Should Owners have the power to veto a trade? (1 Viewer)

[This could be the year]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...

I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word)

I think there are two instigating issues here....

The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be)

The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team?

I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.

I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

 

[unckeyherb]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word) I think there are two instigating issues here.... The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be) The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team? I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Simple answer is no. At no point should outside people, who are potentially affected by a trade, be allowed to alter or negate said trade. Period. If there is a way to PROVE collusion, than you as the commish have the authority to do so. In reality, there is almost no way to prove collusion and in terms of Fantasy Football, no way to put values on trades (to see if one guy is raking the other). Not to mention, I take pride in my ability to convince another owner of a player's perceived value and then fleece him in a deal. Its part of the fun of Fantasy Football. If a guy is dumb enough to make lopsided trade, so be it. You don't jump in and give do-overs in the draft right? If a guy in your league takes Kerry Collins with the first pick in the draft, you quietly laugh and then enjoy whooping his ### twice a year. This is all ESPECIALLY true in money leagues, where the assumption is that all owners have at least a cursory idea of what they are doing and what players real values are. My commish has NEVER vetoed a trade in the 8-9 years we've had our league. One thing we do is put the trade deadline around week 12. At that point most people still are 'mathematically' in it. This discourages fire sales. Also, we are in a keeper, so if someone does start trading his players for picks next year he has to front the fees for next year (to make sure he doesmn't unload his team and then bail.)HTH

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

My league requires a 3/4 vote of owners (9 of 12) to veto any trade. Since a minimum of 2 owners are involved in each trade, that means it requires near unanimity to veto a trade.

In 6 seasons, we've only seen a couple trades worth debating a veto for. We haven't vetoed a trade yet.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Answers to these kinds of questions depend on the league.

In any "serious" league (where everyone more or less knows what they are doing, or it involves a fair amount of money), the only thing that should be evaluated about a trade is collusion (are two guys cheating to win the league). Lopsided, ugly, horrible trades are A-OK as long as everyone is on the up and up. It's a competition, so if one owner is "better" than another owner (and possibly the rest of the league) at trading, so be it. Anybody complaining about it should have made a better offer to the guy getting "screwed".

The only other exception I can think of would be some kind semi "fraud" like if two players have the same name, and only one of them is any good but a team tries to trade the "no good" guy but plays it off as if he's trading the well-known guy. Stuff like that should probably be out of bounds.

All that said, I can see in a less serious league with a fair amount of beginners mixed in with some "vets", that the league might need to be "protected" a little more. A lot of hard feelings can be generated in a casual league if one team is just dominating the league by stealing all of the talent from teams run by newbies. On the other hand, the new guys would learn a little faster after getting hosed on a few trades.

The real problem with allowing owners control of the trading process is that by definition, a really good trade hurts every team in the league except the two teams involved because it helps both of them. So there is a direct incentive to veto (if that is an option) GOOD trades as well as some bad ones.

What I've tried to do in some startups (that have never gotten off the ground), is have a public trade evaluation period. The way it would work is that each trade that is "agreed to" is put into the system as a tentative deal that the whole league can see. At that point (and for a certain period of time), every other team in the league can present there OWN best offer if they feel one team is getting a "steal" or the other team is getting "ripped off". Then either owner involved in the original trade has the option of taking a better offer and the process starts over (though if there is no new offer, neither team can "back out" which prevents a team from abusing the process as a negotiating ploy). If no new offers are accepted (even if they are received), the trade gets processed for good after the evaluation period is over.

 

[Zoomanji]

I didn't even read all of your post and know that the answer is no

 

[renesauz]

Haven't seen any problems in my dynasty leagues...which are generally fairly knowledgeable and decent owners.

Having run many work level redraft leagues though, I have to say that in those leagues some sort of veto system is almost necessary to preserve the integrity of the league. IN those leagues, I only saw one or two trades vetoed, but the THREAT of vetos kept most owners at least somewhat honest in their fleecing of the less-informed.

 

[Chimp Magnet]

What I've tried to do in some startups (that have never gotten off the ground), is have a public trade evaluation period. The way it would work is that each trade that is "agreed to" is put into the system as a tentative deal that the whole league can see. At that point (and for a certain period of time), every other team in the league can present there OWN best offer if they feel one team is getting a "steal" or the other team is getting "ripped off". Then either owner involved in the original trade has the option of taking a better offer and the process starts over (though if there is no new offer, neither team can "back out" which prevents a team from abusing the process as a negotiating ploy). If no new offers are accepted (even if they are received), the trade gets processed for good after the evaluation period is over.

I'm in the process of trying something like this in my dynasty league. But only as a trial run.

 

[dehaven123]

I didn't even read all of your post and know that the answer is no

X2

I'm going to operate under the assumption of the league being legit w/ competent owners.

At the time a trade is consumated, trade fairness or trade legitimacy is subjective analysis on the trade participants and other league owners.

No one is qualified to trully accurately forecast future FF results and therefore base a determination of trade fairness or validity of the trade as a result.

