Trade Veto Rules (1 Viewer)

[Texican]

Can someone let me know how your leagues rules are set up for trade reviews?

Gracias

 

[Momohater]

Commissioner reviews and approves. All are approved, unless collusion is suspected. That is it, not much more to say.

 

[mcnabbmcnow]

In a 12 team league, 6 owners have to veto. In a 10 team league, 4 owners have to veto.....commisisoner doesn't have final say.

 

[Godsbrother]

Here are our rules:

All trades must be approved by the commissioner. In general, all trades will be approved unless it appears that 2 or more owners are in collusion. Collusion is defined as making a trade, dropping a player, or taking any other action designed to bolster another owner’s chance of winning without direct self-benefit and/or to the disadvantage to one’s own team. Note: An “unwise” move is NOT collusion. It is NOT the commissioner 's duty to evaluate whether or not a trade is "fair". In addition, the "borrowing" or "loaning" of players is strictly prohibited. In order to discourage this practice, once a player is traded from a team he may not be reacquired via TRADE for 4 weeks. EXAMPLE: Team A trades Bubby Brister to Team B on 10/1. Team A is now prohibited from trading for Bubby until 10/30 from ANY team. However if Bubby Brister is dropped before 10/30 then Team A may pick him up off waivers.

 

[CA_7]

Trades may only be protested in the event that an owner believes collusion is involved. In this case, an email supporting their reason for protest must be sent to the commissioner or asst commissioner within 48 hours of the trade being approved. Upon review, a league vote or joint decision by the commissioner and assistant commissioner may over-rule the trade. In the unlikelihood that the commissioner or assistant commissioner are involved the protested trade, a league advisor(s) may be appointed by the commissioner or assistant commissioner not involved in the trade.

 

[JohnnyU]

First let me say, expect about 10 posts from those saying only trades involving collusion should be vetoed. What they won't tell you is that collusion can't be proven, ever. So basically, it's a worthless statement. Extremely bad trades can kill a dynasty league in a short period of time, so IMO, you have to have some sort of rules to allow the problem to be rectified. Nothing is perfect, and you have to have good owners who wouldn't veto a trade because of self interest, but only vote on the merit of the trade. Again, that process isn't perfect either. In our leagues, anyone can call a vote on a trade, but it takes the league majority to veto a trade, and those involved in the trade do not have a vote.

 

[notoriousbob]

We have no trade review. They go through upon acceptance with the understanding that any trades involving collusion can be reversed by the commish (with the input of the league members). We tried the league vote method and it failed miserably. Most owners cannot be unbiased, especially in a division setup. Having them go through automatically also speeds up the process, so if a deal is reached on Friday the players can play on Sunday.

 

[Godsbrother]

First let me say, expect about 10 posts from those saying only trades involving collusion should be vetoed. What they won't tell you is that collusion can't be proven, ever. So basically, it's a worthless statement.

In our league collusion does not have to be proven. If the commish says it's collusion, it is. The only way around it is to get a majority vote to overrule the commish.

 

[tomarken]

First let me say, expect about 10 posts from those saying only trades involving collusion should be vetoed. What they won't tell you is that collusion can't be proven, ever. So basically, it's a worthless statement. Extremely bad trades can kill a dynasty league in a short period of time, so IMO, you have to have some sort of rules to allow the problem to be rectified. Nothing is perfect, and you have to have good owners who wouldn't veto a trade because of self interest, but only vote on the merit of the trade. Again, that process isn't perfect either. In our leagues, anyone can call a vote on a trade, but it takes the league majority to veto a trade, and those involved in the trade do not have a vote.

A good commish should be able to smell the difference between collusion and an unwitting owner who is making a bad deal. Sometimes you have to talk to the owners involved in the trade to find out *why* they think they are making a good deal. I'm assuming of course that you know all the owners in your league - if you do an online league with strangers or something this can be more difficult and you may want to institute some kind of a league vote on trades or something...But assuming it is a league where everyone knows each other, I agree wholeheartedly with the others - trades should never be vetoed unless there is clear evidence that there is collusion to the detriment of the league (which, if everyone knows each other, rarely if ever actually happens). As for whether or not a trade is "fair", the only opinions that matter are those of the owners involved in the trade. Two paying owners should not be prevented from making a trade because a third party thinks it isn't "fair".

 

[Sinrman]

In my leagues, I've got a wide variety of trade rules. From no trade rules to commissioner approval to league voting.

Probably the one that works best, that I've found is giving like 3-5 days for objections. If a certain # of owners object to a trade, then it is overturned (which I think I've seen happen ONCE). Otherwise, it goes through...

