Lopsided Trades (1 Viewer)

[Drinkin Buddy]

This is meant to be a general discussion about whether lopsided trades are just part of the game or whether measures should be taken to prevent them. Below is an account of how lopsided trades have caused a problem in my league:

The following trades have occurred in my league:

Preseason: Gore/Bryant for T.Bell/Harrison. Owner was stuck in a tornado storm during draft and someone else had to draft his team. He hated his team and panicked.

Week 3: McNabb/M.Barber for Portis/Bledsoe. Owner thought he had lots of RB depth so he moved Portis for McNabb, a reasonable trade in hindsight but caused some controversy at the time. An early 2nd rounder for an early 6th rounder just 2 weeks after the draft. Eagles homer but trade has worked out pretty well for him.

Week 5: Maroney/B.Edwards for Alexander/Curtis. Team trading Alexander was 0-4 at the time and then Alexander gets hurt. Desperation move by a team that needed to win immediately.

Week 5: Brees/Rhodes/Stallworth for Bledsoe/Bush/Curtis. Bledsoe’s job is getting a little shaky, Stallworth doesn’t look like he will ever come back, Bush is leading the league in receptions. Overvalued Bush based on all the hype.

Week 8: Carr/Henry/Ward/Winslow for Plummer/M.Bell/S.Smith/Gates. This owner just makes one bone-headed trade every year.

Collusion has never been the issue, it is a matter of owners making stupid decisions.

Our trade process works as follows:

Commissioner (or Assistant Commissioner) approves trades. Only absolutely ridiculous trades (Rackers for Boldin) or collusive trades are to be vetoed. The trade is posted for 1 or 2 days so that all owners can offer their comments on whether they believe the trade should be vetoed or approved. But ultimately the commish/assistant commish approves or disapproves. Most leagues have a similar system in place.

There were at least a few owners objecting to each of the above trades but ultimately each of them were approved. Several owners are incredibly frustrated by the above trades that are really allowing their competition to load up their rosters, these owners are threatening to quit the league. It seems as though half the owners (12 team) are involved in trades and the other half are not (due to time constraints and disinterest in trading). Of the 6 or 7 owners who trade it seems as though the same 2 or 3 owners always come out ahead in trades and end up with fairly stacked rosters by playoff time.

What should be done to combat lopsided trades?

A) Nothing, there is no collusion you have to let owners make their own decisions

B) Try to maintain the competitive balance by vetoing collusive trades and moderately lopsided trades (not just ridiculously lopsided trades)

C) Ban trading all together

D) Replace the owners that keep making stupid trades (all 12 owners are high school buddies but vary from guppie to shark)

E) Other

What does your league do?

 

[Power Monster]

League wide vote but most of the owners in my 3 leagues do not really trade and if they do they know better than to pull anything funny. I do have 1 league where there are 3 brothers and we watch thm in case any BS happen...

 

[thayman]

This is meant to be a general discussion about whether lopsided trades are just part of the game or whether measures should be taken to prevent them. Below is an account of how lopsided trades have caused a problem in my league:The following trades have occurred in my leaguereseason: Gore/Bryant for T.Bell/Harrison. Owner was stuck in a tornado storm during draft and someone else had to draft his team. He hated his team and panicked.Week 3: McNabb/M.Barber for Portis/Bledsoe. Owner thought he had lots of RB depth so he moved Portis for McNabb, a reasonable trade in hindsight but caused some controversy at the time. An early 2nd rounder for an early 6th rounder just 2 weeks after the draft. Eagles homer but trade has worked out pretty well for him.Week 5: Maroney/B.Edwards for Alexander/Curtis. Team trading Alexander was 0-4 at the time and then Alexander gets hurt. Desperation move by a team that needed to win immediately.Week 5: Brees/Rhodes/Stallworth for Bledsoe/Bush/Curtis. Bledsoe’s job is getting a little shaky, Stallworth doesn’t look like he will ever come back, Bush is leading the league in receptions. Overvalued Bush based on all the hype.Week 8: Carr/Henry/Ward/Winslow for Plummer/M.Bell/S.Smith/Gates. This owner just makes one bone-headed trade every year.Collusion has never been the issue, it is a matter of owners making stupid decisions.Our trade process works as follows:Commissioner (or Assistant Commissioner) approves trades. Only absolutely ridiculous trades (Rackers for Boldin) or collusive trades are to be vetoed. The trade is posted for 1 or 2 days so that all owners can offer their comments on whether they believe the trade should be vetoed or approved. But ultimately the commish/assistant commish approves or disapproves. Most leagues have a similar system in place.There were at least a few owners objecting to each of the above trades but ultimately each of them were approved. Several owners are incredibly frustrated by the above trades that are really allowing their competition to load up their rosters, these owners are threatening to quit the league. It seems as though half the owners (12 team) are involved in trades and the other half are not (due to time constraints and disinterest in trading). Of the 6 or 7 owners who trade it seems as though the same 2 or 3 owners always come out ahead in trades and end up with fairly stacked rosters by playoff time.What should be done to combat lopsided trades?A) Nothing, there is no collusion you have to let owners make their own decisionsB) Try to maintain the competitive balance by vetoing collusive trades and moderately lopsided trades (not just ridiculously lopsided trades) C) Ban trading all togetherD) Replace the owners that keep making stupid trades (all 12 owners are high school buddies but vary from guppie to shark)E) OtherWhat does your league do?