It cant be done.

No, trade vetos should not be allowed.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

NO, absolutely not. The commish should have power to bring a vote upon suspicious behavior, but Owners should have zero say in the matter.

 

[Black]

I have two leagues, about 5 years running one, 2nd year of the other.

I switched to league veto one year, then back to commish decides. It's actually the commish's job to keep the league fair and competitive, so I think that works best. Also, it's faster and there's no politics involved.

If I am not sure about a trade as the commish, I will email the participants and get their inputs. If I am worried about it being grossly unfair, I email league and get inputs. If I am involved in the trade, I get help from a good friend to be impartial.

Letting the league vote (in some leagues) ends up in petty vetoes by other teams who wish they were part of the trade or don't want the other teams to get better. Problem is, point of a trade is to let the two teams get better.

I have seen leagues self regulate, and most of my managers are cool with letting trades go.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

 

[Todem]

In my 20 plus years of playing this silly game I have only seen 2 trades overturned.

And both were so hanous in nature I was happy they were. The commish was the one to do so after every one in league went to him.

But the short answer is no. Commish has the power....and that's it. And it needs to be so compelling as to why it is being overturned.

 

[dehaven123]

I have two leagues, about 5 years running one, 2nd year of the other. I switched to league veto one year, then back to commish decides. It's actually the commish's job to keep the league fair and competitive, so I think that works best. Also, it's faster and there's no politics involved.If I am not sure about a trade as the commish, I will email the participants and get their inputs. If I am worried about it being grossly unfair, I email league and get inputs. If I am involved in the trade, I get help from a good friend to be impartial.Letting the league vote (in some leagues) ends up in petty vetoes by other teams who wish they were part of the trade or don't want the other teams to get better. Problem is, point of a trade is to let the two teams get better. I have seen leagues self regulate, and most of my managers are cool with letting trades go.Anyways, my 2 cents.

Precisely. Why should another owner determine what is good or best for another team in which he is in competition with? Makes no sense, theoretically.It will inevitably lead to veto by envy or any of another amount of limitless reasons that should not carry any weight in the process.

 

[Faust]

The more complicated the league, the harder it is to say who was getting the "better side" of a trade. In a league that I was in last year, a trade was voted on and was overturned that should have not been overturned because one side was getting younger, less proven players - but this team was trying to build for the future instead of trying to win it all in 2009.

This was an auction/contract keeper format - so it become much more difficult to accurately predict future value.

 

[hostile]

I didn't even read all of your post and know that the answer is no

 

[Holy Schneikes]

What I've tried to do in some startups (that have never gotten off the ground), is have a public trade evaluation period. The way it would work is that each trade that is "agreed to" is put into the system as a tentative deal that the whole league can see. At that point (and for a certain period of time), every other team in the league can present there OWN best offer if they feel one team is getting a "steal" or the other team is getting "ripped off". Then either owner involved in the original trade has the option of taking a better offer and the process starts over (though if there is no new offer, neither team can "back out" which prevents a team from abusing the process as a negotiating ploy). If no new offers are accepted (even if they are received), the trade gets processed for good after the evaluation period is over.

I'm in the process of trying something like this in my dynasty league. But only as a trial run.

Seems to me it would nearly eliminate any #####ing about trades by rest of the league. You think a trade is lopsided? Make a better offer.I started thinking about this after a couple of trades went through in one of my leagues that people were totally bashing and honestly pissed off about. But when I asked the question "What would you have offered for this guy that was better for that team than what they got?" it got really quiet. The point was that a guy is only worth what can actually be gotten for him. Sometimes that isn't "full value" according to general perception, but it's the reality. It's kinda like saying a baseball card is worth 200k. Yeah, it is if someone wants to buy it for that, but it's a little piece of cardboard with a picture on it.

 

[habsfan]

Haven't seen any problems in my dynasty leagues...which are generally fairly knowledgeable and decent owners.Having run many work level redraft leagues though, I have to say that in those leagues some sort of veto system is almost necessary to preserve the integrity of the league. IN those leagues, I only saw one or two trades vetoed, but the THREAT of vetos kept most owners at least somewhat honest in their fleecing of the less-informed.

This notion of "league integrity" begins and ends with participants who are more or less equally skilled. If you don't have that, any protectionist rules or policies you put in place are nothing more than a handicapping system.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

No - do not allow owners to hold veto power. The only thing they should be worried about is their own team.

 

[massraider]

By the way, any league where the owners think they should have veto power? In that league, they really shouldn't have veto power.

You always wind up with the same thing, there are always a few owners that never trade, and they vote against every single trade.

 

[Crazy8s]

NO to BOTH owners and Commissioner to veto trade.

 

[Dope]

I will put in my 2 cents as the commish of a 3 year old work redraft league.

We have the rule in place to allow owners the ability to challenge a trade.

The owner or owners who do not like the trade make their feelings known to me.

We'll have a discussion about the trade and whether or not it is cheating/collusion.

