What's new
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!

Fishy trade (1 Viewer)

Bob Lee Swagger

Footballguy
So there's an owner in our league who doesn't really care at all and doesn't know anything about fantasy football. He'll accept any trade offered to him. Another guy just offered him Frank Gore straight up for Larry Johnson, and he accepted.

There is no collusion going on, the owner just could care less. What do I do here? Do I let the trade go through? It's not really in violation of any rules, it's just totally unfair.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So there's an owner in our league who doesn't really care at all and doesn't know anything about fantasy football. He'll accept any trade offered to him. Another guy just offered him Frank Gore straight up for Larry Johnson, and he accepted. There is no collusion going on, the owner just could care less. What do I do here? Do I let the trade go through? It's not really in violation of any rules, it's just totally unfair.
Part of your duty as commish is to try and keep the league as compettitive as possible otherwise teams will start leaving your league. I would put up for vote whether the owner should be allowed to stay in the league or to get rid of him.
 
Bottom line is the two players have faired pretty equally so far. It is the commissioners job to fill the league with competitive and active owners. I do not think it is fair to punish either owner. I would inquire to the owner receiving Gore what his intentions of the trade were, and if he really wants to be a part of the league. Gore may outproduce LJ this year, not likely, but feasible.

I got flack when I trade LJ in dynasty league for two early rookie picks (Bush, Maroney). I was not high on LJ as most and am happy with the trade. If the owner truly believes that Gore is the better RB, what can you do about it? Everyone has different opinions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why doesn't he care ? Why was he allowed to be an owner if he has

an, "I don't care attitude" ?

For you, it's a tough spot to be in.

I know thats not much help though.

 
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.

 
Our league has a "mutual value" clause...it doesn't say "equal value", just "mutual value"...that means each owner must be able to explain to the commish how his team benefits from a trade, if asked...in other words, he has to demonstrate some grasp of what he's doing...even if the commissioner doesn't agree with his assessment...

Otherwise, we have a no-babystitting rule...as long as the guy has a valid reason for the deal, the trade goes through...

 
In my league Frank Gore outscored Larry johnson in weeks one and 2. In week 3 LJ was on bye obviously. How can you veto that. Fantasy football is a "what have you done for me lately" game. You cant veto a trade based on "projections".

Who knew Lamont Jordan was going to be the player he was last year (or for that matter would revert back to the player he is this year). Who know Dom Davis would be a stud when he was drafted. Who knew he would be worth nothing this year? Reuben Droughns anyone? Willie Parker?

You cant veto trades based upon projections or personal feelings. The truth is, this trade is fair so far this year. How are you going to justify to your league mates that you vetoed the trade if Gore ends up outscoring LJ, or LJ gets hurt this week?

I think what the real problem here is - your afraid of the team that is getting LJ for some reason or another.

 
Do NOT diss the trade.

It is an arguably even trade under any type of league.

Put to a vote whether to sell this guy's league spot to a new owner. You do NOT want an "I don't care" owner in your league.

 
To all the commishes that think its their job to "monitor trades". A better resolution for you guys might be to have a no trading rule for the entire season.

Btw - I was once a commish who tried to do too much. It ruins leagues. Just stay out and handle what your supposed to be handling. Trade police is not one of your duties.

 
In my league, I have the ability to veto an unfair trade. I've only done that once in 15 years.

I would not allow this trade.

 
Do NOT diss the trade.It is an arguably even trade under any type of league.Put to a vote whether to sell this guy's league spot to a new owner. You do NOT want an "I don't care" owner in your league.
:thumbup: If you keep this guy around, you're just going to be in this position time and time again. Find a new owner (and leave the trade alone).
 
How do you know the owner could care less? Has he said that? It sounds to me like he is a pretty active owner. Generally the owners who dont care are the ones who dont do anything with their team. Perhaps he is just trying to find a winning combination or maybe he is a sucker for action. Either way you cant say he doesnt care.