A is the correct answer. Your option D shows me what the problem is. None of those trades look that bad at the time, lots of trading high, and buying low. You just seem to have some sharks preying upon the guppies in your league.

 

[BigRed]

What he said. Let the morons learn the hard way. Trades should only be voted on if collusion is suspected.

 

[trogg78]

If you're concerned about these kinds of trades than maybe you should not allow trading in your league.

 

[Pipes]

This is meant to be a general discussion about whether lopsided trades are just part of the game or whether measures should be taken to prevent them. Below is an account of how lopsided trades have caused a problem in my league:The following trades have occurred in my league:Week 3: McNabb/M.Barber for Portis/Bledsoe. Owner thought he had lots of RB depth so he moved Portis for McNabb, a reasonable trade in hindsight but caused some controversy at the time. An early 2nd rounder for an early 6th rounder just 2 weeks after the draft. Eagles homer but trade has worked out pretty well for him.

I think you answered your own question here. Just let them go...you or anyone else can't predict the future and what may look like a bad trade for one team may actually turn out the other way. Let owners run their own teams how they seem fit. If you questions someone intentions behind a trade or their competence as an owner in general then shame on you for letting them in the league in the first place.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Everyone pays to run their team how they want.

 

[bjabrad]

This is meant to be a general discussion about whether lopsided trades are just part of the game or whether measures should be taken to prevent them. Below is an account of how lopsided trades have caused a problem in my league:The following trades have occurred in my leaguereseason: Gore/Bryant for T.Bell/Harrison. Owner was stuck in a tornado storm during draft and someone else had to draft his team. He hated his team and panicked.Week 3: McNabb/M.Barber for Portis/Bledsoe. Owner thought he had lots of RB depth so he moved Portis for McNabb, a reasonable trade in hindsight but caused some controversy at the time. An early 2nd rounder for an early 6th rounder just 2 weeks after the draft. Eagles homer but trade has worked out pretty well for him.Week 5: Maroney/B.Edwards for Alexander/Curtis. Team trading Alexander was 0-4 at the time and then Alexander gets hurt. Desperation move by a team that needed to win immediately.Week 5: Brees/Rhodes/Stallworth for Bledsoe/Bush/Curtis. Bledsoe’s job is getting a little shaky, Stallworth doesn’t look like he will ever come back, Bush is leading the league in receptions. Overvalued Bush based on all the hype.Week 8: Carr/Henry/Ward/Winslow for Plummer/M.Bell/S.Smith/Gates. This owner just makes one bone-headed trade every year.Collusion has never been the issue, it is a matter of owners making stupid decisions.Our trade process works as follows:Commissioner (or Assistant Commissioner) approves trades. Only absolutely ridiculous trades (Rackers for Boldin) or collusive trades are to be vetoed. The trade is posted for 1 or 2 days so that all owners can offer their comments on whether they believe the trade should be vetoed or approved. But ultimately the commish/assistant commish approves or disapproves. Most leagues have a similar system in place.There were at least a few owners objecting to each of the above trades but ultimately each of them were approved. Several owners are incredibly frustrated by the above trades that are really allowing their competition to load up their rosters, these owners are threatening to quit the league. It seems as though half the owners (12 team) are involved in trades and the other half are not (due to time constraints and disinterest in trading). Of the 6 or 7 owners who trade it seems as though the same 2 or 3 owners always come out ahead in trades and end up with fairly stacked rosters by playoff time.What should be done to combat lopsided trades?A) Nothing, there is no collusion you have to let owners make their own decisionsB) Try to maintain the competitive balance by vetoing collusive trades and moderately lopsided trades (not just ridiculously lopsided trades) C) Ban trading all togetherD) Replace the owners that keep making stupid trades (all 12 owners are high school buddies but vary from guppie to shark)E) OtherWhat does your league do?

