Chadstroma
Footballguy
Amen, the question of veto never should be 'is it a good trade or not'. Bad trades are a part of the game! Veto should only protect against colusion etc.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Fair trade? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Brother Mouzone
- Start date
- Status
schooner44
Footballguy
It is not up to you to decide the level of fairness in a trade yet toonly to decide if collusion is present. This trade shows no evidence of collusion and therefore there is no reason to question it or even veto it.
King of the Wolfies
Footballguy
silly wabbit.....................
Nothing more really needs to be said as it's been clearly explained above, but I'll chime in anywayNot only is this not a vetoable (word?) trade, but this is the epitome of what a GOOD trade is. If you're good enough to have depth at WR, then the proper way to use some of that is to package some of that depth (Edwards) with a lower RB (Cadillac) and upgrade to a better RB (Rudi), especially if the team you are trading with is weak at WR. This should be used as an example of how trading should be done in a win-win situation. Ridiculous this is even being brought up, except it's obvious the rest of the league doesn't like the fact that BOTH teams are probably improving.
A players value is in the eye of the beholder and your eyes should not be anywhere near these owners PERSONAL evaluation of there team wants and needs. I have played in a quality league for ten years and our commish has never once vetoed a trade,"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN COLLUSION",sure there were times certain owners got whiney from time to time but as I suspect as is the case here,The owners that bark the loudest probably have a vested interest in the transaction.i.e. these teams are in the same divisions and probably have multiple head to head matchups so they of coarse would like to face a percieved weaker team.
Let these other teams put in some TIME and EFFORT and INITIATE some moves that would enhance their own team.
LET THIS GOOD-FAITH TRADE "STAND"!!!!!!
Let these other teams put in some TIME and EFFORT and INITIATE some moves that would enhance their own team.
LET THIS GOOD-FAITH TRADE "STAND"!!!!!!
jaybaer
Footballguy
Not only do I think it's a fair trade, I'm not even sure it's clearly a bad trade. The guy is shipping away some depth to get stronger at RB2, and as a Cadillac owner the past two years, I don't blame the guy. Is Edwards the guy you want to throw in? Maybe not given the upside, but the Rudi owner may just be driving a hard bargain. And he should, given the fact that he has a pretty dubious RB corps going forward.
cstu
Footballguy
I thought I'd come in here and see people mocking the post, yet there are some people actually debating it. I fail to see where there should be any question of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Mouzone
Footballguy
its really funny to see some of these posts.
the truth is that I am team A and team B is a friend of a friend - I really only know his name
more truth is that there are a few guppies in this league and thus I was able to draft some depth
I was getting repeated phone calls from three owners who were furious with the trade. Truth be told I was under the impression that two of three were experienced fantasy football players. But you start to get a little defensive when your logic is repeatedly called into question. So I decided to post a quick thread in fbg's, assuming that I'd get one or two, maybe no responces, on the chance I'd get some wisdom imparted. Man, I was not dissapointed.
I now know I should never have instituted a trade poll to determine fair trades in the first place. As many logical and objective reasons I give these guys for letting the trade go through - it's never good enough. The trade will go through, although I'm sure I will be accused of cheating throughout the season. I dont think I'll be back in this league next year unless there are a few owner changes.
Well I hope nobody stressed out too much over this thread. Thanks for the insight.
btw - 1st year as commissioner..... who knew it was this difficult?!?
the truth is that I am team A and team B is a friend of a friend - I really only know his name
more truth is that there are a few guppies in this league and thus I was able to draft some depth
I was getting repeated phone calls from three owners who were furious with the trade. Truth be told I was under the impression that two of three were experienced fantasy football players. But you start to get a little defensive when your logic is repeatedly called into question. So I decided to post a quick thread in fbg's, assuming that I'd get one or two, maybe no responces, on the chance I'd get some wisdom imparted. Man, I was not dissapointed.
I now know I should never have instituted a trade poll to determine fair trades in the first place. As many logical and objective reasons I give these guys for letting the trade go through - it's never good enough. The trade will go through, although I'm sure I will be accused of cheating throughout the season. I dont think I'll be back in this league next year unless there are a few owner changes.
Well I hope nobody stressed out too much over this thread. Thanks for the insight.
btw - 1st year as commissioner..... who knew it was this difficult?!?
