League Debate (1 Viewer)

[Art Vandalay]

Hi All,

Recently a debate has started in our our league and I wanted to get the views of fellow FBG's on how they feel about.

We have had the same Commish now for 6 years(heading into our 7th) he recently stepped down and was replaced with another current owner. It is a 4-Kepper league that consists of both American and Canadians. It started as internet league but after time you get to know most of the owners personally.

The issue seems like a small one but is more out of principal. We have never had to review our trades by the commish in the 6 years in the league. I guess the new commish was readin gthe by-laws and there was a clause where it sd the commish can review all trades if he wants. Again our league has never used this rule and there has never been an issue. He has turned this function on and is on a power trip about it and has upset several owners in the process. The owners he has upset the most however are probaly the most active traders and the most outspoken in the league. It seems now he doesn't want to reverse it just to spite them.

My Take: There is no reason to inforce this rule as it can jsut cause problems with last minute trading and people should be allowed to manage there own teams.

Any thoughts?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

As long as there is no collusion between owners there is no reason to overturn a trade.

As long as the new commissioner abides by this tenant he can "review" the trades till his heart is content.

 

[zed2283]

The commissioner needs to have the power to review trades, whether or not it's ever needed. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, and this by-law should already be in place for when it does.

 

[renesauz]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

 

[ravnzfan]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

wow...truer words were never spoken--nice call R`!

The Misfits have a process whereby if 4 owners find a trade so lopsided that it should be reviewed, I petition 3 league members to review the trade and determine if it is "in the best interest of the league"

I don't think a dozen trades have been called to the carpet accross all the leagues, most have been allowed...a couple bounced w/small tweaks suggested to better balance the deal and finally a couple were so bad that they needed to be reversed

the good news...the owner(s) involved on the weaker ends of the deals reversed have left the leagues, so that the core group of owners currently on board are solid to the point where I doubt we review 1 deal this year

but to repeat....a commish who is an owner should never have sole discretion in determining trade approval/rejection

 

[zed2283]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

wow...truer words were never spoken--nice call R`!

The Misfits have a process whereby if 4 owners find a trade so lopsided that it should be reviewed, I petition 3 league members to review the trade and determine if it is "in the best interest of the league"

I don't think a dozen trades have been called to the carpet accross all the leagues, most have been allowed...a couple bounced w/small tweaks suggested to better balance the deal and finally a couple were so bad that they needed to be reversed

the good news...the owner(s) involved on the weaker ends of the deals reversed have left the leagues, so that the core group of owners currently on board are solid to the point where I doubt we review 1 deal this year

but to repeat....a commish who is an owner should never have sole discretion in determining trade approval/rejection

I disagree. I don't think other owners should be able to reject a trade, because you end up in situations like what you mentioned above. Although I'm not completely against a sub-committee of maybe 3 trustworthy owners who can advise on accepting/rejecting trades, other owners should have NO say in how a trade should be tweaked or not.

 

[Captain Hook]

....for the OP - time to re-write the league rules......the league Members are (or should be) in control, Not the Commissioner.

As far as trades, there should be clearly defined trade rules - that the entire league is aware of and in agreement on - then a trade is either legal or it is not - the setup should NEVER put the Commissioner in the position of having to judge trades. As others have stated, in the rare cases of questionable trades, the Commissioner should refer the trade to a committee of non-involved owners IF necessary.

 

[imagroid]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

wow...truer words were never spoken--nice call R`!

The Misfits have a process whereby if 4 owners find a trade so lopsided that it should be reviewed, I petition 3 league members to review the trade and determine if it is "in the best interest of the league"

I don't think a dozen trades have been called to the carpet accross all the leagues, most have been allowed...a couple bounced w/small tweaks suggested to better balance the deal and finally a couple were so bad that they needed to be reversed

the good news...the owner(s) involved on the weaker ends of the deals reversed have left the leagues, so that the core group of owners currently on board are solid to the point where I doubt we review 1 deal this year

but to repeat....a commish who is an owner should never have sole discretion in determining trade approval/rejection

I disagree. I don't think other owners should be able to reject a trade, because you end up in situations like what you mentioned above. Although I'm not completely against a sub-committee of maybe 3 trustworthy owners who can advise on accepting/rejecting trades, other owners should have NO say in how a trade should be tweaked or not.

Absolutely. Tweaking a trade to balance it out a bit????? No wonder these guys left the league. BS

 

[Art Vandalay]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

wow...truer words were never spoken--nice call R`!