A is the correct answer. Your option D shows me what the problem is. None of those trades look that bad at the time, lots of trading high, and buying low. You just seem to have some sharks preying upon the guppies in your league.

And you should be one of the sharks trying to take some buy low talent off of these guppies teams.

 

[delusional]

Since we use CBS in my league, we take the average points per week the person scores. The players have to be within +5-5 of each others average.

Sometimes its good but other times its not. I dont like it.

 

[Dt's Mules]

This is meant to be a general discussion about whether lopsided trades are just part of the game or whether measures should be taken to prevent them. Below is an account of how lopsided trades have caused a problem in my league:The following trades have occurred in my leaguereseason: Gore/Bryant for T.Bell/Harrison. Owner was stuck in a tornado storm during draft and someone else had to draft his team. He hated his team and panicked.Week 3: McNabb/M.Barber for Portis/Bledsoe. Owner thought he had lots of RB depth so he moved Portis for McNabb, a reasonable trade in hindsight but caused some controversy at the time. An early 2nd rounder for an early 6th rounder just 2 weeks after the draft. Eagles homer but trade has worked out pretty well for him.Week 5: Maroney/B.Edwards for Alexander/Curtis. Team trading Alexander was 0-4 at the time and then Alexander gets hurt. Desperation move by a team that needed to win immediately.Week 5: Brees/Rhodes/Stallworth for Bledsoe/Bush/Curtis. Bledsoe’s job is getting a little shaky, Stallworth doesn’t look like he will ever come back, Bush is leading the league in receptions. Overvalued Bush based on all the hype.Week 8: Carr/Henry/Ward/Winslow for Plummer/M.Bell/S.Smith/Gates. This owner just makes one bone-headed trade every year.Collusion has never been the issue, it is a matter of owners making stupid decisions.Our trade process works as follows:Commissioner (or Assistant Commissioner) approves trades. Only absolutely ridiculous trades (Rackers for Boldin) or collusive trades are to be vetoed. The trade is posted for 1 or 2 days so that all owners can offer their comments on whether they believe the trade should be vetoed or approved. But ultimately the commish/assistant commish approves or disapproves. Most leagues have a similar system in place.There were at least a few owners objecting to each of the above trades but ultimately each of them were approved. Several owners are incredibly frustrated by the above trades that are really allowing their competition to load up their rosters, these owners are threatening to quit the league. It seems as though half the owners (12 team) are involved in trades and the other half are not (due to time constraints and disinterest in trading). Of the 6 or 7 owners who trade it seems as though the same 2 or 3 owners always come out ahead in trades and end up with fairly stacked rosters by playoff time.What should be done to combat lopsided trades?A) Nothing, there is no collusion you have to let owners make their own decisionsB) Try to maintain the competitive balance by vetoing collusive trades and moderately lopsided trades (not just ridiculously lopsided trades) C) Ban trading all togetherD) Replace the owners that keep making stupid trades (all 12 owners are high school buddies but vary from guppie to shark)E) OtherWhat does your league do?

most, if not all of these aren't "terrible" depending on the scoring system

 

[Killerclown]

that's what I thought, the trades are not terrible so I don't see an issue.

 

[EdwardCat]

The trades seem fine. We prevent it by endlessly mocking the guy who got screwed over.

 

[NinerK]

As commish of a 12 team league that does a handful of trades I have not once vetoed a trade. It's been said many times here: "Everbody values players differently"

With that in mind I don't judge trades based on how I value those players; the owners involved most likely have different opinions of value for the players in the trade.

Here's what I have found important to look for: Do the owners involved have a "need" for the players they are trading for. ie; Team A just lost his #1 RB and has 5 WR so he trades 2WR to Team B for a #2 RB.