Arm Chair Express
Footballguy
Edwards will only see team A's lineup on bye weeks anyway and R. Johnson is a definate upgrade over Caddy, so this is a good trade to make for that team. If he was weak at wr and it hurt his team it may be a different story, but sometimes you have to pay to get what you want to upgrade, especially at rb and in this case he's not hurting his starting lineup he's helping it. So, by your rational its actually R. Johnson's 245 pts to Caddy's 191 pts for his lineup. There should be no vetos in FF!! Everyone has there own take on things and then there are people who just don't want people to improve their teams so the vote no.
painkiller
Footballguy
There's nothing wrong with that trade. No way you can veto it. No trade will be viewed as "fair" to everyone.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Here's an idea for you which I personally wouldn't employ in a league that should be full of experienced owners. But in a league where the friendships between the owners matter more, or where you have newer owners who just don't know better, it can get rid of a lot of the strife around trading. If it helps, great, if it isn't something you'd like to do, ignore it.Instead of having a "veto" or a "vote", you can instead set up a league to have a counter-offer period. Basically the announcement of the trade isn't final. Any other team can come in during the timeframe allowed, normally 2 or 3 days, and make counter-offers to either team involved in the trade. Either trading team has the right to switch to a new offer during that time, which would void the original trade and kick off a new review period.In essence it makes the league put their money where their mouth is. If a trade is unfair then obviously some other team will make a clearly better offer that will be accepted instead. What happens in reality is that the guys who are most up in arms about a trade get asked, "So if it's so lopsided why didn't you make a better offer?" and they'll often answer something like, "I didn't think the players were worth enough to give up more," or when pinned down with not having a reason, they'll admit, "I just didn't want this team getting better."I've used this kind of system in a work league and in a fraternity league that combined for about 8 seasons worth of experience with it. It doesn't completely negate the kind of problem you're seeing, but it helps tremendously. We've only seen a handful of trades switched to a counter-offer during that time. Oh, and to help lessen how often a team that worked to get a trade will have one switched, we don't let counter-offers change the players on the original trade. So if someone's trade is SA, DJax and 5th round pick for something else, any counter-offers can only be for that same group of players.As I said, not something I suggest for a league that is more serious about the FF aspect or that has good owners. I don't use it in my dynasty league. Over there the only review we have is for collusion, and anyone officially saying they have a problem with a trade is labelling an accusation of such.
toddhead
Footballguy
I am a commisssioner ina league where I go throught the same crap. There are owners in my league who never trade and cry everytime someone makes a trade. In the past we've had the whole veto trade vote thing, but this year I plainly told them that no trades are going to be vetoed by me unless there is collusion involved. I made this clear at the predraft meeting and I also posted it as a new rule on your league homepage. However, I recently made the following trade and had two owners veto it:
J. Campbell
S. Gostkowski
for
J. Delhomme
O. Mare
I'm a Redskins fan and wanted Campbell and he's a Pats fan and wanted Gostkowski... couldn't have been a less impactful trade, but we still had two morons veto it.
My point is, you are always going to have owners crying about trades, but you just have to do your job as commissioner and push the trade through. It gets hard when it is your own trade, but you still need to do it... you're the commissioner for a reason...
J. Campbell
S. Gostkowski
for
J. Delhomme
O. Mare
I'm a Redskins fan and wanted Campbell and he's a Pats fan and wanted Gostkowski... couldn't have been a less impactful trade, but we still had two morons veto it.
My point is, you are always going to have owners crying about trades, but you just have to do your job as commissioner and push the trade through. It gets hard when it is your own trade, but you still need to do it... you're the commissioner for a reason...
NHT-SPOILER
Footballguy
Absolutely a fair trade. Rudi johnson is way better than Cadillac and in order to get a good rb you need to give up more than just 1 player for it. Braylon Edwards + Cadillac are not top 10 matl BUT Rudi is mister consistency from year to year!!
inca911
Footballguy
Here's my gift to your league's rulebook:
Trades:
The league agrees to the following general philosophy regarding trades: Trades should always be allowed unless collusion is suspected. Collusion is defined as "a trade in which one of the owners knowingly and purposefully aids another owner without benefit to his own team." The commissioner has authority to reverse trades where collusion has occurred. The co-commissioner has authority to reverse trades involving the commissioner where collusion has occurred. If a member of the league feels that collusion has occurred between the commissioner and co-commissioner, the trade will be put to a majority vote (owners may abstain from voting). A tie vote still approves the trade. No trades are allowed after the completion of Week 13 (for an 8 team, week 15 playoff start), or Week 12 (for a 10 team, week 14 playoff start).
