Trades (1 Viewer)

[Mookie Blaylock]

If I have a vote I'm going to use it. I fail to see where fair/unfair comes into play. Why even allow voting if you are going to cry when someone votes against your trade?

 

[hostile]

I think voting is assinine, and generally detracts from the league.

Who the hell am I to complain about someone else's deal? If it is a horrifically wrong deal, say ADP for Brian Brohm, that is what a commish is for.

Moreover, I applaud people who can fleece others. That's part of the game, imo. People should not be protected from their own stupidity, nor penalized for their own cleverness.

 

[MIMN]

I think voting is assinine, and generally detracts from the league.Who the hell am I to complain about someone else's deal? If it is a horrifically wrong deal, say ADP for Brian Brohm, that is what a commish is for. Moreover, I applaud people who can fleece others. That's part of the game, imo. People should not be protected from their own stupidity, nor penalized for their own cleverness.

Agree 100%.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I think voting is assinine, and generally detracts from the league.Who the hell am I to complain about someone else's deal? If it is a horrifically wrong deal, say ADP for Brian Brohm, that is what a commish is for. Moreover, I applaud people who can fleece others. That's part of the game, imo. People should not be protected from their own stupidity, nor penalized for their own cleverness.

No I get that. I understand the whole concept behind good trades and bad trades being part of the game. But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

 

[hostile]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite. Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

 

[finnmaccoul]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

 

[D'OHtis]

I think voting is assinine, and generally detracts from the league.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite. Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

If that's your opinion of what I'm doing it's fine, but I'm not voting out of spite, I'm voting because I have a vote. If it makes another team in my division stronger and I have the option to vote against it, I do it. I'm not saying everyone votes against it; just me. Many times the trades go through. Every once in a while they do not. I'd prefer the situation where there isn't a vote, personally.

 

[grantsa4]

I think voting is assinine, and generally detracts from the league.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[The_Wolfman]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite. Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

If that's your opinion of what I'm doing it's fine, but I'm not voting out of spite, I'm voting because I have a vote. If it makes another team in my division stronger and I have the option to vote against it, I do it. I'm not saying everyone votes against it; just me. Many times the trades go through. Every once in a while they do not. I'd prefer the situation where there isn't a vote, personally.

What exactly are you getting at here? Are you trying to say that since the option to have a vote is there, it's ok to vote against a trade because it strengthens an opponent? So if a commissioner has the ability to veto any trade he should do it based on how the trade effects his chances of winning the league simply because the option to do so is there?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

This statement is ridiculous. What, because you think it's a stupid trade it must be? Stay out of my teams business.

 

[the spanker]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

This statement is ridiculous. What, because you think it's a stupid trade it must be? Stay out of my teams business.

 

[cstu]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite.

Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.

Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

If that's your opinion of what I'm doing it's fine, but I'm not voting out of spite, I'm voting because I have a vote. If it makes another team in my division stronger and I have the option to vote against it, I do it. I'm not saying everyone votes against it; just me. Many times the trades go through. Every once in a while they do not. I'd prefer the situation where there isn't a vote, personally.

This is the exact reason voting is stupid. People are generally going to act in their own self-interest (the point is to win right?) and allowing trades that make teams more competitive goes against that self-interest.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

This statement is ridiculous. What, because you think it's a stupid trade it must be? Stay out of my teams business.

It's not fishing and I am not a member of this league or the OP's league. I commish a league and while I might not agree with another teams trade or I might actually think it IS stupid, I have absolutely no right to disallow that trade. If finnmaccoul was my commish, I'd tell him to stay out of my teams business. No commissioner should have the power to veto a trade solely on the basis of whether or not he/she "thinks" it's a "stupid" trade. I guess my short and sarcastic post above didn't convey that thought.As far as allowing all teams in a league to vote on trades, the exact reason it is a BAD idea for fantasy football has been stated already in this thread. Because they have a vote, they will vote, and 99% of the time it won't be a vote of conscience. It will be a vote of spite. "Hey, that team is in my division and I don't need that team getting any stronger so I'm going to vote to veto that trade." Lame and childish.