 
Trades that may appear lopsided at times can work out unexpectedly. What happens if Green doesn't return, Turley's has a serious back problem and can't play.

Don't DK the trade.

On the flipside, why don't you offer him a trade??

 
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league. Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
i agree. i refuse to put things like this to a league vote anymore. it's been my experience that people will vote based on how it impacts their team. i have two other guys in the league that know their stuff and i can trust to help me out. as for the trade, i wouldnt have a problem with letting it go through, it's the attitude of the guy trading LJ that would worry me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a bunch of sissies in this forum. Quit whining about alleged thievery other owners are commiting and start stealing instead of crying.

 
Do NOT diss the trade.It is an arguably even trade under any type of league.Put to a vote whether to sell this guy's league spot to a new owner. You do NOT want an "I don't care" owner in your league.
I agree here. You can't start messing with trades. Does your owner not care or not know? If he does not know, trades like this will make him learn quickly but ultimately this is a classic buy low/sell high trade deal. Granted, not many here would do this but you can't start to run other peoples' teams for them becuase you disagree with their trade logic.ETA: Do not start to put trades up to vote. Once you do that, all it will take is one owner to disagree on any trade in the future before they demand that you 'put it before the league'. At that point, owners will then start to lobby the other owners to vote in favor of their agenda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So there's an owner in our league who doesn't really care at all and doesn't know anything about fantasy football. He'll accept any trade offered to him. Another guy just offered him Frank Gore straight up for Larry Johnson, and he accepted.

There is no collusion going on, the owner just could care less. What do I do here? Do I let the trade go through? It's not really in violation of any rules, it's just totally unfair.
Part of your duty as commish is to try and keep the league as compettitive as possible otherwise teams will start leaving your league. I would put up for vote whether the owner should be allowed to stay in the league or to get rid of him.
what if Gore ends up with more FF points than LJ at the end of the year? DO NOT VETO TRADES UNLESS IT IS COLLUSION

 
I gave up LJ for Gore (and others). Still, I wouldn't have made the trade if I didn't feel Gore will be top ten by seasons end.

I truly don't believe the difference between them both by seasons end will be all that great.

 
To all the commishes that think its their job to "monitor trades". A better resolution for you guys might be to have a no trading rule for the entire season. Btw - I was once a commish who tried to do too much. It ruins leagues. Just stay out and handle what your supposed to be handling. Trade police is not one of your duties.
we have a winner :goodposting:
 
Leave the trade alone.

If you aren't happy with an owner and don't want to find a mid-eseason replacement then freeze his roster and use each weeks average score of the other teams (except for the points of the team playing him) in place of his points.

 
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
 
DO NOT VETO TRADES UNLESS IT IS COLLUSION
That is total BS. Collusion can't be proven, and the life of a dynasty leagues may require league votes to prevent teams from becoming worthless and impossible to find new ownership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
What does this have to do with putting a vote to the full league? You quoted my statement yet made no attempt to dispute it.
 
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
What does this have to do with putting a vote to the full league? You quoted my statement yet made no attempt to dispute it.
League majority to veto the trade. Now we know that is not without fault, but you have to protect dynasty leagues by allowing this IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
What does this have to do with putting a vote to the full league? You quoted my statement yet made no attempt to dispute it.
League majority to veto the trade. Now we know that is not without fault, but you have to protect dynasty leagues by allowing this IMO.
League majority is REDICULOUS. If you want to add in a vote, it should be a vote to REPEAL a trade. Require an owner to propose the override and require that to be seconded. Then have all owners vote on everything and require 80% of owners to vote REPEAL in order for it to pass.That's somewhat respectable and put the onus on the other owners to get their acts together to override a terrible trade. That's better than approving every single trade that's proposed and driving all your legit owners up a wall.