Trades offered on the website are valid until revoked or rejected. Owners are responsible for removing offers they have made in the event new information is discovered about a player (e.g., injury update). It is recommended that owners conduct trade negotiations in person, and only use the website to conduct finalized trades. Only trades approved on the website, or via both owners sending confirmation of the trade to the commissioner are deemed final.
Trades:
The league agrees to the following general philosophy regarding trades: Trades should always be allowed unless collusion is suspected. Collusion is defined as "a trade in which one of the owners knowingly and purposefully aids another owner without benefit to his own team." The commissioner has authority to reverse trades where collusion has occurred. The co-commissioner has authority to reverse trades involving the commissioner where collusion has occurred. If a member of the league feels that collusion has occurred between the commissioner and co-commissioner, the trade will be put to a majority vote (owners may abstain from voting). A tie vote still approves the trade. No trades are allowed after the completion of Week 13 (for an 8 team, week 15 playoff start), or Week 12 (for a 10 team, week 14 playoff start).
Trades offered on the website are valid until revoked or rejected. Owners are responsible for removing offers they have made in the event new information is discovered about a player (e.g., injury update). It is recommended that owners conduct trade negotiations in person, and only use the website to conduct finalized trades. Only trades approved on the website, or via both owners sending confirmation of the trade to the commissioner are deemed final.
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
This trade shouldn't even be controversial. In alot of peoples minds Caddy is a bust while Rudis been a perennial performer. So is it possible the guy sees it as Edwards for Rudi with Caddy being fodder? who knows.
Tell your owners to come at you with something a little more blatant or obvious next time and stop nitpicking.
Tell your owners to come at you with something a little more blatant or obvious next time and stop nitpicking.
Last edited by a moderator:
FavreCo
Footballguy
Exactly who is getting the shaft here? Does that answer your question?Team A gets the better RB (unless Caddy can become a man). Team B gets a #1 WR on a turd team, but it's better than the WR's on his horrid WR crew and gets a RB that starts.Now, who was getting shafted again?
Squinting Cyclops
Footballguy
allow the trade : both teams gain equivalent benefit....the teams that don't gain anything are the ones sitting on the sidelines disputing the two owners who are both improving their teams
Bandit
Footballguy
I like the way Keepers phrased it: "you guys have problems."The word I would use is "embarrassed," as in "You should be embarrassed for your league that this is even being discussed."
Skinsfansince72
Footballguy
A fair trade is always the one in which the two parties are in agreement. Too much self interest with the other owners to every give them a say in whether a trade should be "allowed". If you are worried about collusion then you have bigger problems. Try getting in a league with people who know one another. People who aren't going to cheat just to win a couple of bucks. NEVER join a league where the commish and/or the other owners can veto a trade.
Skinsfansince72
Footballguy
Most people trade with the idea that they are making their team better. The last thing the other owners want is for these two teams to make themselves better. ERgo, don't give the other owners a say in the matter. They are the last ones who would ever want anybody to trade(I'll decide what's fair when it comes to the team I'm paying for).
Fantaholic
Footballguy
Okay, now I understand. First year commish. Only consider vetoing a trade if your wife/mother even thinks that it sounds bad. For example: Owens for Mike Furrey two weeks before the playoffs begin with the Furrey team being out of contention. VETO
Road Warriors
Footballguy
I wouldn't go quite that far. A league with no oversight can be ripe for collusion, and you'll have no recourse. I've been a commissioner for the past 5 years and I have trade approval authority. Here's how I handle trade approval... If I can come up with a reason why each owner would do the trade, it sails through. If I have trouble understanding why one side of the trade is making the deal, I'll ask that owner for his reasoning. If he can provide me his view of how the trade helps him, the trade goes through. Trades vetoed: 0.
This trade is an easy one to see why each side would make this deal, as has been stated many times in thread.
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
Seriously, where are the moderators? How has this thread spent 2 days floating around the pool like the stinky turd that it is? Are we going to let these types of posts linger this year? Or is this just some kind of warning thread that will be pinned and pointed to whenever someone else tries to drop one of these logs in the pool?
PIK95
Footballguy
NoFBinLA
Moderator
A new record....And....Everyone please see sig for my response....
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
