Tanking and late season trades (1 Viewer)

[home dog]

I'm commissioner of a fantasy keeper league. A playoff bound team just tried to trade Michael Turner to our last place team for Brandon Jacobs. I am not posting this to debate the logic of Turner for Jacobs. Owners are allowed to be as smart or as dumb as they want to be and in my 14 years as commish I've never vetoed a trade. My philosophy is as long as it's not collusion, I will allow it. So I've allowed them all.

However this trade request might become my first veto. Here's the problem. The last place team had basically quit. The guy entered incomplete lineups 4 weeks in a row with players on bye. Injured players etc. He hadn't done pickups the past 2 weeks. So for him to suddenly wake up a few days before our trading deadline and make this controversial trade felt pretty dirty.

I want to do what's fair and best for the league. If I veto this I think I may be punishing the owner who would be getting Jacobs. However my gut tells me that if you've quit on your season you've sort of lost the right to make trades. Even in a keeper league.

As far as our rules, they're pretty vague and basically give me the power to do whatever I think is in the best interest of the league. We do have the line "all trades must be approved by the commissioner" in there without saying why or why not anything would ever get vetoed.

I appreciate any suggestions on whether or not this trade should go through. Thank you.

 

[rvarnell]

I'm commissioner of a fantasy keeper league. A playoff bound team just tried to trade Michael Turner to our last place team for Brandon Jacobs. I am not posting this to debate the logic of Turner for Jacobs. Owners are allowed to be as smart or as dumb as they want to be and in my 14 years as commish I've never vetoed a trade. My philosophy is as long as it's not collusion, I will allow it. So I've allowed them all.However this trade request might become my first veto. Here's the problem. The last place team had basically quit. The guy entered incomplete lineups 4 weeks in a row with players on bye. Injured players etc. He hadn't done pickups the past 2 weeks. So for him to suddenly wake up a few days before our trading deadline and make this controversial trade felt pretty dirty.I want to do what's fair and best for the league. If I veto this I think I may be punishing the owner who would be getting Jacobs. However my gut tells me that if you've quit on your season you've sort of lost the right to make trades. Even in a keeper league. As far as our rules, they're pretty vague and basically give me the power to do whatever I think is in the best interest of the league. We do have the line "all trades must be approved by the commissioner" in there without saying why or why not anything would ever get vetoed.I appreciate any suggestions on whether or not this trade should go through. Thank you.

I'd veto this trade in my league.

 

[home dog]

Rvarnell- Would you veto this because of him quitting or because the trade is unfair? I need to make the distinction because if a non-tanking team made this trade (because of keeper league implications) I'd have to let it go through.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm commissioner of a fantasy keeper league. A playoff bound team just tried to trade Michael Turner to our last place team for Brandon Jacobs. I am not posting this to debate the logic of Turner for Jacobs. Owners are allowed to be as smart or as dumb as they want to be and in my 14 years as commish I've never vetoed a trade. My philosophy is as long as it's not collusion, I will allow it. So I've allowed them all.However this trade request might become my first veto. Here's the problem. The last place team had basically quit. The guy entered incomplete lineups 4 weeks in a row with players on bye. Injured players etc. He hadn't done pickups the past 2 weeks. So for him to suddenly wake up a few days before our trading deadline and make this controversial trade felt pretty dirty.I want to do what's fair and best for the league. If I veto this I think I may be punishing the owner who would be getting Jacobs. However my gut tells me that if you've quit on your season you've sort of lost the right to make trades. Even in a keeper league. As far as our rules, they're pretty vague and basically give me the power to do whatever I think is in the best interest of the league. We do have the line "all trades must be approved by the commissioner" in there without saying why or why not anything would ever get vetoed.I appreciate any suggestions on whether or not this trade should go through. Thank you.

I'm very much against vetoing except in the case of obvious (or admitted) collusion. It seems as though this particular trade may have some of the earmarks of just such a thing.The best thing, IMHO, is to contact the owners (particularly the guy with Jacobs) of these two teams and ask them about the trade - specifically "why?" Let the individual plead his case. You're looking to see if this guy (or girl) is genuinely trying to improve his/her team. Because it's a keeper league, I could see this being a legitimate trade. I'd also address his/her activity the last few weeks and level with them about your veto consideration, and why.If you do this, I think the truth will come out and you'll feel better about the decision you make once you have the information. In addition, you'll then have the ability to easily rationalize your decision to the rest of the league.Good luck!

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

As a commish in a keeper league I do not have an issue with the trade itself. I do however have an issue with the Jacobs owner. You need to get a new owner.

We just had an issue where one of our owners was trading all of his future picks for players this year. So I asked him straight out if he was going to quit. He said he was so that day we all voted on a rule that made teams pay next years league fees if they traded two out of their first four draft picks.

