Dynasty Trade up for league vote (1 Viewer)

[beerbarron]

Two owners made a trade.. commish vetoed it.. Both onwers wanted the trade to go through so we resent the trade and explained why we want the trade to go through. Commish thought about it.. vetoed it again.. The Commish said lets put it up for a league vote.. both owners thought that is fair.. league votes and majority rules..

Found out that the two team owners involved in the trade will not have their vote counted toward the outcome.

The commish has a team in the league and his vote will count.. The two team owners will/have voted yes but the commish's team will vote no.. only the commish's vote will count?

Is this normal or should everybodies vote count?

 

[huntunc]

Whats the trade? What do your league rules say? If they say nothing then the Commish doesn't have a right to veto in the first place or allow a league vote.

 

[lbouchard]

Why don't you post the trade here for outside opinions? I'm not a believer in vetoing.

 

[stedman]

The trade doesn't matter, the issue here is the Commish using his veto ability. What do your rules say regarding this?

 

[beerbarron]

The trade doesn't matter, the issue here is the Commish using his veto ability. What do your rules say regarding this?

All trades must go through the commish.. he vetoed a trade.. Both people involved in the trade thought it was a fair trade. The commish disagreed and said it will go up for a league vote.. Now he stated that the rest of the league can vote on the trade but the two owners in the trade's vote dont count. The commish is also a team owner.. He is allowed to vote and will vote no. His vote will count where as the two traders who want the trade to go through will not have their vote count.. Seems odd that he as a team owner/commish can vote no but the two team owners involved in the trade cant have their votes count??

 

[beef]

Not posting the trade makes me agree with the commish. You must have been the owner involved. Better luck next time trying to rip someone off.

 

[whatadai]

It's fair to not let the trading teams vote and allowing the commish to vote.

 

[beerbarron]

It's fair to not let the trading teams vote and allowing the commish to vote.

Ok.. that seems like selective exclusion.. have you had this happen in a league before??

 

[NJ]

Its really about whatever your rules say, but normally all teams not involved in the trade would be allowed to vote, since the commish is a team owner, yes, he should be allowed to vote and it should count. Obviously the teams involved in the trade should not count.

Now post the trade so we can see what was so bad about it that the commish felt the need to veto in the first place...

 

[lbouchard]

It's fair to not let the trading teams vote and allowing the commish to vote.

Ok.. that seems like selective exclusion.. have you had this happen in a league before??

Obviously you're one of the teams involved in the trade, so can you just post it?

 

[Ashem]

If a trade is voted on by the league, then no, the teams involved in the trade do not vote.

If the commish has a team in the league, then he should not vote. If he votes, what would happen in case of a tie?

If the commish does not have a team in the league, then he should be the deciding vote in case of a tie.

 

[kutta]

Yeah, let's see this trade.

And I agree with the others. The owners involved should not vote and if the commish owns a team, he can vote.

But all this should be spelled out in the rules.

 

[beerbarron]

It's fair to not let the trading teams vote and allowing the commish to vote.

Ok.. that seems like selective exclusion.. have you had this happen in a league before??

Obviously you're one of the teams involved in the trade, so can you just post it?

Already have in different thread.. that is not the issue.. thread is about a commish voting as a team onwer when team onwers in the trade can not vote and the commish/team owner can.. The commish has just stated his vote will not count.. which seems fair.. so its up to the rest of the league.. Which seems fair.. as a team owner he will always have the same vote as he would as the commish?, no I was wondering how other leagues handle this and if this was out of the ordinary..Seems its tougher to get a trade passed in this siutaion as 2/3 choices would be for no trade.. ex, team A got screwed or team B got screwed only 1/3 choiced would be that it was a fair trade..

 

[beerbarron]

Its really about whatever your rules say, but normally all teams not involved in the trade would be allowed to vote, since the commish is a team owner, yes, he should be allowed to vote and it should count. Obviously the teams involved in the trade should not count.Now post the trade so we can see what was so bad about it that the commish felt the need to veto in the first place...