 

[-JAP-]

To the OP, Im sure the question you get asked to vote on is , "is this trade fair", or "is this trade colusion". Im quite sure that the question you get asked is NOT " does this trade help/hurt my chances of winning" or "does this trade help a divison-mate's team become stronger". The fact that you take a simple process to prevent cheeting, AND then use it to cheat is horriable. Im also in a league that can vote. I cant think of one trade that I have voted against, no matter how lopsided the trade seems to me, because I am only asked to vote to veto the trade if I suspect cheating. I wouldnt want you in my league.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

To the OP, Im sure the question you get asked to vote on is , "is this trade fair", or "is this trade colusion". Im quite sure that the question you get asked is NOT " does this trade help/hurt my chances of winning" or "does this trade help a divison-mate's team become stronger". The fact that you take a simple process to prevent cheeting, AND then use it to cheat is horriable. Im also in a league that can vote. I cant think of one trade that I have voted against, no matter how lopsided the trade seems to me, because I am only asked to vote to veto the trade if I suspect cheating. I wouldnt want you in my league.

Oh give me a freaking break. Cheating? Good Lord you people are ridiculous. Believe me, if you're this lame about someone doing everything in their power to protect their chances to win, I wouldn't want to be in your league anyway. In any case, I'm talking about being one of ten in a voting public. One of ten. That means five other people have to see things like I do. The thing that cracks me up is that those of you clamoring for not voting against non-collusion trades are basically proponents of bad trades. This is better for your league? The voting system isn't just in place to prevent cheating, it allows you to have a voice. But since it's so damn hard to get a trade vetoed, I think it's largely a moot point.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Oh give me a freaking break. Cheating? Good Lord you people are ridiculous. Believe me, if you're this lame about someone doing everything in their power to protect their chances to win, I wouldn't want to be in your league anyway. In any case, I'm talking about being one of ten in a voting public. One of ten. That means five other people have to see things like I do. The thing that cracks me up is that those of you clamoring for not voting against non-collusion trades are basically proponents of bad trades. This is better for your league? The voting system isn't just in place to prevent cheating, it allows you to have a voice. But since it's so damn hard to get a trade vetoed, I think it's largely a moot point.

You obviously don't get it. Any trade could be viewed as "bad" by owners not involved in a trade if it helps a division opponent get stronger. The only people who have to be concerned about a trade being "bad" is the owners of the teams involved in a trade. It's no one else's business to tell another owner whether or not a trade is bad. And it definitely is not the commissioners job to make that determination either.If other owners in my league do not want to see my team getting stronger, well then they should have gone out and made a trade for that player to make their team stronger instead. They should not complain, or vote against my trade, because they failed to get a deal done themselves. Every team in my league has a voice. They just have to use it to go out and make trades for their own good, not vote against a trade because said trade hurts their chances.

Someone in my keeper league (5 player) just traded Jon Stewart, Reggie Bush, Ochocinco, 2010-1st, 1st, 2nd & 2011-1st, 2nd, 3rd for Adrian Peterson of Minny. That's 3 players and 6 future draft picks. Do you think that was a bad trade? Doesn't really matter. The only people it matters to are the 2 teams involved in the trade. Each felt that they were getting value for what they were giving up. Not a single person in my league complained about this trade. Most wish they had the firepower to pull off a deal like this, including me.

Voting on trades is lame and voting against a trade to "protect" your teams chances is even lamer.

What, did you expect everyone here to agree with you?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Oh give me a freaking break. Cheating? Good Lord you people are ridiculous. Believe me, if you're this lame about someone doing everything in their power to protect their chances to win, I wouldn't want to be in your league anyway. In any case, I'm talking about being one of ten in a voting public. One of ten. That means five other people have to see things like I do. The thing that cracks me up is that those of you clamoring for not voting against non-collusion trades are basically proponents of bad trades. This is better for your league? The voting system isn't just in place to prevent cheating, it allows you to have a voice. But since it's so damn hard to get a trade vetoed, I think it's largely a moot point.