 

[Road Warriors]

I'm commissioner of a fantasy keeper league. A playoff bound team just tried to trade Michael Turner to our last place team for Brandon Jacobs. I am not posting this to debate the logic of Turner for Jacobs. Owners are allowed to be as smart or as dumb as they want to be and in my 14 years as commish I've never vetoed a trade. My philosophy is as long as it's not collusion, I will allow it. So I've allowed them all.However this trade request might become my first veto. Here's the problem. The last place team had basically quit. The guy entered incomplete lineups 4 weeks in a row with players on bye. Injured players etc. He hadn't done pickups the past 2 weeks. So for him to suddenly wake up a few days before our trading deadline and make this controversial trade felt pretty dirty.I want to do what's fair and best for the league. If I veto this I think I may be punishing the owner who would be getting Jacobs. However my gut tells me that if you've quit on your season you've sort of lost the right to make trades. Even in a keeper league. As far as our rules, they're pretty vague and basically give me the power to do whatever I think is in the best interest of the league. We do have the line "all trades must be approved by the commissioner" in there without saying why or why not anything would ever get vetoed.I appreciate any suggestions on whether or not this trade should go through. Thank you.

Under most circumstances, I'd allow this. The keeper speculation for Turner makes it a legit deal. The only question to me is if this owner has quit, and you're not bringing him back next year, I'd have to think about it. If he's coming back next year, don't overthink it. He's out of it this year, this is when you make deals for the future. If the league plans to replace, or if he has indicated he doesn't plan to return, then I'd overturn and lock down that roster. If he's not looking to improve for next year, then dumping will hurt the league.

 

[rvarnell]

Rvarnell- Would you veto this because of him quitting or because the trade is unfair? I need to make the distinction because if a non-tanking team made this trade (because of keeper league implications) I'd have to let it go through.

Because it appears to be collusion. I'd check with the tanking owner & ask if he's been out of the country, sick, sick kids, family crisis, etc. In other words, is there a good reason why he wasn't participating. Also ask who offered the trade. If he has no good reason for non-participation & didn't offer the trade, I'd kill it.

 

[Calvitron Johnson]

I'm commissioner of a fantasy keeper league. A playoff bound team just tried to trade Michael Turner to our last place team for Brandon Jacobs. I am not posting this to debate the logic of Turner for Jacobs. Owners are allowed to be as smart or as dumb as they want to be and in my 14 years as commish I've never vetoed a trade. My philosophy is as long as it's not collusion, I will allow it. So I've allowed them all.

However this trade request might become my first veto. Here's the problem. The last place team had basically quit. The guy entered incomplete lineups 4 weeks in a row with players on bye. Injured players etc. He hadn't done pickups the past 2 weeks. So for him to suddenly wake up a few days before our trading deadline and make this controversial trade felt pretty dirty.

I want to do what's fair and best for the league. If I veto this I think I may be punishing the owner who would be getting Jacobs. However my gut tells me that if you've quit on your season you've sort of lost the right to make trades. Even in a keeper league.

As far as our rules, they're pretty vague and basically give me the power to do whatever I think is in the best interest of the league. We do have the line "all trades must be approved by the commissioner" in there without saying why or why not anything would ever get vetoed.

I appreciate any suggestions on whether or not this trade should go through. Thank you.

This guy should not have been around after the 2nd week that he did this. It's not fair to the other owners and the guy needs removed permanenatly. You should have that in the rules. I would veto this trade because of the incomplete lineups.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Rvarnell- Would you veto this because of him quitting or because the trade is unfair? I need to make the distinction because if a non-tanking team made this trade (because of keeper league implications) I'd have to let it go through.

Because it appears to be collusion. I'd check with the tanking owner & ask if he's been out of the country, sick, sick kids, family crisis, etc. In other words, is there a good reason why he wasn't participating. Also ask who offered the trade. If he has no good reason for non-participation & didn't offer the trade, I'd kill it.

Ask the last place owner if he's planning on coming back but honestly, I could see the perspective of getting Turner - who many on this very board thinks could be the next Purple Jesus - in the hopes of building my franchise around him next year. jacobs while playing well (on the occasions he's been healthy this year) might not feel like a franchise #1 for this guy. Plenty of folks think Turner is.If he's coming back, there could be a myriad of reasons WHY he was screwing up - all of which should have been addressed weeks ago with a simple email to check in and all of which might also have little or not bearing on the trade.

 

[yinzer]

Despite the fact you think the guy has been tanking it, I think since it's a keeper league it's somewhat an even trade. I'd still rather have Jacobs because you know his situation and starting ability. If Turner goes to say ATL, NYJ, or some other subpar team (unlike NYG, SD) where his numbers aren't as good, his value takes a big hit. Thats a moot point though.

I'd personally let the trade go through. That trade bothers me a lot less than 1 in my league last week - 2nd place owner trades FatDale+Foster to 6th place team for LT+Dunn (im in first).

At least you're not letting a trade like that go through