Rules say commish has authority over all trades.. trade was denied by him as unfair.. both owners still wanted the trade.. so he putting it up for a league vote is a above his call of duty.. He went above the call here and the league is respecting that.. so whatever happens in the league vote is fine with both owners in the trade.. I was wondering if this has happened in other leagues and if the team owner/commish gets to vote in your league votes as well..

 

[Gettin' Ziggy Wilf It]

Of course he gets to vote, why wouldn't he? The only difference is that you already know what his vote is going to be.

 

[coolnerd]

It's fair to not let the trading teams vote and allowing the commish to vote.

Ok.. that seems like selective exclusion.. have you had this happen in a league before??

Obviously you're one of the teams involved in the trade, so can you just post it?

Already have in different thread.. that is not the issue.. thread is about a commish voting as a team onwer when team onwers in the trade can not vote and the commish/team owner can.. The commish has just stated his vote will not count.. which seems fair.. so its up to the rest of the league.. Which seems fair.. as a team owner he will always have the same vote as he would as the commish?, no I was wondering how other leagues handle this and if this was out of the ordinary..Seems its tougher to get a trade passed in this siutaion as 2/3 choices would be for no trade.. ex, team A got screwed or team B got screwed only 1/3 choiced would be that it was a fair trade..

From rules in several leagues I commish.Rule changes. Scoring, line-up, roster changes and league removal- These type of changes require 9 league member votes with the commissioner abstaining. These rules are the cornerstone of decision-making by individual owners in the league. Even a modest change can influence multiple decisions that have been made by an individual owner. It is not simply adding or subtracting even fraction of a point. The same with removing someone from the league. Fees are not refundable and when someone is removed can mean it very difficult to fine a replacement. In all cases, I consider these very serious.All other changes- these require a vote of 6 members with the commissioner abstaining. Many of the other rules included in this document involve dates and preferences allowing have more flexi in changing than those in category one. In both tiers, the items should be brought up for discussion in the dead period and discussed prior to a league vote. This discussion should reveal if the issue is important to multiple members of the league before voting. In all official votes, the commissioner abstains. This creates the opportunity for there to be a majority. That said, the commissioner does retain veto power, but should use such power sparingly and only when decision goes against what’s best for the league.All trades are executed upon acceptance by both owners involved. Trades are official when only if they are completed through mfl.com. Players are responsible for not leaving trades open where another owner could accept. The trade deadline will occur at the kickoff of the week 12 NFL games. Off-season trading begins directly after the completion of the dead period which February 15. This is the date for all league fees to be paid. At the conclusion of each trade, each roster must not exceed the roster limits (53 in season, 60 off-season).If another owner thinks a deal is unfair, he has 48 hours to bring that to the attention of the commissioner or one of the conference chairmen If the commissioner will investigate and if he agrees, the trade will be put up for a league vote. In order to overturn a trade, a league majority will be needed (6 votes). Neither of the owners involved in the trade will have a vote. Putting a trade up for a vote should be considered a last resort and it not something encouraged by commissioner. Owners are encouraged to post on the league message board in order to explain and discuss any recent trades. Once a player is traded to a team, his former team cannot reacquire, through trade, that same player for one month.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

For reference:

Just had this one overturned by the commish.. 12 team IDP Dynasty... we roster 55 players .5 pprTeam A gives J cutler and Desean Jackson..Team B gives J. P-Paul and a 3rd and 4th round pick in the ongoing rookie draft.. Commish said Team B got to good of a deal.. not fair.. meh.. Owners in discussion with the commish..

 

[Brown Juice]

Trades should never be vetoed unless there is collusion involved.

 

[whatadai]

Trades should never be vetoed unless there is collision involved.

Damn...if there's a collision involved everyone should just stop and make sure everyone is okay first before proceeding.

 

[Borden]

Not posting the trade makes me agree with the commish. You must have been the owner involved. Better luck next time trying to rip someone off.

 

[NateDawg]

The commish does not give up his rights as a team owner just because he is doing extra work for the league as commish. ALL owners not involved in the trade should have their vote count. Don't punish an owner for being commish.

Trades should not be vetoed in any league unless there is evidence of collusion. Don't try to protect owners from themselves.