The Misfits have a process whereby if 4 owners find a trade so lopsided that it should be reviewed, I petition 3 league members to review the trade and determine if it is "in the best interest of the league"

I don't think a dozen trades have been called to the carpet accross all the leagues, most have been allowed...a couple bounced w/small tweaks suggested to better balance the deal and finally a couple were so bad that they needed to be reversed

the good news...the owner(s) involved on the weaker ends of the deals reversed have left the leagues, so that the core group of owners currently on board are solid to the point where I doubt we review 1 deal this year

but to repeat....a commish who is an owner should never have sole discretion in determining trade approval/rejection

I disagree. I don't think other owners should be able to reject a trade, because you end up in situations like what you mentioned above. Although I'm not completely against a sub-committee of maybe 3 trustworthy owners who can advise on accepting/rejecting trades, other owners should have NO say in how a trade should be tweaked or not.

I totally agree with you HOOK,I don't think the commish should be in any more power then the rest of the league to decide if a trade is too his liking or not.

 

[zed2283]

I've always had a review function for all my leagues......but it's important to note that those leagues usually included several guppies. In four years (in the league with multiple guppies), only 2 trades went to committee...and those were obvious cases. Leagues with multiple guppies need this sort of system to maintain integrity. High dollar leagues should strive for independant commissioners so they can remain neutral. The average league most of us is in (highly competitive, few guppies, but not high $) doesn't usually need this type of rule.

I always had a setup where a commisioner could delay a trade, and send it to a committee, but the commish alone can never reject a trade. I think that's especially important when the commish is also an owner.

Commisioners should never have sole discretion of rejection.

wow...truer words were never spoken--nice call R`!

The Misfits have a process whereby if 4 owners find a trade so lopsided that it should be reviewed, I petition 3 league members to review the trade and determine if it is "in the best interest of the league"

I don't think a dozen trades have been called to the carpet accross all the leagues, most have been allowed...a couple bounced w/small tweaks suggested to better balance the deal and finally a couple were so bad that they needed to be reversed

the good news...the owner(s) involved on the weaker ends of the deals reversed have left the leagues, so that the core group of owners currently on board are solid to the point where I doubt we review 1 deal this year

but to repeat....a commish who is an owner should never have sole discretion in determining trade approval/rejection

I disagree. I don't think other owners should be able to reject a trade, because you end up in situations like what you mentioned above. Although I'm not completely against a sub-committee of maybe 3 trustworthy owners who can advise on accepting/rejecting trades, other owners should have NO say in how a trade should be tweaked or not.

I totally agree with you HOOK,I don't think the commish should be in any more power then the rest of the league to decide if a trade is too his liking or not.

That's the whole problem. It shouldn't be up for debate as to whether or not the trade is to anyone's liking. As someone mentioned earlier, the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not there was collusion. Even a somewhat lopsided trade should be allowed to go through if it was made in good faith. When you bring other owners into the equation, then other considerations come into play. If this isn't something you feel comfortable letting the commissioner handle, then you need a new commissioner.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

I like the idea that the commissioner can block/reject trades, but the league can override his veto with a majority vote. The league owners and the commissioner should work together, not one being totally subservient to the other. It also prevents a rogue commissioner from rejecting trades just to protect his own team.

 

[stugnut]

Either you trust the other owners in your league or you don't.

If you do trust them then why would you ever "review" trades? If you don't trust them then remove the owners you do not trust. I've never understood how other owners (or the commish) who obviously have a very personal interest in how a trade plays out could be expected to be impartial. I mean, should Owner X/Commish Y really be in a position to veto a trade that is going to put Adrian Peterson on a team in his division that he would then have to play twice?

To me that is more jacked up than just trusting your owners.

 

[Wadsworth]

Let the new commish review trades to his hearts content, but the only reason he should ever block a trade or send it to a committee is if there is reason to suspect collusion. I'm sure many people on this board, myself included, could give numerous examples of trades that seemed lopsided in one direction but ended up fair or even lopsided in the other direction. Bad trades are part of fantasy and as long there's no cheating, no one owner or group of owners should be telling me how I'm "allowed" to trade.

That's a general answer to be more specific to your league, I would recommend that that you privately contact the new commish and clearly express that this the type of issues that can ruin leagues. It sounds like that league has been strong for a while and it would a shame for it to fall apart due to something that hasn't been an issue for 6 seasons. More than any other issue, I've seen leagues fold due to aggressive denial of trading. Good luck. sounds like you might need it.