You obviously don't get it. Any trade could be viewed as "bad" by owners not involved in a trade if it helps a division opponent get stronger. The only people who have to be concerned about a trade being "bad" is the owners of the teams involved in a trade. It's no one else's business to tell another owner whether or not a trade is bad. And it definitely is not the commissioners job to make that determination either.If other owners in my league do not want to see my team getting stronger, well then they should have gone out and made a trade for that player to make their team stronger instead. They should not complain, or vote against my trade, because they failed to get a deal done themselves. Every team in my league has a voice. They just have to use it to go out and make trades for their own good, not vote against a trade because said trade hurts their chances.

Someone in my keeper league (5 player) just traded Jon Stewart, Reggie Bush, Ochocinco, 2010-1st, 1st, 2nd & 2011-1st, 2nd, 3rd for Adrian Peterson of Minny. That's 3 players and 6 future draft picks. Do you think that was a bad trade? Doesn't really matter. The only people it matters to are the 2 teams involved in the trade. Each felt that they were getting value for what they were giving up. Not a single person in my league complained about this trade. Most wish they had the firepower to pull off a deal like this, including me.

Voting on trades is lame and voting against a trade to "protect" your teams chances is even lamer.

What, did you expect everyone here to agree with you?

No, I get it. I get that people like you don't understand what votes are for. Eliminate voting against trades if you don't want someone to vote against your trades. Just as you say who am I to tell another owner whether a trade is bad, I say who are you to tell me how I can use my vote. I got the reaction I anticipated. And I wouldn't have complained about the AP trade, but I might have voted against it. Oh and speaking of not getting it - one of ten. One of ten.

 

[Fallerjw]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite. Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

Not a fan of voting on trades. What are you voting on? If it was "fair"? Did somebody in your division get stronger? Nothing good can come out of voting for trades in a league.

 

[Fallerjw]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite.

Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.

Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

If that's your opinion of what I'm doing it's fine, but I'm not voting out of spite, I'm voting because I have a vote. If it makes another team in my division stronger and I have the option to vote against it, I do it. I'm not saying everyone votes against it; just me. Many times the trades go through. Every once in a while they do not. I'd prefer the situation where there isn't a vote, personally.

What exactly are you getting at here? Are you trying to say that since the option to have a vote is there, it's ok to vote against a trade because it strengthens an opponent? So if a commissioner has the ability to veto any trade he should do it based on how the trade effects his chances of winning the league simply because the option to do so is there?

 

[Wrigley]

I guess it all boils down to having good owners, and a better commish.

 

[Pickle Rody]

No, I get it. I get that people like you don't understand what votes are for. Eliminate voting against trades if you don't want someone to vote against your trades. Just as you say who am I to tell another owner whether a trade is bad, I say who are you to tell me how I can use my vote. I got the reaction I anticipated. And I wouldn't have complained about the AP trade, but I might have voted against it. Oh and speaking of not getting it - one of ten. One of ten.

Actually, I was re-thinking this the last hour or so, and I think I didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked. Of course, since you have the option to vote, you will. The problem is, even though you are only 1/10th of the voters, you surely aren't the only one voting with spite instead of conscience. By allowing other franchises in the league to vote on trades opens the door for such votes of spite. Sure, you have the right to vote, so go ahead and vote to disallow the trade because you are fearful of your division opponent getting stronger thus limiting your teams probability of a championship run......I get it. If you have the option, you might as well use it....right?The vote option is apparently for you to have a say in whether or not you think any trade is collusion or "fair". So, since the trade could quite possibly derail your plans for a championship it must be unfair. Hence, you vote against it. I'm not telling you how to use your vote, but I am saying that the way you do use your votes is lame. Which brings me back to my point of not using a voting scenario at all. Most people will think like you and will vote out of spite and not out of conscience, simply because the option to vote is granted. I can guarantee that the trade for Peterson I used as an example earlier would be voted down by most members of my league if we allowed votes. Not because they thought it was unfair, but because they would not want to see a perennially strong team become any stronger. These would have been votes made out of spite. Yet, none of these other owners tried to go out and get a deal done for Peterson. I don't allow trade voting in my league because I don't want other owners voting against ANY trades, not because I don't want other owners voting against MY trades. Thus, there is no option for them to deny any team a trade because of spite. They are free to go out and maneuver for just such a trade themselves.I hope I have cleared up any confusion regarding my earlier posts. Good luck with your league Mookie!

