: The owner trading for Gresham may not be literally breaking any rules, but he is breaking the spirit of the rules. Fantasy football isn't like collecting football cards. He has to make an effort to field a competitive team, not just a team with the most Bengals on it.

 

[redBourne]

Did the NFL step in when Al Davis made all the idiotic decisions he's made in the past decade?

Maybe Randy Lerner should tell Goodell, 'you know what, this team blows. I'm not coming back next year. Thanks!'Point being, as much as we would like to run our own teams, Fantasy Football will always be somewhat different than the NFL. Last time I checked Peterson didn't get his Vikings any points for just running 80 yds either.

 

[two_dollars]

I could answer but I'd have to ask the rest of the Flying Tanks. We run over Hawks, very private club though.

 

[DoubleG]

The move here is to find out what he drinks at the draft and when making trades and simply ask him to share.

 

[sidetrax]

you got some good advice above.Every year someone makes this point so I wanted to do it this year, because it's effective in many different ways-positive and negative."If you are about to ask for commish advice, you probably shouldn't be one."You can get all worked up about that or be the confident leader of that league and run things smoothly

Jeez Bri - thanks for the replyI do appreciate the effort - I find it interesting though that if you read the complete original post you would have noticed I made a ruling before posting and was more or less asking what others have done in similar situations not to 'tell' me what to do. I'm glad though I was able to give you the chance to get that out of your system.I'm assuming you never asked a friend a question about who you were starting in a given week - I'm sure if you did you'd give up ownership of that team since you probably shouldn't be one.It does make me wonder why our Presidents have advisors ...You can believe that I'm all worked up about this or that I simply think your response was out of line.

 

[fsufan]

tough call. any thoughts on removing him from the league right now. what is the league fee?

i have been a commish for 13 years and never have got involved in other owners trades. but an owner like this can destroy a league

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

As the commissioner, you should be ensuring that

1) the constitution is followed precisely

2) no one is allowed to cheat

In my leagues, teams are allowed to veto trades, but are only allowed to veto trades for appropriate reasons. We allow owners to veto a trade only if they can explain why the trade (only as it pertains to the players involved in the trade) is largely unbalanced. In years past we had owners veto trades just because they didn't like another owner, or veto trades because it made one team much stronger, or veto trades just because one of their own trades was vetoed. IMO, anyone should be allowed to trade as long as it is fair. The one exception to this rule is that we do not allow teams who have been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs to trade with teams who are still in playoff contention. This helps to eliminate the possibility of collusion.

So, I would allow your league owners to veto the trade if they see fit, but they must articulate why the trade itself is unfair. If they cannot argue that the trade itself is unfair, then it should be allowed to go through, even if one team ends up having a QB, TE, RB, WR, DEF, and K from Cincinnati. If it is the will of the league that it is unfair, then don't allow it to be pushed-through. If this teams ends up bombing their season, remember that still probably play much of the league, so most teams will equally reap the reward.

 

[Guest]

I agree with what Ignoratio has said here.

An owner has the right to do whatever stupid draft he wants. If he decides to draft only players whose name start with Az and are left-handed, then fine. All he's done is reduce the league size by one effectively. But once he starts making trades then he's shifting value around the league. And I have no problem in veto'ing trades that show that the owner doesn't care about competition. They won't be invited back next year but I also won't let them piss in the pool for everybody else this year. There's no reason that everyone else should do pre-draft prep, look into players, look into schedules, only to have one guy who doesn't give a crap hand a gift to one other guy because he decides that the bench player he's trading for has a funny name.

There's a reason you have a Commissioner. It's for times like this.

 

[Guest]

As the commissioner, you should be ensuring that 1) the constitution is followed precisely2) no one is allowed to cheat

What if the constitution says that trades are subject to commissioner approval?

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

As the commissioner, you should be ensuring that 1) the constitution is followed precisely2) no one is allowed to cheat

What if the constitution says that trades are subject to commissioner approval?

Then I'd say the commissioner should decide if the trade is fair as it pertains to the players involved in the trade. I think in this case its obvious that Gresham << Brown so I would myself veto the trade on its face, regardless of the logic behind the trade itself. There is no competitive advantage to owning players on the same team, so making a bad trade to acquire players on the same team would be like me arguing that I want to field a team with all players whose last name starts with the letter 'Y', just because its my favorite letter. I like 'Y' so much that I want to trade Chris Johnson for Vince Young. Doesn't fly.

 

[Guest]

As the commissioner, you should be ensuring that 1) the constitution is followed precisely2) no one is allowed to cheat

What if the constitution says that trades are subject to commissioner approval?

