help settle leage dispute (1 Viewer)

[hotboyz]

I'm trying to get opinion on a ongoing league issue were having I hope to get alot of responses so I can lead my league mates to this link.

The issue is the league owners want me as commissioner to be more active in vetoing trades. My argument is the commish should only veto a trade when he suspects collusion. How do you guys feel about commish having veto power? Would you rather have it setup where owners vote on whether a trade should be approved?

It was also suggested that we expand roster's in our 12 team league and make trading illegal. Would you like to play in a league where trades were not allowed?

Thanks I'm advance for any responses I recieve

 

[hooter311]

Kind of moot since the season has already started, huh?

Whatever is in place, should stay in place. And collusion is the ONLY reason anyway should be vetoing a trade.

 

[habsfan]

I'm trying to get opinion on a ongoing league issue were having I hope to get alot of responses so I can lead my league mates to this link.The issue is the league owners want me as commissioner to be more active in vetoing trades. My argument is the commish should only veto a trade when he suspects collusion. How do you guys feel about commish having veto power? Would you rather have it setup where owners vote on whether a trade should be approved?It was also suggested that we expand roster's in our 12 team league and make trading illegal. Would you like to play in a league where trades were not allowed?Thanks I'm advance for any responses I recieve

No and no.With some league hosts, your choices are "owners vote" or "commish reviews". Of the two options, the latter is the lesser of two evils. I'm not going to play in a league where the deals I put together are at the mercy of my competitors.

 

[fred_1_15301]

I'm trying to get opinion on a ongoing league issue were having I hope to get alot of responses so I can lead my league mates to this link.The issue is the league owners want me as commissioner to be more active in vetoing trades. My argument is the commish should only veto a trade when he suspects collusion. How do you guys feel about commish having veto power? Would you rather have it setup where owners vote on whether a trade should be approved?It was also suggested that we expand roster's in our 12 team league and make trading illegal. Would you like to play in a league where trades were not allowed?Thanks I'm advance for any responses I recieve

Wow....you've got an odd group. Why should trades be illegal? Thats just silly. Also, it's not your job to "be more active in vetoing trades". It's your job to veto trades if there is obvious collusion.

 

[hotboyz]

Thanks for the response no changes would take place this season this would be for 2012

 

[glong989]

IMO I would not allow league votes unless I knew the members were not going to veto just because they don't think the trade is 100% equal. An owner can have 4 very startable WRs and be able to deal a WR1 for a RB2. That may not be seen as an equal trade, but if the guy is stacked at WR and thin at RB then it can make sense for him to make that move by dealing from his strength on the bench and gaining a starter.

As commissioner of a few leagues with me having sole veto power I have yet to veto anything. Unless it's WW fodder for Ray Rice then it goes through.

I think we may need a bit more background info - why would people want trading banned? Has there been problems in the past with people making horrible trades that ruined the balance of the league?

 

[Funkley]

Trade veto's kill leagues a lot faster than bad trades.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Owners should never vote on trades, it's a recipe for disaster.

Commissioners should have veto power, but should rarely veto trades if they're doing their job correctly.

 

[FunkyTeaParty]

In the league I run an owner (or me) has to challenge a trade and then it goes to vote. In 16 years a trade has never been overturned. Collusion is the only reason a trade should be overturned and no one colludes in the league I run. It's too competitive.

I would scrap the league you run if you have owners that think you should unilaterally veto trades or even ban them. Ban trades? That sounds terrible.

 

[hotboyz]

The league champion has been in title game 3 yrs straight he's the most activite trader in each on of his championship seasons he has been able to pull off a trade that the majority of the owners thought were stupid trades each time hr turned these trades interest championship runs. I believed the league feels that's the only way he wins is thru bad trades

 

[steelerfan1]

has been an issue with our league as well.

i can tell you years ago as commish i denied 2 teams a trade as i didn't think it was fair.

it was corey dillon when he was a somebody for marty booker who was a nobody.

of course marty booker lights it up that year and we had a great owner leave because of it.

that was the first and last time i as commish ever decided a teams fate other than mine.

last couple of years we have been going to a league vote with majority rules.

this causes issues because when the 2 teams see a no vote they take offence to that.

this year it is no vote and the 2 teams trading can run THEIR team as they see fit.

i think that is the only fair option after having problems with the first 2 for years.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The league champion has been in title game 3 yrs straight he's the most activite trader in each on of his championship seasons he has been able to pull off a trade that the majority of the owners thought were stupid trades each time hr turned these trades interest championship runs. I believed the league feels that's the only way he wins is thru bad trades

Then tell the league to stop trading with him. He's obviously a more savvy owner than they are. What are some examples of these "bad trades" that have carried him to three straight championship games?

