Veteran Fantasy owners please help settle dispute (1 Viewer)

[zeus]

I play in a 14 team fairly competetive league where everybody knows everybody. The talent is watered down because of the amount of teams in the league and the waiver wire is usually a lost cause for help.

A trade was proposed between two owners: Larry Johnson for Frank Gore and Joey Gallaway and it was accepted by both parties. The commish of the league said that this trade tilted and threatened the balance of the league. He thought it should be to vetoed. Is this trade a vetoable trade? Both Owners are veteran owners in the league.

Just curious to what others think on this issue!

This is a standard redraft combo scoring league with no keepers

 

[Scarpati]

I'd be interested in knowing a bit more about your league before I gave you an opinion. Is it a redraft league or a dynasty league? TD or performance?

You can't really answer questions like this without information about the league.

 

[BlackHole]

I play in a 14 team fairly competetive league where everybody knows everybody. The talent is watered down because of the amount of teams in the league and the waiver wire is usually a lost cause for help.A trade was proposed between two owners: Larry Johnson for Frank Gore and Joey Gallaway and it was accepted by both parties. The commish of the league said that this trade tilted and threatened the balance of the league. He thought it should be to vetoed. Is this trade a vetoable trade? Both Owners are veteran owners in the league.Just curious to what others think on this issue!

You'll hear it very quickly, wrong forum.As far as the trade. I see nothing remotely close to this trade requiring a comish to veto the transaction.

 

[EdwardCat]

We never veto trades. People need to do their research before a trade. If it is obvious collusion, then it should be vetoed. If not, let it stand. It is not the responsibility to hold hands and treat the owners like babies.

 

[davidwb]

the trade should be accepted...easily.

 

[zeus]

It is a standard redraft combo scoring league. there are no keepers in this league

 

[[scooter]]

I play in a 14 team fairly competetive league where everybody knows everybody. The talent is watered down because of the amount of teams in the league and the waiver wire is usually a lost cause for help.A trade was proposed between two owners: Larry Johnson for Frank Gore and Joey Gallaway and it was accepted by both parties. The commish of the league said that this trade tilted and threatened the balance of the league. He thought it should be to vetoed. Is this trade a vetoable trade? Both Owners are veteran owners in the league.Just curious to what others think on this issue!

Usually, "threaten the balance" is just code for "threaten the commish's chance to win".That trade looks perfectly fair to me.

 

[thecardiackid]

The commish is just pissed he didn't get LJ in a marginal deal. Not a great deal for the guy giving LJ, but not a "fleecing" either - considering LJ's RUSHING performance thus far vs. "expectations".

 

[Slinger]

Link your Commish to this thread. Commish. You're not God. No trade is ever completely even, so just because you think one owner got the best of another owner doesn't give you a right to veto this trade.

 

[daveR]

Changing the "balance of the league" in your own favor is an objective of FF.

 

[Shiggy Shaol]

Agree with everybody else. The trade is not vetoable. Really, the only time to veto a trade is if clear collusion is occuring. Nobody can predict the future performance of players with 100% certainty.

 

[pantagrapher]

Changing the "balance of the league" in your own favor is an objective of FF.

That's almost exactly what I was going to say.

 

[zeus]

This was poll on the website from the commish to the other league members after he said Okay to the trade:

I am 5-0 in the league and he is concerned that i will take home the championship with this trade. Keep the responses coming as i will be linking this thread to our site!

How f'in stupid was the trade on Jimmy's part?

Ridiculous - Gave Bill the Championship

1

Idiotic - Gave Bill the Championship

1

Lamebrain - Gave Bill the Championship

2

What's the big deal? It was a fair trade.

4

 

[Riffraff]

I couldn't tell you which side was ripping off the other. An argument could be made either way.

 

[Capt Hook]

Just the way he posted that ought to be a ticket out of Commissionerville for him.

If that doesn't happen, I would leave the league (whether or not you take the championship with you). He had no reason/right to veto or have the trade voted on in the first place (unless he had received a complaint from another team in which case he would have to reference that)

 

[The Mechanic]

I see no problem with the trade. No guppie involved, as you state. The reasoning behind it is anyones guess. In our league, redraft no keeper, after week 6 traders must be within 100 points of each other. Other than that we have a jury of 3 owners that can vote on a veto if ned be, but it has never happened.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

I think the only collusion that would be going on is if the the commish and other owners got together and vetoed this trade.

 

[SmallDawgsBITE]

any commish that would veto this deal without proof of collusion via video tape or tape recording is a f'ing idiot.

I hate commishes with godlike totalitarin authority.

 

[Limp Ditka]

What's the criteria to be deemed a veteran?

I'd really like to voice my opinion here, but not sure I qualify.

 

[BigFishBigTeeth]

Just the way he posted that ought to be a ticket out of Commissionerville for him.If that doesn't happen, I would leave the league (whether or not you take the championship with you). He had no reason/right to veto or have the trade voted on in the first place (unless he had received a complaint from another team in which case he would have to reference that)

Agreed... This sounds like a league I would not want to be involved in...

 

[Tecumseh]

Without reading any other responses, no way this trade should be vetoed.