 

[daveR]

Not posting the trade makes me agree with the commish. You must have been the owner involved. Better luck next time trying to rip someone off.

Doesn't matter who is being traded. Of course this is one of the owners involved. Who else would post it? At any rate, if there is a binding vote, ALL owners should vote. If the vote is not binding, ie the commish is just getting opinions prior to a veto, then all OTHER teams should vote.

 

[C & C]

I assume there are an even number of teams in the league. If not, then let us know.

If this is a 12 team league and the 2 owners making the trade cannot vote, then 10 owners have a vote. One is the commish and he's voting NO, so that leaves 9 other owners. If 5 of those owners vote YES to allow the trade and 4 vote NO, then the commish vote would make it a stalemate. Otherwise his vote doesn't matter. As you said the commish is going above and beyond here, so I can see a case being made that a 5-4 vote in favor of the trade (not counting commish) is NOT enough to over rule the commish.

 

[southbound]

Its really about whatever your rules say, but normally all teams not involved in the trade would be allowed to vote, since the commish is a team owner, yes, he should be allowed to vote and it should count. Obviously the teams involved in the trade should not count.Now post the trade so we can see what was so bad about it that the commish felt the need to veto in the first place...

 

[bengalbuck]

Not posting the trade makes me agree with the commish. You must have been the owner involved. Better luck next time trying to rip someone off.

Doesn't matter who is being traded. Of course this is one of the owners involved. Who else would post it? At any rate, if there is a binding vote, ALL owners should vote. If the vote is not binding, ie the commish is just getting opinions prior to a veto, then all OTHER teams should vote.

I disagree with you. It's pretty standard for the owners who aren't involved to be the ones voting. And since the commish isn't involved, his vote should count just the same as all the other parties who aren't directly involved in the disputed trade.

 

[packseasontix]

So it sounds like the commish has 100% control but has allowed a vote to happen. Also I don't understand why the commish wouldn't vote? I make it 75% Yes to make something be accepted in my leagues which seems to work very well and EVERYONE votes.

12 teams you need 9 Yes votes, this goes to the point that intial rules and such are kept unless a large majority want to change things. I normally wait until everyone else has voted prior to casting a vote to make sure if it does come down to me I have the full story on why people want a rule change or a veto.

 

[VonRomig]

In my humble opinion any commissioner who puts a veto option in his league is on a power trip.

 

[Wayspr]

The commish does not give up his rights as a team owner just because he is doing extra work for the league as commish. ALL owners not involved in the trade should have their vote count. Don't punish an owner for being commish.Trades should not be vetoed in any league unless there is evidence of collusion. Don't try to protect owners from themselves.

This is the correct answer. Unless collusion is involved, all trades should be approved. Every league has a team that regularly committs trade suicide. It's not the commissioner's job to protect teams from themselves.

 

[fatness]

From rules in several leagues I commish.If another owner thinks a deal is unfair, he has 48 hours to bring that to the attention of the commissioner or one of the conference chairmen If the commissioner will investigate and if he agrees, the trade will be put up for a league vote. In order to overturn a trade, a league majority will be needed (6 votes).

That doesn't seem to be a very good rule. If the commissioner is one of the teams involved in the trade, he can decide not to put it to a vote no matter how many teams protest it.

 

[Bamac]

Not posting the trade makes me agree with the commish. You must have been the owner involved. Better luck next time trying to rip someone off.

Doesn't matter who is being traded. Of course this is one of the owners involved. Who else would post it? At any rate, if there is a binding vote, ALL owners should vote. If the vote is not binding, ie the commish is just getting opinions prior to a veto, then all OTHER teams should vote.

Perhaps the commish himself trying to garner support for his position. This is not my league; just speculating.

 

[Instinctive]

If both teams reasonably expect to improve their teams...the trade should be going through regardless.

 

[socrates]

It is puzzling to me that you have omitted your rules and the trade. Seems to me you are hoping to skew the responses.

I believe it is a pretty standard rule that the teams involved in the deal are not included in the voting process, and the Commissioner, if a team owner, would have a vote.