This could be considred lopsided but you have to take into consideration Team A "needs" a RB and is trading from one of his strengths to solidify a weakness.

League votes are a hassle; the only time I consider vetoing a trade is if a team is trading from a weakness and adding to a strength. For example this year Team A traded Carson Palmer for Kennison and Toomer. You might say this is not that bad of a trade. But Team A has only LT as a RB (we start 1-3 RB) and now has EIGHT WR.

I considered vetoing this trade and interviewed Team A. He explained how he had little faith in Palmer the rest of the way and his many WR weren't producing. Furthermore he wasn't satisfied with the offers of RB he was trying to trade for. No Veto.

Let owners manage their teams; even if a trade "looks" lopsided just interview the owners to see why they're making the trade; if they can tell you exactly how they are improving their team, most likely it's not collusion so let it be.

 

[coolnerd]

that's what I thought, the trades are not terrible so I don't see an issue.

the fact the poster could explain the logic of each trade sort of leads me to the same conclusion.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

 

[stevegamer]

You have 3 options:

1. Replace the whining owners who complain about someone always winnng trades and being able to make mutliple trades and stack their lineups.

2. Try to make the league a no-trade league. Call for a league vote to do so, and if ANY of the regular whining owners choose to vote no, mock them mercilessly. Repeatedly. Especially if they whine again the next season.

You might also want to eliminate waivers, but increase drafted rosters, so no one can stupidly drop players and have others get an edge that way.

3. Play in smaller/different leagues with like minded people - if enough people want to do that. You can have the sharks go one way & the guppies go another, or something like that.

 

[NinerK]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

 

[billyjoe]

First, make it a money league of at least $50. Then people take it seriously.

Two, make it dynasty, so people won't dump players they don't plan to keep.

Third, non-playoff teams have a tournament for the top pick.

Everyone plays hard, wants to win, no tanking, no dumping players.

As for stopping "bad trades". Lots of trades seem bad, but have a way of working out in the end. Let people play how they want to play. If a guy makes horrible trades, after a year or two, he'll have no one left to trade away. Problem solves itself.

Everyone plays differently. Just have fun, have some laughs. In *GREAT* leagues, a bad trade becomes an inside joke for years. Not #####ing and moaning. That's a sign of a bad league full of anal retentive owners.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

Exactly, but it's very rare that 6 owners would have such extreme views. And when they do, it's usually for good reason.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

I agree NinerK, commissioner approval is superior to a league vote. Our compromise was to allow owners to post their comments/arguments for or against trades before the commissioner (or asisstant comish, if commish is involved in the trade) makes his decision. I find it pointless for owners to just vote yes or no because their motives are certainly bias. Instead I want to hear arguments for or against the trade. We also usually have the owner being "ripped off" post his comments on why he is making the trade, this helps weed out any collusion.

 

[billyjoe]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

Exactly, but it's very rare that 6 owners would have such extreme views. And when they do, it's usually for good reason.

But why should I have to trade based on the generally accepted player values?If someone thougtht Colston, Gore, KJ were going to bust out, but felt SA and CJ were going to have down years, the deal would get instantly vetoed. If you see a guy in preseason, and you really think he's going to bust out, you should be allowed to overpay for him. Even if it flies in the face of general values for that player.

Some of the FBG staff are PAID to be good. And they get LOTS of stuff wrong. So you're telling me, your majority is a fair judge of FF values? Based on what? Reading FBGs?

Unless it's Peyton Manning for Ben Troupe, the deal should be allowed.

Unfair Trades

Go read that article. You don't veto based on fair or equal. It's fair enough, or equal enough. And if everyone in the league is trying, you should NEVER have to veto a deal. There's always usually enough value. If a guy is 0-5 and wants to take some risks, he paid his league dues, he should be allowed. Any league that has league wide veto votes, means the commish has no sac.

 

[Cleavage Connoisseur]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

 

[NinerK]

I agree NinerK, commissioner approval is superior to a league vote. Our compromise was to allow owners to post their comments/arguments for or against trades before the commissioner (or asisstant comish, if commish is involved in the trade) makes his decision. I find it pointless for owners to just vote yes or no because their motives are certainly bias. Instead I want to hear arguments for or against the trade. We also usually have the owner being "ripped off" post his comments on why he is making the trade, this helps weed out any collusion.