It has always ended there. No trade has ever come to a vote.

I think it's important, as the commish, to allow owners the ability to challenge something.

It takes out the sense of "there is nothing I can do" mindset.

I was is a league a long time ago that got nuked because of a collusion scandal between 2 brothers.

It sucked. What made it worse was that there was no rule in place. Owners felt powerless whether or not they were for/against the trade. The commish had to make a ruling on his own and ended up alienating a good portion of the league and was even called out for playing "favorites".

As far as the "trashing" part goes, I think it's the duty of the commish to step in and stop that kind of stuff for the good of the league. I would use Bowie Kuhn's treatment of Charlie Finley and the Oakland A's as my precedent if that evcer happened.

Maybe the first "trash" trade goes through, maybe even the 2nd one. ...but I would stop it right there.

League over all.

 

[twistd]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word) I think there are two instigating issues here.... The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be) The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team? I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

I think you are right to struggle with this. It is a tough issue. Everyone is quick to say no. But if you get a couple of boneheads that make stupid trades that change the balance of the league, it is a problem, whether there is collusion or not. I think that is especially true in Dynasty leagues. If the results of your league are decided on the stupid move of one of the owners it becomes a much less desirable league to play in. If I was in a league that wasn't decided by the draft, or the auction, or the free agent moves, but by some owner fleecing another in a trade, and it happened more than once, I'd drop out of the league. Then it isn't interesting anymore. If you have a group of sharp owners you probably won't have that problem. But there are almost always a few guys who are guppies. Those are the guys that can create the problem.Everyone in the league pays their money so they have a right to feel that it is being run fairly. I am commissioner of two leagues and both require a vote on trades if there is a protest. What I have found is guys look at the trades fairly and vote accordingly. I've been pleasantly surprised that even guys who might be hurt by the trade voted fairly. Even if they objected they had a lucid argument for why. They weren't just trying to block a trade that would hurt their chances. I feel better about that. But all in all this is not such an easy issue to handle.

 

[Zoomanji]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word) I think there are two instigating issues here.... The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be) The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team? I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

I think you are right to struggle with this. It is a tough issue. Everyone is quick to say no. But if you get a couple of boneheads that make stupid trades that change the balance of the league, it is a problem, whether there is collusion or not. I think that is especially true in Dynasty leagues. If the results of your league are decided on the stupid move of one of the owners it becomes a much less desirable league to play in. If I was in a league that wasn't decided by the draft, or the auction, or the free agent moves, but by some owner fleecing another in a trade, and it happened more than once, I'd drop out of the league. Then it isn't interesting anymore. If you have a group of sharp owners you probably won't have that problem. But there are almost always a few guys who are guppies. Those are the guys that can create the problem.Everyone in the league pays their money so they have a right to feel that it is being run fairly. I am commissioner of two leagues and both require a vote on trades if there is a protest. What I have found is guys look at the trades fairly and vote accordingly. I've been pleasantly surprised that even guys who might be hurt by the trade voted fairly. Even if they objected they had a lucid argument for why. They weren't just trying to block a trade that would hurt their chances. I feel better about that. But all in all this is not such an easy issue to handle.

boneheads have just as much right to run their team they way they want to as the "sharks" who make deals with them. Sharks guarding the guppies is not a good policy either. They pay the same amount of money as well and they have a right to make trades that they want to make. If some owners feel this "isn't fair" to them, they should move to replace the "bonehead" owners with smarter ones.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Hell no. It's completely absurd to have the very people with potential vested interest in a trade NOT happening to be given the power to veto it.

 

[FantasyTrader]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word) I think there are two instigating issues here.... The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be) The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team? I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

I think you are right to struggle with this. It is a tough issue. Everyone is quick to say no. But if you get a couple of boneheads that make stupid trades that change the balance of the league, it is a problem, whether there is collusion or not. I think that is especially true in Dynasty leagues. If the results of your league are decided on the stupid move of one of the owners it becomes a much less desirable league to play in. If I was in a league that wasn't decided by the draft, or the auction, or the free agent moves, but by some owner fleecing another in a trade, and it happened more than once, I'd drop out of the league. Then it isn't interesting anymore. If you have a group of sharp owners you probably won't have that problem. But there are almost always a few guys who are guppies. Those are the guys that can create the problem.Everyone in the league pays their money so they have a right to feel that it is being run fairly. I am commissioner of two leagues and both require a vote on trades if there is a protest. What I have found is guys look at the trades fairly and vote accordingly. I've been pleasantly surprised that even guys who might be hurt by the trade voted fairly. Even if they objected they had a lucid argument for why. They weren't just trying to block a trade that would hurt their chances. I feel better about that. But all in all this is not such an easy issue to handle.

boneheads have just as much right to run their team they way they want to as the "sharks" who make deals with them. Sharks guarding the guppies is not a good policy either. They pay the same amount of money as well and they have a right to make trades that they want to make. If some owners feel this "isn't fair" to them, they should move to replace the "bonehead" owners with smarter ones.