 

[big0mar]

This is a situation that has caused a lot of grief for my league. It seems like every year, there is a guppy that essentially gives away a player. The beneficiary uses the argument that if both parties agree, it should be allowed. A good number of owners say that it just ruins the integrity of competition.

Last year, we modified our payout system, so that you get a small amount of money for each regular season win. This was meant to prevent guys from making trades when its obvious their team is not going to win a championship. It worked somewhat, but we still did have a very lopsided trade last season. I think going forward, if a team is really bad, we may just not allow him to make any trades.

 

[zed2283]

Either you trust the other owners in your league or you don't.

If you do trust them then why would you ever "review" trades? If you don't trust them then remove the owners you do not trust. I've never understood how other owners (or the commish) who obviously have a very personal interest in how a trade plays out could be expected to be impartial. I mean, should Owner X/Commish Y really be in a position to veto a trade that is going to put Adrian Peterson on a team in his division that he would then have to play twice?

To me that is more jacked up than just trusting your owners.

Well I guess I see it as just the opposite. It's a lot easier to find one guy you can trust (and make him commissioner) than it is to find 11 others.To be fair, I've never been in a league where owners could vote to reject a trade. But when I hear about leagues that do, I always hear stories of trades being rejected for the same type example you cite above.

 

[Art Vandalay]

Thanks to everyone for replying so far.

One of the main issues is that what happens if someone wants to trade sunday morning and the commish doesn't improve it in time. It seems like there has never been a problem but that the commish just is been a bit of a D!ck and against the 2 outspoken owners who wnat to see the league run how it has been for the past 6 years.

 

[Godsbrother]

I have been commish of our league for 14 years. I have always had the authority to review trades but have never overturned one. There have been more than a few that I thought were dumb trades but none where I suspected collusion (only stupidilty). And sure enough a few guys that I thought were stupid actually made out better in the deal so I keep a very open mind.

The bottom line is this: if it isn't collusion then you have no business rejecting the trade. As long as your new commish abides by this rule who cares if he has to review the trade?

BTW- Any decision made by the commissioner in our league can be overturned by a 75% vote.

 

[Wadsworth]

Either you trust the other owners in your league or you don't.

If you do trust them then why would you ever "review" trades? If you don't trust them then remove the owners you do not trust. I've never understood how other owners (or the commish) who obviously have a very personal interest in how a trade plays out could be expected to be impartial. I mean, should Owner X/Commish Y really be in a position to veto a trade that is going to put Adrian Peterson on a team in his division that he would then have to play twice?

To me that is more jacked up than just trusting your owners.

Well I guess I see it as just the opposite. It's a lot easier to find one guy you can trust (and make him commissioner) than it is to find 11 others.To be fair, I've never been in a league where owners could vote to reject a trade. But when I hear about leagues that do, I always hear stories of trades being rejected for the same type example you cite above.

I briefly played in a league where every trade was voted on by every owner. If 8 out of the 12 owners rejected the trade it was sent to the commish to investigate. About halfway into the first season, 8 owners rejected a trade. Once the commish polled the rejecting owners for their reason for rejecting the trade he found out that all of the owners felt the trade was too lopsided. 4 thought it was too lopsided for team A and 4 thought it was too lopsided for team B. This is kind of can of worms you open up when the rest of the league is too involved in other peoples trades. And it's not just about trusting the other owners, when you bring opinion into the mix you are likely going to get 12 different opinions in a 12 team league. Let people trade, if you have reason to suspect they are cheating then deal with it when it comes up. Otherwise stay out of it.

 

[strykerpks]

I have been commish of our league for 14 years. I have always had the authority to review trades but have never overturned one. There have been more than a few that I thought were dumb trades but none where I suspected collusion (only stupidilty). And sure enough a few guys that I thought were stupid actually made out better in the deal so I keep a very open mind.The bottom line is this: if it isn't collusion then you have no business rejecting the trade. As long as your new commish abides by this rule who cares if he has to review the trade?

Ditto here. The only reason I have the trades go through me first is for more of a timing thing than anything at else. I am usually up very late so when our waivers run, I process the trades as well. It is a consistency thing that my league has come to appreciate.