Then I'd say the commissioner should decide if the trade is fair as it pertains to the players involved in the trade. I think in this case its obvious that Gresham << Brown so I would myself veto the trade on its face, regardless of the logic behind the trade itself. There is no competitive advantage to owning players on the same team, so making a bad trade to acquire players on the same team would be like me arguing that I want to field a team with all players whose last name starts with the letter 'Y', just because its my favorite letter. I like 'Y' so much that I want to trade Chris Johnson for Vince Young. Doesn't fly.

I agree.

 

[wiersface]

It sucks but you just have to let it happen, it clearly isn't coalition so there is nothing you can do about it. Just try to find a better owner for next year, I've been working on weeding out the bums and creating an extremely dedicated local league. It's been four years and I think I just have one more to go lol

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

It sucks but you just have to let it happen, it clearly isn't coalition so there is nothing you can do about it. Just try to find a better owner for next year, I've been working on weeding out the bums and creating an extremely dedicated local league. It's been four years and I think I just have one more to go lol

It may or may not be collusion, but the trade itself is unfair. By ensuring that trades are fair, you're indirectly ensuring that there is no collusion. However, guarding strictly against collusion but not evaluating the trade itself is counter-productive and the league as a whole suffers. The goal of the commissioner is to keep league business fair (especially as it relates to trades) and this trade is obviously unfair so the commissioner should step-in.Would you allow someone in your league to trade Chris Johnson for Vince Young, just because they like guys whose last name starts with 'Y'? It isn't collusion, just ignorance, and both should be guarded against.

 

[latrops]

1- Do not have a league vote or a committee vote on trades. THIS NEVER WORKS. Everyone has their own agenda, values and reasons and it never works successfully. I can tell you right now, that if i was in a league where my trade was voted down I would quit on the spot.

I hope not. It's a real jerk move to leave 9+ other people hanging because you don't like how disputes are resolved. I've been in a number of football, basketball, and baseball leagues. Some vote on trades that are perceived to be lopsided. I've seldom seen it be a problem. I wouldn't want to be in a league where every trade is voted up or down...but as long as only the most questionable of trades are reviewed, what's the big deal? If the majority of my league thinks a trade is so lopsided that it should be overturned, that's fine by me.

 

[ratbast]

This happened in my fantasy baseball league. The problem is that his agenda is not to be competitive but to be quirky and get his team's players. You can and should step in now, because it wont stop.

The integrity of the league is one of your responsibilities. This essentially could be considered collusion as the agenda of building a Bengal team is overpowering competition and both players are knowledgeable of that.

 

[basher]

There's one in every league, let it go.And apparently you didn't get the memo you need to ask the Hawks instead of sharks. Sharks are going the way of the Do-do.

I find the whole shark/hawk thing funny. It is amazing the number of people here who claim to be shawks when in reality there is no real way for anyone else to establish that or not (aside from the very few minority around here that make it blatantly obvious.Basically it's "I'm a shawk ... take my word for it ... I pwn on people in my league .. lol" and we are just supposed to take their word for it

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Any time people talk about not allowing a trade, I wonder what compensation you'll give them if you don't allow it and it would have helped them?

Suppose you disallow that trade, and the guy would have won the league if it had gone through. Are you going to give him the prize money? Or will you say "Sorry man, you knew how to run your team but I got in your way and messed up your season?"

Now, I think you can talk to him and ask for a rationalization as to why he thinks it's a good move. You don't have to agree with his opinion...but he should be able to demonstrate an cogent opinion. That's not asking too much. If he says "I want all Bengals and don't care about being competitive," then you can disallow it and can him. He's not acting in his team's best interests. But as long as he honestly thinks he's helping his team, I think it's a good trade.

 

[Guest]

Any time people talk about not allowing a trade, I wonder what compensation you'll give them if you don't allow it and it would have helped them?

Nothing. But I've never disallowed a trade either, because I don't play with guys who pull this kind of crap. But if I did do it, I wouldn't feel bad about it. And if someone doesn't like it, there's the door.

Suppose you disallow that trade, and the guy would have won the league if it had gone through. Are you going to give him the prize money? Or will you say "Sorry man, you knew how to run your team but I got in your way and messed up your season?"

I'm going to ask the guy who won to buy me a milkshake. What do you think? That's the breaks.

Now, I think you can talk to him and ask for a rationalization as to why he thinks it's a good move. You don't have to agree with his opinion...but he should be able to demonstrate an cogent opinion. That's not asking too much. If he says "I want all Bengals and don't care about being competitive," then you can disallow it and can him. He's not acting in his team's best interests. But as long as he honestly thinks he's helping his team, I think it's a good trade.