 

[This could be the year]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input on this topic. Your comments and insights will go a long way in defining policies in my leagues. Thanks everyone, and if anyone has any more comments, please feel free to post them.

 

[D'OHtis]

Owner ability to veto will never ever ever ever make sense to me. Either they all go through or get an outside trade evaluator.

I'm surprised more league commissioners don't serve as trade evaluators for one another. Or you can always pay for an outside opinion with a service provider.

 

[renesauz]

Haven't seen any problems in my dynasty leagues...which are generally fairly knowledgeable and decent owners.

Having run many work level redraft leagues though, I have to say that in those leagues some sort of veto system is almost necessary to preserve the integrity of the league. IN those leagues, I only saw one or two trades vetoed, but the THREAT of vetos kept most owners at least somewhat honest in their fleecing of the less-informed.

This notion of "league integrity" begins and ends with participants who are more or less equally skilled. If you don't have that, any protectionist rules or policies you put in place are nothing more than a handicapping system.

True, but in low stakes work leagues where half the participants are rookie FF-ers, that's not necessarily a bad thing!I always had a system where the Commish (usually me) could approve trades, and if I thought a trade was severely imbalanced, I could ask for a league vote. On average, only one trade a year went to vote. I do agree that trades should not routinely need to pass league review, or that one pissed off owner could initiate a trade vote...systems like that beg for abuse.

I guess the only thing I'm really saying is that I don't agree with the "no vetoes, ever, in any league" idea. Some leagues, esp. those with a lot of rookies, need them.

 

[the spanker]

Owner ability to veto will never ever ever ever make sense to me. Either they all go through or get an outside trade evaluator.I'm surprised more league commissioners don't serve as trade evaluators for one another. Or you can always pay for an outside opinion with a service provider.

We have something like that setup in our league. It's a league that consists of 24 teams broken into 2-twelve man conferences. Each conference has a separate draft and conference championship winner to play in the Super Bowl. There are two trade evaluators (one in each conference) that approves all trade requests for the other conference. 1. They disapprove trades based on collusion (yes difficult to prove, but believe it or not a trade was disapproved based on collusion once).2. Lopsided trades - Yes because owners will complain if a trade is allowed if it's downright bogus that really shifts the balance of power. Owners then suspect collusion and that someone has given up and is helping someone else out.If a trade evaluator disapproves a trade, the two owners can appeal it. If the trade evaluator still disapproves the trade, owners in the other conference vote on it. Eight owners must vote yes to overturn a trade evaluators veto.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

No - do not allow owners to hold veto power. The only thing they should be worried about is their own team.

 

[DarkManX]

In a word no. People get jealous when they see a top player going to a new team and can then veto out of spite or because someones team is getting better than theirs.

 

[GregR_2]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...

I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word)

I think there are two instigating issues here....

The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be)

The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team?

I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.

I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Many people treat veto votes like they are voting on "do you think the trade was fair market value?". From your post, your issue is whether the trade was unethical. That's a very different question. If you're going to have a vote, be clear that's what the question is people are voting on. Vetoes, it isn't clear at all.People speak about "proving" unethical behavior (of which collusion is just one type). This is just like any other decision we're faced with in our lives. We have to weigh what we know of the situation and decide to within whatever doubt we feel is appropriate and reasonable for the situation. A league does not need a signed confession to rule something was unethical or collusive.

I tend to use the following system to judge trades that are bad enough to be suggestive of unethical behavior, especially if we don't have another rule (like no sharing of rosters) that makes the question of a violation more clear cut.

1) Separately ask the owners involved to explain how they believe the transaction improves their team and their likelihood of winning their games through their own efforts. Ask them what they feel the market value is for the players and why. Ask what other trade offers or discussions they had regarding the players or positions involved.

2) With the explanation and any other evidence, ask myself, "Can a reasonable FF owner believe his reasoning why this transaction will help his team win more games through his team's own gametime efforts... and that his trade was reasonable enough given market value?" I don't have to agree with him, I just have to think it's reasonable someone else could believe it. I don't have to think his perception of market value is right. But I have to think it is resaonble.

Things like averting risk by improving depth should be considered reasonable. But only so long as it makes sense in the situation. Not, say, at the cost of key starters he doesn't have replacements for.

3) If I decide a reasonable person couldn't have believe his explanation, then I need to decide why it happened. Is it a newbie owner who doesn't know better (i.e. he believed it because he isn't a reasonable FF owner)? Is it an owner who I believe didn't realize what he was doing was unethical? Or do I think the owner knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway?

If it's the latter two results from #3, then you can roll back the transaction, and hand out sanctions as appropriate for how aware the owner was of what he was doing. If it's the former, and it's a newbie getting fleeced, how to handle it really depends on your league.

In some leagues that go out of their way to impress on their owners it is a cutthroat league, it might be appropriate to let the trade stand. In less cut throat of leagues where owners are expected to not rip off a new guy while he's getting his bearings, that might be enough reason to roll the trade back.