 

[zed2283]

I have been commish of our league for 14 years. I have always had the authority to review trades but have never overturned one. There have been more than a few that I thought were dumb trades but none where I suspected collusion (only stupidilty). And sure enough a few guys that I thought were stupid actually made out better in the deal so I keep a very open mind.The bottom line is this: if it isn't collusion then you have no business rejecting the trade. As long as your new commish abides by this rule who cares if he has to review the trade?BTW- Any decision made by the commissioner in our league can be overturned by a 75% vote.

I briefly played in a league where every trade was voted on by every owner. If 8 out of the 12 owners rejected the trade it was sent to the commish to investigate. About halfway into the first season, 8 owners rejected a trade. Once the commish polled the rejecting owners for their reason for rejecting the trade he found out that all of the owners felt the trade was too lopsided. 4 thought it was too lopsided for team A and 4 thought it was too lopsided for team B. This is kind of can of worms you open up when the rest of the league is too involved in other peoples trades. And it's not just about trusting the other owners, when you bring opinion into the mix you are likely going to get 12 different opinions in a 12 team league. Let people trade, if you have reason to suspect they are cheating then deal with it when it comes up. Otherwise stay out of it.

Exactly my points. It's a whole lot easier for 1 guy to be impartial than 12.

 

[Ray_T]

This is a situation that has caused a lot of grief for my league. It seems like every year, there is a guppy that essentially gives away a player. The beneficiary uses the argument that if both parties agree, it should be allowed. A good number of owners say that it just ruins the integrity of competition. Last year, we modified our payout system, so that you get a small amount of money for each regular season win. This was meant to prevent guys from making trades when its obvious their team is not going to win a championship. It worked somewhat, but we still did have a very lopsided trade last season. I think going forward, if a team is really bad, we may just not allow him to make any trades.

I think you're going overboard.If this is a keeper league, a manager directly alters his fate for future years by trading stars away, and in general, in leagues where you keep 3 or more, you dont need to police a whole lot of trades.if it is a redraft league, then that is where you run into problems.either way, you cant stop someone from trading unless they prove themselves to be untrustworthy. and if you are going to do this, then you might as well strip the GM of their franchise and get someone else in there. If this is happening a lot, then that is the action I think you need to take.as for the other league where the commish appears to be on a power trip.... There is nothing wrong with reviewing trades, so long as it does not affect the performance of the league. The key here is to review them in a reasonable amount of time. If a trade happens on Tuesday, and the commish (or his designated replacement) hasnt approved the trade by Sunday morning, then I think this is being unreasonable (unless you previously agreed to a review period where anyone may file a complaint)I am commish in one league, and I review all trades. Generally I approve them the minute I see them. If the deal looks a little shaky then I'll let the review period ride for a couple of days to see if anyone opposes. If there are no complaints, then I assume the league has given the approval.In all my years as commish, I have only had to veto 2 deals. A third deal that looked bad was reviewed by myself after a couple of complaints. I talked to the person on the bad end of the deal, and based on what his expectations were for the future of the said player at that time(Reggie Bush) I allowed the deal to pass because he gave his reasons for wanting to do the deal and I could see the logic and reasoning present in making such a deal even if I felt he overpaid for the electric Reggie Bush.so I let that one pass as it looked bad based on stats, but the potential future value of Bush made the deal appear to be reasonable at that time.the Reality: Most people dont even notice their deals have been reviewed because I got it done so quickly after the deal was made.This may be the same case as is in your league, but the new commish is not as quick at getting this done.so unless he is providing a veto for all kinds of deals, maybe you should give him a chance.If time reviewing the deals is the issue, ask him to speed it up.

 

[Sweet Love]

I've been playing for a while and for the most part there are few guppies in my leagues. Regardless, lop-sided trades happen, just as in the professional sport we follow, but in the end, there is risk beyond what we can control. Last year in Week 1 if I traded Tory Holt for Steve Breaston, people would be going nuts...the reality is that it would have been a trade in my favor...I may not have received all the value coming my way when the trade was consummated, but i still would have finished ahead in the end (and isn't that all that really matters)?

I don't care for overturning trades unless collusion is involved. When I see a lop-sided trade, i don't think "that is a crock, it is hurting the league", I get mad at myself for not being the one who made the trade. Someone took time to target a player, negotiate with an owner, in a freakin' "fantasy" league, and I am going to overturn it??? Last time I checked, me and the other 9 owners in the league not in on the trade, had the ooportunity to make a trade with the guppy and either did not take advantage or close the deal. Again, I am going to blame the guy that did??