 

[FunkyTeaParty]

It should not be a commissioner's job to legislate against perceived stupidity. Like your example above, a trade that is panned league wide oftentimes ends up going in favor of the owner that got "ripped off".

I left a baseball league because of a trade that I wasn't even involved in being overturned. Who wants to play in a league where a trade you legitimately think will help your team could be overturned at the whim of a group of guys that spent a total of 15 seconds analyzing the trade?

 

[glong989]

The league champion has been in title game 3 yrs straight he's the most activite trader in each on of his championship seasons he has been able to pull off a trade that the majority of the owners thought were stupid trades each time hr turned these trades interest championship runs. I believed the league feels that's the only way he wins is thru bad trades

Then tell the league to stop trading with him. He's obviously a more savvy owner than they are. What are some examples of these "bad trades" that have carried him to three straight championship games?

This^That's almost like saying he drafts better than everyone so teams should be just randomly assigned. If he is good at recognizing good trades for himself then that's part of the game. If these truly are horrible trades for the other party then the league isn't very competitive in the first place.

 

[george]

League I used to play in for about 10 years had a rule where an owner could "challenge" a trade. The Commish and top 2 teams in standings (not involved in trade) then reviewed the trade. We never vetoed one.

Current league has similiar setup where there is a commish and two co-commishes that review trades. If 2 of 3 approve, it goes through. Never vetoed one that I can recall.

 

[AngryPatriot]

Owners should never vote on trades, it's a recipe for disaster.Commissioners should have veto power, but should rarely veto trades if they're doing their job correctly.

I think there are times when a trade is so bad that it should be vetoed, it upsets the balance of the league and a lot more teams than the 2 involved in a trade are affected. BUT- this is an extreme case and even then very hard to discern (we can't read the future but we can have a reasonable idea of value based on performance, ADP, and situation). So yes, some trades should be vetoed but it's very rare. To say that collusion is the only reason to veto a trade is fine but if 2 teams are colluding and secretive about it, how can anyone prove it? I think it's really hard, the only proof is the trade itself!

 

[FunkyTeaParty]

I will amend my stance to "suspicion of collusion". "This guy is an idiot and is getting ripped off" should never be the reason.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

So your league wants you to veto more trades...or just make trading illegal altogether?

Yikes. Sounds like a swell group of guys!

As has been mentioned (over and over and over and over...), veto should occur only in cases of collusion.

Also, the majority of ff players would consider a no-trades league FAR less fun.

Has there been rampant one-sided trading in your league or something?

 

[Sweet Love]

Here is my view on trading:

If someone gets the obvious better end of a deal, good for them. EVERYONE in the league had an opportunity to trade with the individual who gave away too much, so when a deal like that goes through, I make a mental note and know that is someone to trade with in the future...I also think, "kudos to the guy who got the better deal".

As far as the no trade league, I doubt I would play in a league like that. I understand why people would want to eliminate bad trades, but if I have 5 good WRs in a 3-start league and need a RB/QB/TE, I would be pissed that I can't trade one of those WRs to make my team better. If you really have to do that, I would suggest making the league have 2 flex spots so people can start their best players.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Owners should never vote on trades, it's a recipe for disaster.Commissioners should have veto power, but should rarely veto trades if they're doing their job correctly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The league champion has been in title game 3 yrs straight he's the most activite trader in each on of his championship seasons he has been able to pull off a trade that the majority of the owners thought were stupid trades each time hr turned these trades interest championship runs. I believed the league feels that's the only way he wins is thru bad trades

So they are tired of losing to an active and better owner?

 

[Runningman]

I believe in veto powers for commissioners only but have been in leagues where league wide votes worked well. The key is the maturity level of the participants. If the maturity level is low you are going to have drama no matter what system you use because it is hard to get 12 people to agree on the issue.

 

[GoRaiders]

Ban trades? Who wants to play in that league? Oh ya, guys that suck at FF.

 

[flranger]

The league champion has been in title game 3 yrs straight he's the most activite trader in each on of his championship seasons he has been able to pull off a trade that the majority of the owners thought were stupid trades each time hr turned these trades interest championship runs. I believed the league feels that's the only way he wins is thru bad trades

So they are tired of losing to an active and better owner?

In my league we have a rule for this. It's informal, and more in the advice nature than a true rule. Anyone new to the league is quickly educated, usually on the golf course before the draft. The original owners learned it the hard way. It's called "Rule #1". The rule is explained like this: "Don't trade with (insert team owner)"?Everyone likes it but me

 

[AmosMoses]

Your owners are pining for less freedom? Then they don't deserve it. Go be a dictator.