In that latter case, I think that is a very defensible position for a commissioner to say, "While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In a word no. People get jealous when they see a top player going to a new team and can then veto out of spite or because someones team is getting better than theirs.

I am always against allowing owners to veto a trade...but if given the power I will use it to help my team benefit. It would be poor ownership to not use a legal power I have to help my team win. If I was the owner of an NFL team in the AFC East I would have vetoed the Holmes trade in a heartbeat. And if you gave those owners that power, I believe they would have done the same thing.

 

[the spanker]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...

I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word)

I think there are two instigating issues here....

The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be)

The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team?

I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.

I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Many people treat veto votes like they are voting on "do you think the trade was fair market value?". From your post, your issue is whether the trade was unethical. That's a very different question. If you're going to have a vote, be clear that's what the question is people are voting on. Vetoes, it isn't clear at all.People speak about "proving" unethical behavior (of which collusion is just one type). This is just like any other decision we're faced with in our lives. We have to weigh what we know of the situation and decide to within whatever doubt we feel is appropriate and reasonable for the situation. A league does not need a signed confession to rule something was unethical or collusive.

I tend to use the following system to judge trades that are bad enough to be suggestive of unethical behavior, especially if we don't have another rule (like no sharing of rosters) that makes the question of a violation more clear cut.

1) Separately ask the owners involved to explain how they believe the transaction improves their team and their likelihood of winning their games through their own efforts. Ask them what they feel the market value is for the players and why. Ask what other trade offers or discussions they had regarding the players or positions involved.

2) With the explanation and any other evidence, ask myself, "Can a reasonable FF owner believe his reasoning why this transaction will help his team win more games through his team's own gametime efforts... and that his trade was reasonable enough given market value?" I don't have to agree with him, I just have to think it's reasonable someone else could believe it. I don't have to think his perception of market value is right. But I have to think it is resaonble.

Things like averting risk by improving depth should be considered reasonable. But only so long as it makes sense in the situation. Not, say, at the cost of key starters he doesn't have replacements for.

3) If I decide a reasonable person couldn't have believe his explanation, then I need to decide why it happened. Is it a newbie owner who doesn't know better (i.e. he believed it because he isn't a reasonable FF owner)? Is it an owner who I believe didn't realize what he was doing was unethical? Or do I think the owner knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway?

If it's the latter two results from #3, then you can roll back the transaction, and hand out sanctions as appropriate for how aware the owner was of what he was doing. If it's the former, and it's a newbie getting fleeced, how to handle it really depends on your league.

In some leagues that go out of their way to impress on their owners it is a cutthroat league, it might be appropriate to let the trade stand. In less cut throat of leagues where owners are expected to not rip off a new guy while he's getting his bearings, that might be enough reason to roll the trade back.

In that latter case, I think that is a very defensible position for a commissioner to say, "While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

:( Perfect. In my league, people don't want to pay money to see someone take it over a super bogus lopsided trade.

 

[renesauz]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...

I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word)

I think there are two instigating issues here....

The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be)

The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team?

I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.

I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Many people treat veto votes like they are voting on "do you think the trade was fair market value?". From your post, your issue is whether the trade was unethical. That's a very different question. If you're going to have a vote, be clear that's what the question is people are voting on. Vetoes, it isn't clear at all.People speak about "proving" unethical behavior (of which collusion is just one type). This is just like any other decision we're faced with in our lives. We have to weigh what we know of the situation and decide to within whatever doubt we feel is appropriate and reasonable for the situation. A league does not need a signed confession to rule something was unethical or collusive.

I tend to use the following system to judge trades that are bad enough to be suggestive of unethical behavior, especially if we don't have another rule (like no sharing of rosters) that makes the question of a violation more clear cut.

1) Separately ask the owners involved to explain how they believe the transaction improves their team and their likelihood of winning their games through their own efforts. Ask them what they feel the market value is for the players and why. Ask what other trade offers or discussions they had regarding the players or positions involved.

2) With the explanation and any other evidence, ask myself, "Can a reasonable FF owner believe his reasoning why this transaction will help his team win more games through his team's own gametime efforts... and that his trade was reasonable enough given market value?" I don't have to agree with him, I just have to think it's reasonable someone else could believe it. I don't have to think his perception of market value is right. But I have to think it is resaonble.

Things like averting risk by improving depth should be considered reasonable. But only so long as it makes sense in the situation. Not, say, at the cost of key starters he doesn't have replacements for.

3) If I decide a reasonable person couldn't have believe his explanation, then I need to decide why it happened. Is it a newbie owner who doesn't know better (i.e. he believed it because he isn't a reasonable FF owner)? Is it an owner who I believe didn't realize what he was doing was unethical? Or do I think the owner knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway?

If it's the latter two results from #3, then you can roll back the transaction, and hand out sanctions as appropriate for how aware the owner was of what he was doing. If it's the former, and it's a newbie getting fleeced, how to handle it really depends on your league.