Based on the information in the OP, you don't need to conduct an investigation. It's clear what is happening and why. Getting an explanation from the Bengals fanboy which may or may not be treated seriously isn't going to add anything to the equation.

 

[Chaka]

There's one in every league, let it go.And apparently you didn't get the memo you need to ask the Hawks instead of sharks. Sharks are going the way of the Do-do.

I find the whole shark/hawk thing funny. It is amazing the number of people here who claim to be shawks when in reality there is no real way for anyone else to establish that or not (aside from the very few minority around here that make it blatantly obvious.Basically it's "I'm a shawk ... take my word for it ... I pwn on people in my league .. lol" and we are just supposed to take their word for it

Hawks are so September 9th. In the world of September 10th and beyond it's all about Gay Winged Unicorns they make all the Hawks and Sharks look like Anorexic Manatees.This business moves pretty fast.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Any time people talk about not allowing a trade, I wonder what compensation you'll give them if you don't allow it and it would have helped them?

Nothing. But I've never disallowed a trade either, because I don't play with guys who pull this kind of crap. But if I did do it, I wouldn't feel bad about it. And if someone doesn't like it, there's the door.

Suppose you disallow that trade, and the guy would have won the league if it had gone through. Are you going to give him the prize money? Or will you say "Sorry man, you knew how to run your team but I got in your way and messed up your season?"

I'm going to ask the guy who won to buy me a milkshake. What do you think? That's the breaks.

Now, I think you can talk to him and ask for a rationalization as to why he thinks it's a good move. You don't have to agree with his opinion...but he should be able to demonstrate an cogent opinion. That's not asking too much. If he says "I want all Bengals and don't care about being competitive," then you can disallow it and can him. He's not acting in his team's best interests. But as long as he honestly thinks he's helping his team, I think it's a good trade.

Based on the information in the OP, you don't need to conduct an investigation. It's clear what is happening and why. Getting an explanation from the Bengals fanboy which may or may not be treated seriously isn't going to add anything to the equation.

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one. In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

 

[DoubleG]

There's one in every league, let it go.And apparently you didn't get the memo you need to ask the Hawks instead of sharks. Sharks are going the way of the Do-do.

I find the whole shark/hawk thing funny. It is amazing the number of people here who claim to be shawks when in reality there is no real way for anyone else to establish that or not (aside from the very few minority around here that make it blatantly obvious.Basically it's "I'm a shawk ... take my word for it ... I pwn on people in my league .. lol" and we are just supposed to take their word for it

Hawks are so September 9th. In the world of September 10th and beyond it's all about Gay Winged Unicorns they make all the Hawks and Sharks look like Anorexic Manatees.This business moves pretty fast.

Hawks jumped the shark, which jumped the shark a while back. It's good to be the king.BTW, in relation to the actual thread:Those saying you should veto the trade because it's not "fair" - do me a favor if at all possible. Go back and look at the "fair" trades in some of your league's history. While you're at it (if you play in a league that is not silly enough to veto "unfair" trades) go back and look athe "unfair" trades. What you will likely find in many cases is that "fair" trades ended up being anything but fair in the long run - and in quite a few, "unfair" trades ended up being balanced as to how things ended up. Just an example, I play in dynasty league. Several years ago I had a bye week issue at TE. As such I packaged Boo Williams and William Green (at the time a fairly hot RB prospect) to another owner for an aging RB and a young TE who had been in the league a year and shown some promise but hadn't done much to that point (he had started 11 games and had about 400 receiving yards and 2 TDs). Most people in the league didn't bat an eye (it was seen as a "fair" - virtually non-exsistent trade). Those that did questioned how I would give up Green so easily. The name of the TE I had acquired to fill my bye week need was Antonio Gates.A second example: Last season, I was making my playoff run and needed to solidify my RBs. I wanted Mendenhall. I traded 2 backup RBs (1 rookie, 1 career 3rd down back who was injured) and an injured WR - it's a dynasty league and the injured players were all relatively young. At the time some were commenting on how I had landed Mendenhall so cheaply. The RBs I traded were Shonn Green, Leon and Washington and the WR was Anthony Gonzalez. When the deal was made (week 11 or 12) - Green had done barely anything and Washington and Gonzalez were both hurt. Many people in the league thought I "stole" Mendenhall (i.e. this was seen as an "unfair" trade by many...luckily our league doesn't veto trades). Now, if Anthony Gonzalez had come back close to 100% and rgained his starting job - which side of the trade won? It would have been unfair - the opposite way most had presumed. Even though he heasn't - who would you rather have in dynasty league - Mendy or Leon and Shonn Green? My point is that there is no such thing as a "fair" trade. In a hobby like FF where even "experts" struggle to even come close on predicting players production at times, how can we presume to be better at that than our leaguemates? A trade isn't fair becuase owner X's projection cheat sheet doesn't read like mine? Please. Why even allow trades then? Just assign every team players based on the commish's rankings and be done with it. Sounds silly? By vetoing trades that don't matchup with your idea of projected rankings, that is in effect exactly what you are doing.Why do I know I'm going to have to copy and paste this 43 times?