That sounds like a good compromise to me. The problem I have is that people only give their feedback if the trade is "lopsided". So it makes no sense for me to set up an approve/disapprove or even to ask for feedback. Everybody is just too busy.However, I like the concept. If people want to speak up they should be allowed/encouraged to. This is all supposed to be fun, so the more in-league discussion the better, IMO. And I most certainly agree that hearing from the "ripped off" owner can be very effective in determining if it is collusion or not. LOL though, I had one owner who is a bonehead and took it personally that I asked him why he was making a trade. Too bad he's stho sthensitive....NTTAWWT.

 

[NinerK]

[

But why should I have to trade based on the generally accepted player values?

That's what I'm saying. You can't look at percieved value cause it ain't your team. If you are in dire need of a RB you are going to willing to trade your top WR or your next 2 WR for that 1 decent RB. Gotta look at the context of the trade; not just "that RB is so much better then both of those WR".....

 

[NinerK]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

The commish needs to ask him his motivation. Coles is definately the focus of NYJ passing came but yeah, that sounds crazy.

 

[stevegamer]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

The commish needs to ask him his motivation. Coles is definately the focus of NYJ passing came but yeah, that sounds crazy.

But does it sound crazy because:1. Coles was drafted much huigher than Colston, so Coles is worth more?2. Colston is a rookie who will hit the wall or is a fluke and Coles is proven?3. Colston has been outscoring Coles?4. Some other reason - playoff matchups, NO vs. NYJ schedules?Based on the inital poster's lopsided trade examples, I can make either side seem like the good side of the trade. Yeah, ask the guy what he's thinking, but it's likely going to be easily defendable.

 

[Xenopax]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

The commish needs to ask him his motivation. Coles is definately the focus of NYJ passing came but yeah, that sounds crazy.

How so? I own both of these players, and I if I had to choose between them it would be a tough call. Some weeks Coles does better, some weeks Colston does better. Just because Colston has outscored Coles doesn't mean that trend will continue with their schedules. The Colston owner may feel that opposing teams have his number now and will be covering him more and the NO TD's will come from their running game, whereas he may be looking at Coles and thinking that teams will start to focus on Leon Washington more now that he's shown his stuff and that will open Coles up.

 

[Wingnut]

We have a trade committee of 5 people, plus one reserve member. The committee decides whether or not a trade goes through. Committee members that are involved in the trade in question do not have a say. If one of the committee members is involved in the trade in question, we use the remaining 4 plus the reserve (5 votes total). If TWO committee members are involved in the trade, the committee defaults to 3 people (reserve vote not needed).

The guys in the trade committee discuss amongst themselves whether or not the trade is fair, then they vote PASS or VETO. Majority rules.

It has worked out pretty well for us, and no trade has been vetoed by the committee. If there is no collusion, the trade usually goes through.

 

[coolnerd]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

Wow...A top 10 WR for another top 10 WR??? A veteran safer player for a higher risk relatively unknown and this is questionable?? Maybe one of the fairest trades that I have seen in a quite awhile.

 

[Xenopax]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

Wow...A top 10 WR for another top 10 WR??? A veteran safer player for a higher risk relatively unknown and this is questionable?? Maybe one of the fairest trades that I have seen in a quite awhile.

NO DUDE THAT ONE SCORED MORE THAN THE OTHER SO FAR THIS SEASON IT'S TOTALLY A CONSPIRACY!!!!!1one

 

[TommyGilmore]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

Exactly, but it's very rare that 6 owners would have such extreme views. And when they do, it's usually for good reason.

But why should I have to trade based on the generally accepted player values?If someone thougtht Colston, Gore, KJ were going to bust out, but felt SA and CJ were going to have down years, the deal would get instantly vetoed. If you see a guy in preseason, and you really think he's going to bust out, you should be allowed to overpay for him. Even if it flies in the face of general values for that player.

Some of the FBG staff are PAID to be good. And they get LOTS of stuff wrong. So you're telling me, your majority is a fair judge of FF values? Based on what? Reading FBGs?

Unless it's Peyton Manning for Ben Troupe, the deal should be allowed.

 

[billyjoe]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

Exactly, but it's very rare that 6 owners would have such extreme views. And when they do, it's usually for good reason.