In some leagues that go out of their way to impress on their owners it is a cutthroat league, it might be appropriate to let the trade stand. In less cut throat of leagues where owners are expected to not rip off a new guy while he's getting his bearings, that might be enough reason to roll the trade back.

In that latter case, I think that is a very defensible position for a commissioner to say, "While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

Perfect. In my league, people don't want to pay money to see someone take it over a super bogus lopsided trade.

This is the correct approach for leagues full of newbies. Many of the guys saying "No way, ever" in here probably haven't played in too many of these leagues.

 

[thevidon]

If your league allows trades like an owner trading Chris Johnson away for a 4'th round pick then your balance is screwed, and the league will fail. Doesn't really matter how you stop it from going through - but stop it you must.

Unless a trade is so blatantly outlandish that it will immediately f-up the overall league balance, it should never be voted on.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

short answer No

long answer Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Commish has the power to intervene for the good of the league if collusion is suspected, otherwise, all trades stand. There is no sport, and there will never be one where every other team gets to vote on approving other team's trades. It's silly.

 

[the spanker]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...

I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word)

I think there are two instigating issues here....

The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be)

The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team?

I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.

I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Many people treat veto votes like they are voting on "do you think the trade was fair market value?". From your post, your issue is whether the trade was unethical. That's a very different question. If you're going to have a vote, be clear that's what the question is people are voting on. Vetoes, it isn't clear at all.People speak about "proving" unethical behavior (of which collusion is just one type). This is just like any other decision we're faced with in our lives. We have to weigh what we know of the situation and decide to within whatever doubt we feel is appropriate and reasonable for the situation. A league does not need a signed confession to rule something was unethical or collusive.

I tend to use the following system to judge trades that are bad enough to be suggestive of unethical behavior, especially if we don't have another rule (like no sharing of rosters) that makes the question of a violation more clear cut.

1) Separately ask the owners involved to explain how they believe the transaction improves their team and their likelihood of winning their games through their own efforts. Ask them what they feel the market value is for the players and why. Ask what other trade offers or discussions they had regarding the players or positions involved.

2) With the explanation and any other evidence, ask myself, "Can a reasonable FF owner believe his reasoning why this transaction will help his team win more games through his team's own gametime efforts... and that his trade was reasonable enough given market value?" I don't have to agree with him, I just have to think it's reasonable someone else could believe it. I don't have to think his perception of market value is right. But I have to think it is resaonble.

Things like averting risk by improving depth should be considered reasonable. But only so long as it makes sense in the situation. Not, say, at the cost of key starters he doesn't have replacements for.

3) If I decide a reasonable person couldn't have believe his explanation, then I need to decide why it happened. Is it a newbie owner who doesn't know better (i.e. he believed it because he isn't a reasonable FF owner)? Is it an owner who I believe didn't realize what he was doing was unethical? Or do I think the owner knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway?

If it's the latter two results from #3, then you can roll back the transaction, and hand out sanctions as appropriate for how aware the owner was of what he was doing. If it's the former, and it's a newbie getting fleeced, how to handle it really depends on your league.

In some leagues that go out of their way to impress on their owners it is a cutthroat league, it might be appropriate to let the trade stand. In less cut throat of leagues where owners are expected to not rip off a new guy while he's getting his bearings, that might be enough reason to roll the trade back.

In that latter case, I think that is a very defensible position for a commissioner to say, "While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

Perfect. In my league, people don't want to pay money to see someone take it over a super bogus lopsided trade.

This is the correct approach for leagues full of newbies. Many of the guys saying "No way, ever" in here probably haven't played in too many of these leagues.

An assumption on your part? The league I participate in are full of veterans that have played FF for numerous years. Our trade rules are similar to the one posted above and were established to protect the competitive integrity/spirit of our league. While I agree with most posts on here that having strictly owners vote on trades is a bad idea, I believe checks and balances are necessary and are more beneficial than the "strictly no intervention 100 percent of the time philosophy".

98-99 percent of our trades are approved. But there are those rare instances like anything in life, there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[unckeyherb]

"While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

Perfect. In my league, people don't want to pay money to see someone take it over a super bogus lopsided trade.

I agree, it is always tough to see what you percieve as a lopsided trade go through. Even moreso if it happens in your division. In many cases that would lead you to veto it, if given the opportunity. But thats the point. A veto should not take place unless there is collusion; it is not a mechanism for the league to use in order to keep their team's safe from savvy managers, able to trade well. You would be vetoing it based on wanting to guard your own situation, not on whether the trade was conducted by the rules. Also, no one can say what a lopsided trade is. Imagine last year, week 8, team A trades Vincent Jackson for Jamall Charles. At that point Jackson has 112 total points, Charles has 26. most people, if given the chance to veto that trade would jump on it due to the huge delta in perceived value. However, as we all know Charles blew up after the bye week and went on to score 189 total points to VJax's 87. Team A did their homework and knew something that the other team didn't.