I have generally been in the camp which says allow a trade unless there is collusion. I have recently reconsidered that position. If a trade is patently unfair, it attacks your league's integrity and should be put to a vote. Team owners need to have great latitude to manage their teams according to their own player valuation and philosophy, but you need to maintain league integrity.

 

[DropKick]

The OP should be beaten severely for asking the question yet not having the courtesy to provide the trade details. Although, in theory, it is irrelevant, people do want to know.

You have also not provided any detail on league rules or even precedent, which would help make the answer clearer.

In general, I don't agree with "league votes". It is not up to a jury to determine the equity of a trade.

If your league puts all trades to a league vote, then it makes sense that the trade parties not vote but the commish does.

However, if it is selective - then the commish has already exercised his power (and position) by remanding it to a league vote. In this case, I don't think the trade parties or the commish should vote. This is logical but is also convenient for the numbers game. In a twelve team league, this leaves 9 voting teams so a tie should not occur. If the trade is upheld (say 5-4), then the majority of the league (actually seven) was in favor.

Note that with the commmish voting, a 5-5 tie would not constitute a majority even though 7 teams were actually in favor of the deal.

 

[DropKick]

It is puzzling to me that you have omitted your rules and the trade. Seems to me you are hoping to skew the responses.

I believe it is a pretty standard rule that the teams involved in the deal are not included in the voting process, and the Commissioner, if a team owner, would have a vote.

I have generally been in the camp which says allow a trade unless there is collusion. I have recently reconsidered that position. If a trade is patently unfair, it attacks your league's integrity and should be put to a vote. Team owners need to have great latitude to manage their teams according to their own player valuation and philosophy, but you need to maintain league integrity.

I understand your intention Socrates but people have to recognize the slippery slope. As commish, I reserve a veto right. There would be no league vote. I've never had to exercise this option and don't expect to... It would have to be a very blatant case - or "patently unfair" as you said.There are trades that are deemed as very one sided. The best examples usually involve a rebuilding team, which is giving up a proven player for several unproven ones and/or draft choices. Although the league usually has lot of commentary on these, who is to say that the rebuilding team won't make out in the long run?

 

[coolnerd]

From rules in several leagues I commish.If another owner thinks a deal is unfair, he has 48 hours to bring that to the attention of the commissioner or one of the conference chairmen If the commissioner will investigate and if he agrees, the trade will be put up for a league vote. In order to overturn a trade, a league majority will be needed (6 votes).

That doesn't seem to be a very good rule. If the commissioner is one of the teams involved in the trade, he can decide not to put it to a vote no matter how many teams protest it.

Yes, it relies my not being a selfish jerk, but we don't hit auto-vote when some dude challenges either and I don't have a vote. Before a vote is ever taken (no matter the teams) each gives its case. In five years across four leagues I have only had about 5 trades challenged. after the owners' explanation it was deemed in some version by the original protestor that " i don't like the trade, but I now see the why, so I am okay."

 

[renesauz]

For reference:

Just had this one overturned by the commish.. 12 team IDP Dynasty... we roster 55 players .5 pprTeam A gives J cutler and Desean Jackson..Team B gives J. P-Paul and a 3rd and 4th round pick in the ongoing rookie draft.. Commish said Team B got to good of a deal.. not fair.. meh.. Owners in discussion with the commish..

If this is the trade...I could see some eyebrows being raised!

 

[DiStefano]

I am the commissioner for a dynasty league, with the sole power to veto trades. I have only exercised it once, when I believed an experienced owner was taking advantage of a new owner (who had taken over a team from an owner who had left). By the way, it was a few years ago, so I don't remember the trade. They both protested, so I told them that if the remaining owners voted to overrule me, I would allow the trade to go through. They didn't get a single vote.

Now, I recognize that there almost certainly was no collusion involved. But there were dynasty implications, and a very unfair trade. So I vetoed. Had it not been a new and inexperienced owner, I probably would not have objected; but then, it probably wouldn't have happened.

 

[fatness]

From rules in several leagues I commish.If another owner thinks a deal is unfair, he has 48 hours to bring that to the attention of the commissioner or one of the conference chairmen If the commissioner will investigate and if he agrees, the trade will be put up for a league vote. In order to overturn a trade, a league majority will be needed (6 votes).