But why should I have to trade based on the generally accepted player values?If someone thougtht Colston, Gore, KJ were going to bust out, but felt SA and CJ were going to have down years, the deal would get instantly vetoed. If you see a guy in preseason, and you really think he's going to bust out, you should be allowed to overpay for him. Even if it flies in the face of general values for that player.

Some of the FBG staff are PAID to be good. And they get LOTS of stuff wrong. So you're telling me, your majority is a fair judge of FF values? Based on what? Reading FBGs?

Unless it's Peyton Manning for Ben Troupe, the deal should be allowed.

Lets try to keep the tool factor down. Did the post confuse you? You should have just asked for help.There is a point where the trade goes beyond all acceptable reasoning. Obviously trading QB2 for TE30 makes no logical sense. It also fails the "enough value" test.

People should be allowed to overpay, or go against generally accepted player rankings. Obviously (for most) there is a limit as to how far you can go. The article I linked explains it pretty well.

If you need anything else, feel free to PM me.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Personally, I am of the opinion that most trades should be allowed.....but I respect that my leaguemates don't hold the same philosophy. So we came to a compromise: instead of requiring majority approval for all trades, we require a super-majority to veto any trades.

It's a 10-team league, so you have to have 6 "no" votes to veto a trade. Everyone likes it.

Yeah, this is good. It is a HUGE hassle to get everybody to chime in on each trade. At the same time though it is a conflict of interest to have your competition approve or disapprove a trade. It just opens the door for that guy who will say "that will make Team B better and I play him this week, so I vote no"....

Exactly, but it's very rare that 6 owners would have such extreme views. And when they do, it's usually for good reason.

But why should I have to trade based on the generally accepted player values?If someone thougtht Colston, Gore, KJ were going to bust out, but felt SA and CJ were going to have down years, the deal would get instantly vetoed. If you see a guy in preseason, and you really think he's going to bust out, you should be allowed to overpay for him. Even if it flies in the face of general values for that player.

Some of the FBG staff are PAID to be good. And they get LOTS of stuff wrong. So you're telling me, your majority is a fair judge of FF values? Based on what? Reading FBGs?

Unless it's Peyton Manning for Ben Troupe, the deal should be allowed.

Lets try to keep the tool factor down. Did the post confuse you? You should have just asked for help.

x2You're on a roll. Seriously.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

I agree with most of the posters that A is the right answer. But I will use the various comments to help me convince the disgruntled owners that we are handling trades properly.

 

[crimsonrebel]

i personally have no problem this late inthe season letting a player with a winning record rip himself off to a player with a losing record, but the opposite looks too much like collusion if it doesnt fill the losing player's need.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

In our league, the commish (me) has final approval over all trades. I pretty much tell the owners beforehand, "Don't expect me to save you from your own stupidity." The only trades I look at are ones that appear to be collusive in nature (I am currently reviewing one right now) or ones that are "give up" in nature where a losing team's owner throws a mini-hissy fit and trades his top players for a third string kicker and a long snapper just because he doesn't want to care any more. And in those circumstances, I talk to the owners to see if they can explain the upside they see in the deal before approving or rejecting the trade. Other than that, I let everything go through.

 

[wannabee]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

The commish needs to ask him his motivation. Coles is definately the focus of NYJ passing came but yeah, that sounds crazy.

I have Colston and would GLADLY trade him for Coles straight up ...

 

[Patoons]

In one of my leagues, The last place team just Gave away Colston to the First place team for Coles. Seems a little suspect as Coles is on a bye this week. Why would the last place team trade away a receiver who only trails Torry Holt in points for a receiver on a bye week ? Seems suspicious to me. Percentage split on whatever the payout is maybe? I Dunno ?

The commish needs to ask him his motivation. Coles is definately the focus of NYJ passing came but yeah, that sounds crazy.

I have Colston and would GLADLY trade him for Coles straight up ...

Yea- I agree. This is no a "lopsided" trade.Additionally, I do not believe any of the above trades should really be considered completely lopsided. Maybe one guy wins out, but not lopsided.

 

[PlayaHata]

We had an unfair trade argument come up in one of my leagues and I tried to find the text from the article listed in post #21, which was a GREAT article. I had it saved in my favorites, but the link doesn't appear to work anymore.