 

[the spanker]

"While we want owners to be free to run their teams, there does have to be a line where the league's competitive integrity isn't ruined by newbie inexperience. I'm setting that line here. If the trade's lopsidedness is so bad that for any other owner I would consider it unbelievable and enough evidence to rule intentional collusion, the trade will not be allowed, newbie owner or not."

That's my 2 cents anyway. Ok, judging by the length, probably more like a $1.20.

Perfect. In my league, people don't want to pay money to see someone take it over a super bogus lopsided trade.

I agree, it is always tough to see what you percieve as a lopsided trade go through. Even moreso if it happens in your division. In many cases that would lead you to veto it, if given the opportunity. But thats the point. A veto should not take place unless there is collusion; it is not a mechanism for the league to use in order to keep their team's safe from savvy managers, able to trade well. You would be vetoing it based on wanting to guard your own situation, not on whether the trade was conducted by the rules. Also, no one can say what a lopsided trade is. Imagine last year, week 8, team A trades Vincent Jackson for Jamall Charles. At that point Jackson has 112 total points, Charles has 26. most people, if given the chance to veto that trade would jump on it due to the huge delta in perceived value. However, as we all know Charles blew up after the bye week and went on to score 189 total points to VJax's 87. Team A did their homework and knew something that the other team didn't.

I agree with your first point. However 100 percent of the time collusion cannot be proven. Which is why we do not allow 100 percent of trades in our league to be approved.

In response to your second point, we probably would agree that for example the value of Chris Johnson is substantially higher than Chester Taylor unless circumstance dictated during the time the trade was proposed that Taylor somehow became the starter. If not, a Chris Johnson for Chester Taylor deal would probably be considered lopsided in my league.

It depends on your Charles/Jackson example. Does the league count return yards? Was the trade proposed the moment Charles became the starter? Did the owner who traded for Charles have good WR depth? The Owner who wanted Charles desperately need a RB and was shooting for a lottery ticket? More than likely this trade would be approved.

Someone traded Steve Smith (Car) for Steve Smith (NYG) after week 1 and the trade was approved.

 

[munchkin]

An assumption on your part? The league I participate in are full of veterans that have played FF for numerous years. Our trade rules are similar to the one posted above and were established to protect the competitive integrity/spirit of our league.

While I agree with most posts on here that having strictly owners vote on trades is a bad idea, I believe checks and balances are necessary and are more beneficial than the "strictly no intervention 100 percent of the time philosophy".

98-99 percent of our trades are approved. But there are those rare instances like anything in life, there are exceptions to the rule.

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

Unfortunately I think money plays a part here. I would not want to play in any League where collusion or "bad" trades abound but if I don't have any skin in the game I may be more apt to look the other way. If you have to cheat to win in a "friendly" league then have at it. However, if I am investing money in a product then I would want there to be some checks and balances for that rare occasion where the rotting fish smells.

I am in a League that just lost an owner and one member brought in someone new and stated that the new owner would not be entertaining any player movement until after the draft (this before any contact info was available). This person then traded Thomas Jones and Wes Welker to the new owner for Greg Jennings and H Nicks. I don't see how in this instance the trade should be allowed.

 

[renesauz]

short answer Nolong answer NoooooooooooooooooooooooCommish has the power to intervene for the good of the league if collusion is suspected, otherwise, all trades stand. There is no sport, and there will never be one where every other team gets to vote on approving other team's trades. It's silly.

To be clear...I'm not suggesting that every trade be subject to peer review. The commish should be the one who decides when a trade needs further review. If he's trusted enough to make the ddecision alone..great. If he's not, that's OK too. In my leagues, a commish approves trades. Only a 3/4 vote could over-rule(reverse) a trade.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Loveland Family trades Chargers QB Drew Brees and his 1st round pick (#4 overall) to Xtreme Bandits for his 1st round pick (#1 overall) and his 2nd round pick (#14 overall)

The year was 2003 and I'm Loveland Family in that trade. I was absolutely LAMBLASTED by the other "shark" owners in that league for raping poor Bandits because it allowed me to cash in on the services of the most automatic WR prospect the NFL has seen in the last decade - Charles Rogers. And poor Bandits settled for some shmuck named Carson Palmer at 1.04.

I realize that's an extreme example, but it illuminates how much of a crapshoot this hobby often is. And who am I to be the almighty expert who saves the guppy from himself? People argue for vetoing deals because it "upsets the power of the league". Well, maybe an owner sucks at drafting and working the waiver but he's very gifted in the art of the deal. Aren't you upsetting the power of the league by not allowing the shrewd dealmaker to improve his team via those means?

When a guppy takes the 14th best rookie WR prospect on your board at 1.08 in your dynasty draft, you're not telling him he can't pick that player. My 2 cents, just another way to look at it.

 

[unckeyherb]

maybe an owner sucks at drafting and working the waiver but he's very gifted in the art of the deal. Aren't you upsetting the power of the league by not allowing the shrewd dealmaker to improve his team via those means? When a guppy takes the 14th best rookie WR prospect on your board at 1.08 in your dynasty draft, you're not telling him he can't pick that player. My 2 cents, just another way to look at it.