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite.

Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.

Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

If that's your opinion of what I'm doing it's fine, but I'm not voting out of spite, I'm voting because I have a vote. If it makes another team in my division stronger and I have the option to vote against it, I do it. I'm not saying everyone votes against it; just me. Many times the trades go through. Every once in a while they do not. I'd prefer the situation where there isn't a vote, personally.

What exactly are you getting at here? Are you trying to say that since the option to have a vote is there, it's ok to vote against a trade because it strengthens an opponent? So if a commissioner has the ability to veto any trade he should do it based on how the trade effects his chances of winning the league simply because the option to do so is there?

The commissioner should not have the power to veto any trade. Only if he can prove collusion. But voting against trades by owners is their right. You may object to how that right is appropriated, but it's a right none the less. If enough owners vote against a trade to overturn it, it proves the system works. You've all said how rarely trades get overturned, so I don't see why this is such an issue.

 

[Pickle Rody]

The commissioner should not have the power to veto any trade. Only if he can prove collusion. But voting against trades by owners is their right. You may object to how that right is appropriated, but it's a right none the less. If enough owners vote against a trade to overturn it, it proves the system works. You've all said how rarely trades get overturned, so I don't see why this is such an issue.

If enough owners vote against a trade to overturn it, it proves the system is flawed.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

No, I get it. I get that people like you don't understand what votes are for. Eliminate voting against trades if you don't want someone to vote against your trades. Just as you say who am I to tell another owner whether a trade is bad, I say who are you to tell me how I can use my vote. I got the reaction I anticipated. And I wouldn't have complained about the AP trade, but I might have voted against it. Oh and speaking of not getting it - one of ten. One of ten.

Actually, I was re-thinking this the last hour or so, and I think I didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked. Of course, since you have the option to vote, you will. The problem is, even though you are only 1/10th of the voters, you surely aren't the only one voting with spite instead of conscience. By allowing other franchises in the league to vote on trades opens the door for such votes of spite. Sure, you have the right to vote, so go ahead and vote to disallow the trade because you are fearful of your division opponent getting stronger thus limiting your teams probability of a championship run......I get it. If you have the option, you might as well use it....right?The vote option is apparently for you to have a say in whether or not you think any trade is collusion or "fair". So, since the trade could quite possibly derail your plans for a championship it must be unfair. Hence, you vote against it. I'm not telling you how to use your vote, but I am saying that the way you do use your votes is lame. Which brings me back to my point of not using a voting scenario at all. Most people will think like you and will vote out of spite and not out of conscience, simply because the option to vote is granted. I can guarantee that the trade for Peterson I used as an example earlier would be voted down by most members of my league if we allowed votes. Not because they thought it was unfair, but because they would not want to see a perennially strong team become any stronger. These would have been votes made out of spite. Yet, none of these other owners tried to go out and get a deal done for Peterson. I don't allow trade voting in my league because I don't want other owners voting against ANY trades, not because I don't want other owners voting against MY trades. Thus, there is no option for them to deny any team a trade because of spite. They are free to go out and maneuver for just such a trade themselves.I hope I have cleared up any confusion regarding my earlier posts. Good luck with your league Mookie!

I think the best part of this whole discussion is that it's purely hypothetical. I'm not referencing a trade in my league, nor am I the commissioner of a league. But I digress. I respect your right to think my position on trades is lame. And good luck to you too.