 

[GregR_2]

First let me say, expect about 10 posts from those saying only trades involving collusion should be vetoed. What they won't tell you is that collusion can't be proven, ever. So basically, it's a worthless statement. Extremely bad trades can kill a dynasty league in a short period of time, so IMO, you have to have some sort of rules to allow the problem to be rectified. Nothing is perfect, and you have to have good owners who wouldn't veto a trade because of self interest, but only vote on the merit of the trade. Again, that process isn't perfect either. In our leagues, anyone can call a vote on a trade, but it takes the league majority to veto a trade, and those involved in the trade do not have a vote.

Assuming the league felt the commish was trustworthy and level-headed enough to be chosen commish in the first place... I would put more faith in said commish using his best judgement whether a trade is collusive or not, vs trusting 10 owners to not only not act out of self-interest, but to be realistic in their assessments of a trade.It's been my experience owners don't really know what market value is for a player. True example a few years back, when Bledsoe was lighting it up with Price and Moulds. Guy who has Bledsoe has Garcia on his bench, and desperately needs RBs. I offer him Duce for Garcia, who was around the #17 RB. Half the league gets up in arms about the trade because I drafted Duce in the 8th round and Garcia was taken in the 2nd round. I ask them which of them would offer a better RB than Duce for Garcia. [/sound of crickets chirping]

This kind of thing happens again and again. In leagues where we have the counter-offer system in place, I've had guys mail me that they think I made off like a bandit in a trade. I ask why they didn't counter-offer for the guy then, and they say, "Because I don't like that guy that much, I wouldn't have given up what you did for him" Well how can I be making out like a bandit then if they wouldn't even give up what I gave up for him? Obviously his market value wasn't as high as they think, but it isn't until they are forced to say what they'd give up for him that they realize that.

Either trust your commish to use his best judgement on whether it's collusion or not, or don't review trades at all. No where does it say collusion has to be proven with 100% certainty. We require our owners to be able to show how the trade benefits their team in a way that a REASONABLE person could believe. If someone wants to cheat, yeah, they can find ways to do it. And if you feel that's what they are doing, then don't ask them back into the league the next year if you don't feel the trade is obviously bad enough to stop then and there.

 

[ttiger72]

We have a 5 person committee that approves trades, 4 of the people were voted in by the league, the 5th guy is chosen by the commish. Majority vote either approves or rejects the trade. Works well for us. Came about 3 years ago when there was pretty obvisous collusion. A whole bunch of trades over the course of 5 weeks that the final result sent all of teams A and B good players to team C. Found out later that Team C paid for the trades, somewhere around 100 or 125 per team. Shut down the league that year and put in place the committee the next season and didn't invite those teams back for the next season.

 

[Texican]

I agree that collusion is hard to prove.

Two guys in our league (one is new to the league, and is a buddy of the other guy who has been in the league) made a trade that has the league up in arms. It is actually pending league vote and I do not think it will get passed (already on its way down quickly).

(I really don't want this to be a "is this fair thread", but here are the details

One guy trades Dunn, Brady, and Hines Ward for Plummer, A.Bryant, McAllister, and A.Green. This is the first year of a re-draft money league. We have played for several years, and it has always been almost too competitive and nobody trusted anybody. So, you add money to the mix and it gets worse......

 

[GregR_2]

Resisting the urge to get into the "is it fair"... have you asked the owners in question to justify how they believe this makes their team better?

 

[GregR_2]

SFTD, let me elaborate.

I'm assuming that since most people have Dunn higher than both RBs, Brady higher than Plummer, and Ward higher than Bryant, the complaint is the guy giving those players up is just giving away his best players. I'm also going to make the assumption that he took those players ahead of the guys he is getting in the trade.

I would ask that owner to explain how this trade makes him a better team. Now he's already established his feelings on these players based on who he took in the draft. If he took Brady when Plummer was on the board, I won't give much credibility to "I like Plummer more than Brady" or "I like Bryant more than Ward."

There are a few other reasons he could give like going for a QB-RB or QB-WR hookup, or trying to avoid one, or whatever, that I might consider reasonable. But really it would look to me like the only major justification that the trade improves him is that it gives him a better 2nd RB, or that he had absolutely no depth at all, and this gives him a legitimate starting RB as a backup. For him to convince me he thinks he's getting a better 2nd RB, I'm again going to look at who was on the board when he took his 2nd RB, and if the guys he's trading for were there, I'm not going to give it a lot of credibility. I would adjust for REASONABLE changes in expectation due to preseason. Thinking "Ahman will play" I would buy, thinking "GB offense looks great!" I would not.

I hope I painted a good picture there of how you can gather pretty good evidence of whether it's reasonable to think the guy seriously thinks he's improving his team or not. Of course, the other possibility is that the owner getting the three better players talked him into a "quantity over quality" deal. Whether you choose to restrict trades due to owner stupidity is another matter.