 

[fsufan]

I didn't even read all of your post and know that the answer is no

 

[Liquid Tension]

As a commish, I'm struggling with this...I struggle with the whole concept of over turning trades. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's wrong...I just struggle with it. I'm concerned that by allowing owners to veto a trade, I'm giving owners the impression that if they're unhappy with a trade, all they have to do is complain and it can be brought up to a vote. So my question is, if the two owners making the trade are happy with it, should the league have the power to veto a trade that two owners are happy with? And at what point does that power end? i.e., when is a trade "close enough" making it non-vetoable? (not sure if that's a word) I think there are two instigating issues here.... The first is collusion. My basic assumption is that there is no collusion. I think what we do sometimes have is uneducated owners making poor trades. And also, I think we have educated owners that are more than willing to take advantage of those situations. So if that's the case, should the league act as a "protector" for the uneducated owners and veto trades that are obviously unbalanced? I'm not sure I buy into that, but like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. In the NFL, trades happen all the time and there are winners and losers. Most recently is the Holmes trade. The consensus is that the Jets made out like bandits. But did the rest of the NFL step in and veto the trade? Another situation is the McNabb trade. From everything I've read, trading a high profile player like McNabb to a team within your own division is just plain dumb. But once again, there is no process for reversing trades like that. (nor should there be) The second issue is a situation where an owner is "trashing" their team. They may be done with the league, have decided to quit, and as a final act before they announce their decision, they decide to make some lopsided trades, helping out another team. This is a form of collusion...one which may not be detectable (at least until the owner announces their intention to quit the league), and I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Certainly giving owners the power to veto a trade could be a solution, but how do you know for sure that one of the owners is trashing their team? I believe that within any league, there has to be a certain level of trust and a belief that all owners are acting in the true spirit of improving their teams. I think that league bi-laws should have a statement saying that a trade can be vetoed, I'm just struggling with the execution of that statement. I don't think it's an easy call to decide that a particular trade should be put to an owner vote for a veto.I don't know what the right answer is here, I'm just looking for other thoughts, insights and opinions.

Simple answer is no. At no point should outside people, who are potentially affected by a trade, be allowed to alter or negate said trade. Period. If there is a way to PROVE collusion, than you as the commish have the authority to do so. In reality, there is almost no way to prove collusion and in terms of Fantasy Football, no way to put values on trades (to see if one guy is raking the other). Not to mention, I take pride in my ability to convince another owner of a player's perceived value and then fleece him in a deal. Its part of the fun of Fantasy Football. If a guy is dumb enough to make lopsided trade, so be it. You don't jump in and give do-overs in the draft right? If a guy in your league takes Kerry Collins with the first pick in the draft, you quietly laugh and then enjoy whooping his ### twice a year. This is all ESPECIALLY true in money leagues, where the assumption is that all owners have at least a cursory idea of what they are doing and what players real values are. My commish has NEVER vetoed a trade in the 8-9 years we've had our league. One thing we do is put the trade deadline around week 12. At that point most people still are 'mathematically' in it. This discourages fire sales. Also, we are in a keeper, so if someone does start trading his players for picks next year he has to front the fees for next year (to make sure he doesmn't unload his team and then bail.)HTH

Agreed, the answer is NO. The only thing you do is remove someone who consistently makes lopsided deals.

 

[abe froman]

After it costs you several hundreds of dollars each year due to another teams lopsided trades, you may have to consider some kind of vote. (definately league specific: SERIOUS FF leagues Id say voting isnt needed, but your average FF league Id say yes voting is a great way to go). In1 of my leagues (12 team) you only need a mojority of votes so 7 votes for or against and its done deal. Through MYFANTASTYLEAGUE you can make it a requirement that teams must vote on all pending trades prior to setting your weekly lineups so every trade is voted on. Now where it becomes league specific -the Commish has the ability to push through voted down trades that he feels collusion has not occured (never had this happen yet as teams have a good understanding of the Integrity.) I dont know if this would apply to a league where random teams are involved as I usually always play in leagues with close friends/family. I like the voting as it pretty much eliminates the after affects of bad trades: ex. -2 teams trade early in a season where 1 team fleeces another; other teams may have little or nothing to say until closer to playoff time when the team that did the fleecing knocks them out of playoff contention or at least down to a lower paying slot. Then comes the emails & message boards posts arguing about said trade. Again as others have said I think you do have to consider the type/quality of your league when deciding.

 

[Agent575]

If you are in a league where you even need to discuss this, then it is the wrong league. Never allow voting.

Only play in leagues where all owners are attempting to do what is in the best interest of their team. If one or some of them do not fit that mold, replace them on those grounds.

Value is in he eye of the beholder.

It isn't babysitting, it's fantasy football. Play to win or don't play.

When two owners agree to terms of trade, trade is immediately processed.

Anything else is sad and should be posted so we can all have a good laugh.