 

[NeverEnough]

But if I'm in a league where voting is a part of the trading process, and say, a division-mate makes a trade that makes him stronger, I'm voting against it if I have a vote.

... and what I'm saying is that is exactly why I hate them.You're voting simply out of spite. Voting against a completely legit trade simply for the sake of voting against it is childish. It's not about trying to block another team from becoming stronger.Your example and useage is *exactly* why voting detracts from leagues. It just gives people with axes to grind an excuse to be jerks, does nothing to encourage trading but rather stifles it, which goes directly to overall league integrity.

x2

 

[lebowski]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

This statement is ridiculous. What, because you think it's a stupid trade it must be? Stay out of my teams business.

Disagree here, I would not want to be in a league where AP for Caddy would be allowed. I would hope my commish would step in on this one. Maybe "stupid" was and unfair adjective here, but if a trade is blatantly lopsided a Commish should step in. This whole conversation though does make me think about what would be the fairest procedure for rejecting a trade. Good by-laws in their league that they would like to share.Thanks

 

[FUBAR]

No, I get it. I get that people like you don't understand what votes are for. Eliminate voting against trades if you don't want someone to vote against your trades. Just as you say who am I to tell another owner whether a trade is bad, I say who are you to tell me how I can use my vote. I got the reaction I anticipated. And I wouldn't have complained about the AP trade, but I might have voted against it. Oh and speaking of not getting it - one of ten. One of ten.

Actually, I was re-thinking this the last hour or so, and I think I didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked. Of course, since you have the option to vote, you will. The problem is, even though you are only 1/10th of the voters, you surely aren't the only one voting with spite instead of conscience. By allowing other franchises in the league to vote on trades opens the door for such votes of spite. Sure, you have the right to vote, so go ahead and vote to disallow the trade because you are fearful of your division opponent getting stronger thus limiting your teams probability of a championship run......I get it. If you have the option, you might as well use it....right?The vote option is apparently for you to have a say in whether or not you think any trade is collusion or "fair". So, since the trade could quite possibly derail your plans for a championship it must be unfair. Hence, you vote against it. I'm not telling you how to use your vote, but I am saying that the way you do use your votes is lame. Which brings me back to my point of not using a voting scenario at all. Most people will think like you and will vote out of spite and not out of conscience, simply because the option to vote is granted. I can guarantee that the trade for Peterson I used as an example earlier would be voted down by most members of my league if we allowed votes. Not because they thought it was unfair, but because they would not want to see a perennially strong team become any stronger. These would have been votes made out of spite. Yet, none of these other owners tried to go out and get a deal done for Peterson. I don't allow trade voting in my league because I don't want other owners voting against ANY trades, not because I don't want other owners voting against MY trades. Thus, there is no option for them to deny any team a trade because of spite. They are free to go out and maneuver for just such a trade themselves.I hope I have cleared up any confusion regarding my earlier posts. Good luck with your league Mookie!

Which is why we have rules in most of my leagues that provide the right to complain if a team believes a trade is collusive, but not a blanket "vote on every trade" rule. If you think a trade is collusive, you state your reasons and if a few others agree (# varies on the league) it will go to a vote to be overturned. I have never seen a trade overruled in any league I've been in. Honestly, I think I'd either quit the league or boot the owners out before I'd call collusion.

 

[FUBAR]

Our league has no voting. As the Commish, I only disallow those trades that are just stupid (AP for Caddy). In 10 years I haven't rejected one.

This statement is ridiculous. What, because you think it's a stupid trade it must be? Stay out of my teams business.

Disagree here, I would not want to be in a league where AP for Caddy would be allowed. I would hope my commish would step in on this one. Maybe "stupid" was and unfair adjective here, but if a trade is blatantly lopsided a Commish should step in. This whole conversation though does make me think about what would be the fairest procedure for rejecting a trade. Good by-laws in their league that they would like to share.Thanks

AD for Caddy straight would be an example of apparent collusion even if not proven to be actual collusion.