 
So JohnnyU thinks an individual owner can only make trades if the league approves? THAT'S absolute nonsense. What may be lopsided to one it may be a steal to another. I don't want others telling me who I should value and at what price.

 
That sounds like a lousy situation. I don't like the idea of trade vetoes, but here's how I'd handle this if I was in your shoes:

1. Put the trade "on hold", and let other owners know if necessary

2. Talk to the owner giving up LJ and figure out where he's coming from. If he legitimately thinks it's a good deal, let it stand (even if you don't agree). But if he confirms that he doesn't really care, and is just goofing around, remind him that everyone in the league is trying to take it seriously and that one bad trade can really effect the fun factor for the whole group. See if he'll reconsider. If he does...

3. Talk to the other owner and let him know that you're going to give the other guy a chance to back down from the deal. If it's a fun league, perhaps take a moment to remind him that taking advantage of other owners isn't cool. If it's competitive, that may not be necessary.

4. Let the league know that the two owners have agreed not to make the deal (don't use the word "veto" so you don't set a precedent). Remind everyone to take trading seriously.

5. If anyone gets cranky and pulls out the "I'll quit if I don't get my way" card, strongly consider whether they're worth having in the league in the first place. I've seen plenty of guys like that and I can't think of any that actually added anything to a league.

 
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
What does this have to do with putting a vote to the full league? You quoted my statement yet made no attempt to dispute it.
League majority to veto the trade. Now we know that is not without fault, but you have to protect dynasty leagues by allowing this IMO.
That's B.S. - you only need half the league to agree with you to veto a trade? Unless the two owners making the trade get to vote also (meaning there are already two votes for the trade before the race evenb starts), that system SUCKS OUT LOUD.It should be OVERWHELMING opposition - at least 75% of the league to veto a trade. And it should ONLY be democratic likle that if one owner can't reaosnably justify their posiiton.

Your team's trade should not be subject to the other owners' individual motivations. Thati a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE system. I'd NEVER play in a league that was allowed to vote on my trades and overturn them with only a few other owners participating.

 
Often, leagues with veto vote rules turn into trying to make trades that help you only a little, because a deal where I give a stud RB for a stud WR will be seen as unbalanced, since it makes my starting roster better. Depth is not to be used in trade. Not all leagues do this, but I've seen too many.

I'm closing in on abiling on a league I've been in for years because of it. It's not worth my hassle to try and improve my team through trades - the poll time takes a while, and I have had waivers moves on hold before because of this in other leagues.

I see why you need someone to police the obviously collusive crap, but right now Gore is outproducing LJ. I can't see why anyone vetoes that right now. I would probably call for a no-confidence vote on the commish if it got overturned (even if I wasn't in the deal) and attempt to remove him - unless the commish satisfied me he knew something was going on.

 
That's B.S. - you only need half the league to agree with you to veto a trade? Unless the two owners making the trade get to vote also (meaning there are already two votes for the trade before the race evenb starts), that system SUCKS OUT LOUD.It should be OVERWHELMING opposition - at least 75% of the league to veto a trade. And it should ONLY be democratic likle that if one owner can't reaosnably justify their posiiton.Your team's trade should not be subject to the other owners' individual motivations. Thati a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE system. I'd NEVER play in a league that was allowed to vote on my trades and overturn them with only a few other owners participating.
:goodposting: I was in a work league once where the commish wanted veto power, but I thought it was too much - I knew his work style, and figured it would be bad. We got a democratic procedure - sort of - where the commish could call for a vote. I was away on vacation, and the league passed a rule that Congress would be proud of:1. Commish calls for a vote, and must vote no.2. All teams not involved vote, and if more than half vote to veto the trade it doesn't go.3. Ties will be broken by the commish.You get 2 teams who would vote yes out of the equation, and give commish double power. :X Luckily we caught him cheating, and removed his as commish. He then whined and didn't pay his dues - which he was supposed to have done already.
 
if there is not a rule already in place for a league wide vote, then you can't do it just for this trade.

the deal is lopsided, especially since LJ has already had his bye and Gore was hurt enough last week to lose 2 scoring opportunities.

despite that, you can't just veto the trade unless there is some type of collusion proven.

give this newby the benefit of the doubt and if he doesn't get any betterm then can him next year.