That doesn't seem to be a very good rule. If the commissioner is one of the teams involved in the trade, he can decide not to put it to a vote no matter how many teams protest it.

Yes, it relies my not being a selfish jerk, but we don't hit auto-vote when some dude challenges either and I don't have a vote. Before a vote is ever taken (no matter the teams) each gives its case. In five years across four leagues I have only had about 5 trades challenged. after the owners' explanation it was deemed in some version by the original protestor that " i don't like the trade, but I now see the why, so I am okay."

I'm certain you're not a selfish jerk. And that most commissioners aren't. But you can see the abuse potential in the rule. That's grounds enough for changing it.

 

[Buck Stop]

I commish several leagues. In my leagues if any owner wants to protest a trade he can, but as commish, I can NOT. Then the entire league votes on the trade (was it collusion or grounds for overturning?) but the 2 owners involved in the trade and myself do NOT vote. 9 owners can't come to a draw so I remain partial, which is best for the league IMO. I think in almost 10 years of running multiple leagues we've had a trade overturned 1 time that I can remember.

 

[ClownDogs]

For reference:

Just had this one overturned by the commish.. 12 team IDP Dynasty... we roster 55 players .5 pprTeam A gives J cutler and Desean Jackson..Team B gives J. P-Paul and a 3rd and 4th round pick in the ongoing rookie draft.. Commish said Team B got to good of a deal.. not fair.. meh.. Owners in discussion with the commish..

If this is the trade...I could see some eyebrows being raised!

In one league i play in, not sure Cutler/DJax is enough to get JPP to be honest, top DE's impossible to get.I have Cutler and 3 other qb's in one 16 team league and would deal him and djax for jpp easily.In the OP's case, if the rules state that the commish has all the veto power then nothing can be done i guess? Leave league and dont' look back.

 

[Dave Stauff]

Didn't read entire thread, but in answer to your question: I think the Commish is right in allowing his vote to count and not the two trading partners. All franchises in the league except those directly involved in the trade should be allowed to voice their opinion, and that includes the Commish. I'm not saying that a league vote is preferable, but if that's how the league decided to go, the two trading teams should not be involved in the vote as they are obviously not impartial . . .

 

[Jersey35]

1. Trades should only be vetoed in the case of suspected collusion and should come with strong consideration for removal of the owners involved, since, you know, collusion is cheating.

2. I'm not in favor of league votes on trades, but if it comes to that, the owners involved should not vote, since the owners involved are not impartial.

3. The trade of JPP for Cutler and Jackson in no way looks or smells like collusion, therefore your commissioner is doing his job incorrectly, but is correct that you shouldn't get a vote.

 

[Machiavelli]

I refuse to join a league where there are rules to veto trades, unless collusion is occurring.

However, in this caes, the commissioner has the right by the bylaws. He has even allowed the other owners to vote. I feel it is only appropriate for the trade parties NOT to vote.

Read your bylaws before joining a league.I

 

[coolnerd]

From rules in several leagues I commish.If another owner thinks a deal is unfair, he has 48 hours to bring that to the attention of the commissioner or one of the conference chairmen If the commissioner will investigate and if he agrees, the trade will be put up for a league vote. In order to overturn a trade, a league majority will be needed (6 votes).

That doesn't seem to be a very good rule. If the commissioner is one of the teams involved in the trade, he can decide not to put it to a vote no matter how many teams protest it.

Yes, it relies my not being a selfish jerk, but we don't hit auto-vote when some dude challenges either and I don't have a vote. Before a vote is ever taken (no matter the teams) each gives its case. In five years across four leagues I have only had about 5 trades challenged. after the owners' explanation it was deemed in some version by the original protestor that " i don't like the trade, but I now see the why, so I am okay."

I'm certain you're not a selfish jerk. And that most commissioners aren't. But you can see the abuse potential in the rule. That's grounds enough for changing it.

to not treat my team as any other in the league would be violating "acting on the best interest of the league' and setting up the league imploding or the other members booting me out.