 

[Nate]

I think, in your league, the appropriate solution is to ban trades altogether and vote on waiver pickups, to maintain the competitive integrity of the league.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Find new owners.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

 

[Chaka]

I'm trying to get opinion on a ongoing league issue were having I hope to get alot of responses so I can lead my league mates to this link.The issue is the league owners want me as commissioner to be more active in vetoing trades. My argument is the commish should only veto a trade when he suspects collusion. How do you guys feel about commish having veto power? Would you rather have it setup where owners vote on whether a trade should be approved?It was also suggested that we expand roster's in our 12 team league and make trading illegal. Would you like to play in a league where trades were not allowed?Thanks I'm advance for any responses I recieve

No and no.With some league hosts, your choices are "owners vote" or "commish reviews". Of the two options, the latter is the lesser of two evils. I'm not going to play in a league where the deals I put together are at the mercy of my competitors.

Isn't the commish a competitor too?

 

[two_dollars]

I agree with what Sweet Love said. If you make it a no-trade league, you need expanded rosters and lineup like:

QB

RB

WR

TE

Flex

Flex

Flex

 

[The_Wolfman]

I'm trying to get opinion on a ongoing league issue were having I hope to get alot of responses so I can lead my league mates to this link.

The issue is the league owners want me as commissioner to be more active in vetoing trades. My argument is the commish should only veto a trade when he suspects collusion. How do you guys feel about commish having veto power? Would you rather have it setup where owners vote on whether a trade should be approved?

It was also suggested that we expand roster's in our 12 team league and make trading illegal. Would you like to play in a league where trades were not allowed?

Thanks I'm advance for any responses I recieve

No and no.With some league hosts, your choices are "owners vote" or "commish reviews". Of the two options, the latter is the lesser of two evils. I'm not going to play in a league where the deals I put together are at the mercy of my competitors.

Isn't the commish a competitor too?

That's true, but it's also the responsibility of the commish to maintain the integrity of the league so people want to keep coming back every year. Sure, as commish you can veto trades that "seem unfair" or that give your competition an advantage, but good luck getting those guys to come back and play in your league next year. If you can't be impartial to how other teams manage their rosters you have no business being commissioner of a league.

 

[hotboyz]

I agree with what Sweet Love said. If you make it a no-trade league, you need expanded rosters and lineup like:QBRBWRTEFlexFlexFlex

That's our exact lineup setup. With a 5 man bench total of 14 roster spots

 

[da_budman]

Long time commish of a local league ad I have never had to veto a trade. If you have the right people in your league you should never have to. I HAVE had to talk to the proposed owners proposing a trade a couple of times when it seemed kind of shady, helping them to see the light. the: would you want to see 2 OTHER owners make that trade talk. That is the reson I prefer to use the "call the commish" rule when you agree to a trade. If a trade is really lopsided i can feel the guy out who is getting shafted and try and figure out if there is any collusion involved. If you use the league website to accept trades you have to figure out

As far as trades go I honestly would be ok without them. Seems like to me that the proposing/ rejecting/accepting trade game is more of a hassle and stirs up bad blood alot of the time.

In a money league online with strangers I MUCH prefer it and The higher the stakes the more I prefer it.

 

[wudaben]

I've got a money league that has been running for 15yrs with guys that all grew up together and over the years we've had to modify some of our trade rules to protect the interest of the league.

Originally we had no veto policy and then one of the guys out of contention went and traded a player for a case of beer and then the next season we implemented a veto policy but then people were vetoing everything. For the past 5yrs or so we've been utilizing a combo policy of owner votes and commish (me) override. Basically in a 12 team league we've set the number of vetoes required to 7 with the purpose that people REALLY must think that a trade is really bad for it to be vetoed. If a trade is vetoed by the owner vote I will look at the trade and then rule on it.

We've had three incidents in the last 7-8 years in baseball or football where a trade has been vetoed and come in front of me... each trade involved a veteran owner (used car salesman) and a rookie owner who he happened to recruit into the league. While these were bad trades by the rookie owners the fact that the other owner recruited these owners made the trades looked much worse. In each case I asked the rookie owner to explain their intentions with the trade prior to making my decision to be sure there was no collusion and given that it is a rook...to make sure they fully understand the implications of their trade. In 2 cases I let the trades go through and in the 3rd the rookie owner realized he had been duped and I allowed the veto to stand.

 

[spodog]

It should not be a commissioner's job to legislate against perceived stupidity. Like your example above, a trade that is panned league wide oftentimes ends up going in favor of the owner that got "ripped off".

echo this. Commish's job is to commish, not act as judge and jury on trades. Can you imagine Roger Goodell stepping in to stop the Vikings from wheeling away a pick last year to acquire Randy Moss?