 
I would not allow it based on Larry Johnson being a top 3 stud RB and Frank Gore being a hurt RB who's hurt all his career ,who's done nothing really and plays on a bad team.

If you think Frank Gore = Larry Johnson ....... good gawd, do we really need to continue talking ?

 
Bob Lee Swagger said:
So there's an owner in our league who doesn't really care at all and doesn't know anything about fantasy football. He'll accept any trade offered to him. Another guy just offered him Frank Gore straight up for Larry Johnson, and he accepted.

There is no collusion going on, the owner just could care less. What do I do here? Do I let the trade go through? It's not really in violation of any rules, it's just totally unfair.
Just because it really bothers me.If he could care less, then, well, that means that he does care.

If he couldn't care less, then, well, that means that he truly does not care.

That trade sucks. Trades that seem unfair should go through some process. The owner should explain why he made the trade. How it helps him.

If he can't at least do that...Get rid of him. Find someone to take over the team who does care. Or, contract the team. Hold an auction for the players. Do something, anything besides having a know-nothing, COULDN'"t care less owner.

cheers

 
AnonymousBob said:
So JohnnyU thinks an individual owner can only make trades if the league approves? THAT'S absolute nonsense. What may be lopsided to one it may be a steal to another. I don't want others telling me who I should value and at what price.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I'm only talking about dynasty leagues with the ability to veto a trade with a league majority vs the BS thing called collusion, which can't be proven. I believe a league needs the ability to veto trades that can ruin dynasty leagues. As far as redraft leagues go, I say no veto.
 
Marc Levin said:
JohnnyU said:
Kosar said:
JohnnyU said:
Kosar said:
Do NOT put the trade to a league vote. To me, that's something that a weak commish does. If anything, have 1 or 2 co-commishes to bounce things off of, but not the whole league.

Dangerous precedent there is you do a full league vote.
No it's not. Also, those who say only veto trade based on collusion are full of s--t. You can't prove collusion for one thing, and the life of dynasty leagues is dependent on preventing grossly lopsided trades from ruining leagues by making teams worthless, which makes it almost impossible to find new ownership when they realize their team sucks and bails. Having said that, I'm not so sure that trade is so lopsided. Gore is pretty good.
What does this have to do with putting a vote to the full league? You quoted my statement yet made no attempt to dispute it.
League majority to veto the trade. Now we know that is not without fault, but you have to protect dynasty leagues by allowing this IMO.
That's B.S. - you only need half the league to agree with you to veto a trade? Unless the two owners making the trade get to vote also (meaning there are already two votes for the trade before the race evenb starts), that system SUCKS OUT LOUD.It should be OVERWHELMING opposition - at least 75% of the league to veto a trade. And it should ONLY be democratic likle that if one owner can't reaosnably justify their posiiton.

Your team's trade should not be subject to the other owners' individual motivations. Thati a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE system. I'd NEVER play in a league that was allowed to vote on my trades and overturn them with only a few other owners participating.
You may have a point. I kind of like the 75% rule myself. I think I will propose it in the off-season for the two leagues I commish.
 
You should stick to whatever rulse u established at the beginning of the season... a majority vote to "#####" a trade with a fair time limit for everyone to vote has always worked in my leagues.. redrafts.

This trade could be reasonably argued as a fair trade although I think it highly favors teh guy getting LJ.

 
I decided to allow the trade. It's not against any rules, and LJ's looking like something of a bust this year. He and Gore could end up performing relatively comprably. Thanks for the advice.