 

[StormChasers]

As this is a 10 team league this trade will not alter the balance of the league with the players mentioned. I have been a commish for more then 10 years and the only time I would veto a trade is if there is proof of collusion. Owners should be allowed to run their teams as they wish.

I would say this...when forming your league you need to have an idea as to the types of owners you want in the league. I am not sure I would kick out the guy who wants the Bengals players. I might be more inclined to think about kicking out the guy who is making the offer to trade Brown for Gresham. When I trade I always put the shoe on the other foot. Would I think the offer is fair. If the answer is NO then I don't make the offer. I hate it when people try to take advantage of others. Its the guy making the offer that is trying to screw over the league IMHO.

 

[sidetrax]

As the commissioner of this league all trades do run through me first. The owner that drafted Gresham was approached with the offer of Ronnie Brown - he also happens to be the co-commish in that he approves trades I'm involved in. After receiving the offer he came to me right away because he was 'uncomfortable' with the equity and asked what if anything he would need to do to get an approval. I spoke to him again last niight and we discussed the 8 draft point for next season as a starting point ...he should think about and get back to me. Although I didn't tell him I will approve the trade if he includes 6. FWIW the Bengals owner already has Cooley and TGon at TE and Brown is his RB1 although I will admit he has a fairly strong RBBC with several RB2/RB3 players. Thanks again for all the input on this.

 

[Guest]

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one. In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

You act like the only thing being decided is if whether or not the trade is fair. There's another decision being made as to whether or not this guy is really trying to win. That's where you guys get all tripped up in the whole collusion thing. Collusion is just one way that someone would try to not be trying to win (and only in a specific kind of collusion at that). If they're not trying to win and are just trying to trade for Bengals, I'll shed no tears in killing their trade.I'd rather protect 11 owners who care rather than 1 who doesn't.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

I'm probably not going to add any new insight here (haha), but here's my 2 cents as a long time commish.

The situation kind of sucks and is annoying, but you have to allow the trade. It sounds like you're ironing out the details to make the deal as fair as possible, which is great.

If the league is considered a competitive league, you really can't have flaky owners who pick players just because of their uniforms (or, as another example mentioned, they have funny names, etc.). That's bush-league behavior reserved for "just-for-fun" Yahoo public leagues. It will get to the point where it affects the integrity, and therefore the FUN, of the league.

That said, you have to allow the current trade, as it really isn't "league-ruining"...more like "head-scratching" and "eye-roll-inducing".

You never know, Gresham might turn out to be a stud and Ronnie could get hurt again. However, you should have a chat with Owner A about his Bengal collecting. Explain how he needs to do his part to keep the league fun and fair. In all honesty, in my long-time keeper league we all would have voted to remove that owner a while ago. What's the point of strategizing and preparing if some goofball's going to trade the Bengals D for Ray Rice?

 

[Chaka]

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one.

In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?

And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

You act like the only thing being decided is if whether or not the trade is fair. There's another decision being made as to whether or not this guy is really trying to win. That's where you guys get all tripped up in the whole collusion thing. Collusion is just one way that someone would try to not be trying to win (and only in a specific kind of collusion at that). If they're not trying to win and are just trying to trade for Bengals, I'll shed no tears in killing their trade.I'd rather protect 11 owners who care rather than 1 who doesn't.

Unfortunately making that determination requires telepathy. Does that come with the MFL Commish Startup Kit?

 

[Guest]

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one.

In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?

And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

You act like the only thing being decided is if whether or not the trade is fair. There's another decision being made as to whether or not this guy is really trying to win. That's where you guys get all tripped up in the whole collusion thing. Collusion is just one way that someone would try to not be trying to win (and only in a specific kind of collusion at that). If they're not trying to win and are just trying to trade for Bengals, I'll shed no tears in killing their trade.I'd rather protect 11 owners who care rather than 1 who doesn't.

Unfortunately making that determination requires telepathy. Does that come with the MFL Commish Startup Kit?

Gimme a break. Real juries in real trials make life and death decisions on someone's intent without the aid of telepathy. There's no reason why fantasy sports are so different or important that you need a higher standard.If it's a borderline call you don't get involved. This is an example of something that is not borderline.