The original link went to http://apps.footballguys.com/04davies_unfairtrade.cfm

Does anyone by chance have a copy of the article text or could we possibly get the link made active again?

 

[TheLastDispatch]

commish blocks them if they're very heavily lopsided. if its somewhat close to fair its allowed

 

[fsufan]

trading in a dynasty league is different than redrafts or keeper leagues.

An owner that plays in a dynasty has the right to do what they they is best for his/her team. A trade in a dynasty league my look one sided at the time but a year or 2 down the road that owner could be the one that got the better end of the deal.

her is a deal I might pull off in one of my dynasty leagues if Turner is traded to a team where he is the starter.

I would give

Holt

I would get

Turner

If this happens the other guy would be stacked.

his starting line up

Palmer

LT

Westbrook

Holt

moss

Wayne

I need a young solid RB like Turner for the future. I am sure some of the other owners would be piss I gave the other guy Holt but I am looking to upgrading my RBs for 2007 and beyond

 

[OoOBaby]

It's hilarious you spend the time to type that post out. Half way through you should have had an epiphany that you were embarrassing yourself as a man.

1) You should move to draft masters. Trading obviously makes you uncomfortable, and the stress it causes is not worth it.

2) Everyone who isn't the commish, should pretty much mind their own business. You don't need to share your feelings on every league transaction, and most of the people trading probably don't care to hear it.

Get a good commish, make people pay their dues, and worry about your own team.

Legit trading never ruins a league, it actually enhances it. It means people are trying to win. Trying to improve their team. Yes sometimes people make bad trades. Instead of being jealous and pouty about it, focus on your own squad. In a great league, the only thing a bad trade does, is become a punch line that you can raz the guy about for the next 4-5 years.

When I read your post all I heard was

like OMG can u believe he traded bill for frank. like omg. like uh hello. hello? like that was like not the thing to do. like omg. The commish like really needs to like veto that. i mean omg. when I saw the trade I was like oh no he didn’t. I mean r u serious? omg. this is so like the worst day eva. like hello? do you even watch football? like omg I need to find a new league. like good trade. NOT. seriously who is your rb2. like duh. dodds trade calculator seriously says veto this. i hate when dumb people ruin my fun. like omg.

And this is what I saw

omg

 

[fsufan]

2) Everyone who isn't the commish, should pretty much mind their own business. You don't need to share your feelings on every league transaction, and most of the people trading probably don't care to hear it.

<_<

 

[PlayaHata]

We had an unfair trade argument come up in one of my leagues and I tried to find the text from the article listed in post #21, which was a GREAT article. I had it saved in my favorites, but the link doesn't appear to work anymore.

The original link went to http://apps.footballguys.com/04davies_unfairtrade.cfm

Does anyone by chance have a copy of the article text or could we possibly get the link made active again?

I didn't reopen this 6-month-old thread to debate whether a trade is are lopsided or not, or if a trade is collusion. Everyone knows we see way too many of those as it is.Anyone have a copy of the article above? Or can one of the site admins re-activate the link?

 

[trader jake]

Look back at the trades that were highly debated in your league last year (if any). They probably don't look so bad now that everyone is off tilt.

If it's not collusion, don't be a #####.

 

[BLOX]

Just because a player is drafted in the 2nd round doesn't mean he can't be traded for a player drafted in the 6th.

The draft is just filling rosters. Sometimes players fall for different reasons. If an owner wants a guy and is willing to pay for him, more power to him, and the other owner as well.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Everyone pays to run their team how they want.

So if one guys just wants to help his buddy win, thats cool?

 

[Saints-Man]

I can see the rationale for all of those trades. I would not have done some of them, but I would not classify any of them as bad.

Anyway, only way to revoke a trade if collusion is suspected. If no collusion, trade is allowed.

 

[Saints-Man]

Everyone pays to run their team how they want.

So if one guys just wants to help his buddy win, thats cool?

No, that is collusion. That is in effect that two distinct teams playing for one team to win.

 

[nygiants56]

What he said. Let the morons learn the hard way. Trades should only be voted on if collusion is suspected.

I agree. stupid trades are OK. Try to be the guy on the receiving end of such a trade,i.e., the guy who fleeces the other owner. If I get a sweetheart offer, for a guy on my roster that I'm not starting, I'll jump at it...