 
Bob Lee Swagger said:
Stealthycat said:
no, you cannot let that go throughalso, you shouldn't have ever let a guy who doesn't care play in your league
Yeah, he claimed he was really into it, and it turns out he's not. :shrug:I was thinking of putting it up to a league vote. Is that a good idea?
A good way to keep this kind of thing from happening is to let any OTHER owner in the league protest any trade. They need to justify to the commish why they are protesting, and then it's put to a league vote. The two owners involved in the trade do NOT vote, and nor does the protesting owner (because it's obvious how that person would vote). This should leave you with an odd-number of voters (if you have an even # of teams in your league), and it's strictly majority-rules. If more teams vote to overturn than to allow, then you overturn.This method has two great things working for it:1) It takes away the seemingly arbitrary nature of a commish choosing which trades to veto - it's much more democratic to have a league police itself. Fantasy owners are savvy enough to know - in general - if a trade is fishy. :bye: 2) Normally it only gets used a couple of times a year, at most. The vast majority of trades are looked at and there is no protest and no vote. Even if an owner believes that one team got a much better deal than the other, that's not a reason to protest. It only happens in really odd cases where you might suspect collusion or an owner has simply given up and the other owner is taking advantage. :tfp: Hope it works out - those kind of things are never easy or fun to deal with.--Sniper
 
If he paid and if it's really his team, you do nothing. It's none of your business. Until you can provide the crystal ball that proves that you know what's going to happen, you need to keep out of this.

btw-when you invited somebody who didn't know what they were doing into the league, you opened yourself up for this kind of thing.

You'll look pretty stupid if LJ gets hurt and Gore turns out to be a top 10 back. Leave it alone.

Btw-if it was me and you tried to veto one of my trades, I'd demand my cash back. And if you didn't give it back, I'd start the worst possible lineup every week. So much for you "competitive balance".

Leave people to their trades and mind your own business. It's worked in our league for more than 15 years. It will work in yours.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not allow it based on Larry Johnson being a top 3 stud RB and Frank Gore being a hurt RB who's hurt all his career ,who's done nothing really and plays on a bad team.If you think Frank Gore = Larry Johnson ....... good gawd, do we really need to continue talking ?
If the owners involved thought things were "equal" they wouldn't bother making the trade. Not sure where you people came up with the idea that a trade needs to be "fair" or "equal". Be it fantasy football or any other business dealing, I don't approach deals with the idea that I'm not getting what I perceive to be the better end of things. I'm not wasting my time on a deal if the best that I'm going to be is "even steven". I don't think those two players are equal but I also think the chiefs stink and that LJ, when it's all said and done, isn't going to produce like he did last year. A healthy Gore could easily end up with more td's. Maybe not better overall stats but more tds.
 
DO NOT VETO TRADES UNLESS IT IS COLLUSION
That is total BS. Collusion can't be proven, and the life of a dynasty leagues may require league votes to prevent teams from becoming worthless and impossible to find new ownership.
Owners have the right to manage their OWN team, especially if it is a $ league. An owner has the right to make trades that they think will benefit their team, not others.

We all have different options on players and how they will perform thru course of a season. It does not make it cheating just because 1 owner would not make that trade.

 
AnonymousBob said:
So JohnnyU thinks an individual owner can only make trades if the league approves? THAT'S absolute nonsense. What may be lopsided to one it may be a steal to another. I don't want others telling me who I should value and at what price.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I'm only talking about dynasty leagues with the ability to veto a trade with a league majority vs the BS thing called collusion, which can't be proven. I believe a league needs the ability to veto trades that can ruin dynasty leagues. As far as redraft leagues go, I say no veto.
There should be NO vetoing trades especially in a dynasty league. What if an owner is in the rebuilding mode and wants to have a fire sale. He decides to trade away all of his older players for young players and draft picks. Doesn’t he have the right to managing his own team? Once again he has the right to do what he thinks is the best for his team long term, not what is best for other teams.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top