 

[Marc Levin]

I play in a 14 team fairly competetive league where everybody knows everybody. The talent is watered down because of the amount of teams in the league and the waiver wire is usually a lost cause for help.

A trade was proposed between two owners: Larry Johnson for Frank Gore and Joey Gallaway and it was accepted by both parties. The commish of the league said that this trade tilted and threatened the balance of the league. He thought it should be to vetoed. Is this trade a vetoable trade? Both Owners are veteran owners in the league.

Just curious to what others think on this issue!

This is a standard redraft combo scoring league with no keepers

no.period, end of story.

non-collusive, balanced trade.

screw the commish if he vetos it and move for a commish change if he does. more powerful coming from the non-involved owners.

BTW, for an outsider commissioner to propose vetoing a trade without even ASKING the owners to present reasons for the trade is an offense justifying removal.

 

[Marc Levin]

' date='Oct 14 2006, 10:16 AM' post='5719835']Usually, "threaten the balance" is just code for "threaten the commish's chance to win".

And dead-on.One more reason to call for the commish's head.

 

[turnit643]

Trade = OK.

Commish = crybaby.

 

[Iceman66]

fair deal, what is commish's problem

 

[wannabee]

which side does commish think is getting best end of deal? case could be made for both sides.

 

[the rover]

get a new commish.

 

[PatsWillWin]

get a new commish.

 

[turnit643]

This was poll on the website from the commish to the other league members after he said Okay to the trade:I am 5-0 in the league and he is concerned that i will take home the championship with this trade. Keep the responses coming as i will be linking this thread to our site!How f'in stupid was the trade on Jimmy's part?Ridiculous - Gave Bill the Championship 1Idiotic - Gave Bill the Championship 1Lamebrain - Gave Bill the Championship 2What's the big deal? It was a fair trade. 4

New poll:How f'n stupid is our commish for complaining about this trade?Ridiculous - should be impeached.Idiotic - should be impeached.Lamebrain - should be impeached.What's the big deal? He's always been stupid.

 

[Lambert]

1) The trade isn't horribly lopsided at all. It's slightly in favor of the guy getting LJ, but not so much so that it would have occurred to me to investigate possible collusion or tanking.

2) MORE IMPORTANTLY, even if the trade were clearly horribly lopsided -- LaDainian for Travis Henry - that would only be grounds for looking into the trade imho to see if there's collusion, tanking, etc., not for automatically vetoing it.

As long as there's no collusion, both sides are honestly trying to improve their teams by the trade, I wouldn't vote to veto a trade just because one side isn't the brightest bulb on the tree in terms of what he/she was willing to accept in a trade offer. If I have reason to believe the owner getting the short end is purposely trying to tank his team or colluding with the other owner, veto it, absolutely. Otherwise, leave it alone.

 

[Marc Levin]

This was poll on the website from the commish to the other league members after he said Okay to the trade:I am 5-0 in the league and he is concerned that i will take home the championship with this trade. Keep the responses coming as i will be linking this thread to our site!How f'in stupid was the trade on Jimmy's part?Ridiculous - Gave Bill the Championship 1Idiotic - Gave Bill the Championship 1Lamebrain - Gave Bill the Championship 2What's the big deal? It was a fair trade. 4

New poll:How f'n stupid is our commish for complaining about this trade?Ridiculous - should be impeached.Idiotic - should be impeached.Lamebrain - should be impeached.What's the big deal? He's always been stupid.

Must be done - post that poll

 

[Hairy Snowman]

Totally legit.

 

[Chaz]

Tell the commish I think he's a moron.

 

[renesauz]

The trade looks relatively balanced, but the information is incomplete. The best trades make BOTH teams better. Sometimes that means improving depth, sometimes it means fielding a better starting lineup. A trade can appear horrible just by the players traded, but when the rosters are looked at more carefully, what looks at first glance to be a bad trade often results in either better depth or a better starting lineup. "Good" trades result in BOTH owners getting better in some way.

The guy giving up LJ might have been hurting in WR badly, and Galloway may very well be a huge upgrade over his current starter. The guy getting LJ may have had a ton of WR depth, but uncomfortable with Gore as his only RB stud.

If this were a "should i make this trade" thread, I'd want more info.

No commissioner should EVER have the authority to veto a trade. If an obviously and HORRIBLY imbalanced trade comes up, or collussion is strongly suspected, the matter should go to a vote of owners. There is no way to call this trade "horribly" imbalanced...it's a no-brainer approval.

TO those who suggest that balance should not be a factor at all in the approval of trades...shame on you. I've seen sharks convince guppies to take terrible trades. A good commissioner investigates badly imbalanced trades thoroughly..asking the guppy why he thinks he should do the trade, and explaning why the commish beleives it's a poor trade. If the guppy honestly beleives on his OWN RESEARCH the trade will benefit him, then it should be approved or passed along to league or panel vote. If he doesn't, he should be allowed to withdraw the trade proposal.

I've been a commish for a decade in MANY leagues. It is very rare that I have had to pass a trade along to a panel (less then once every two seasons per league). Tradeing guidelines MUST be discussed in detail pre-season.

Your commish is either watching out for his own interests instead of those of the league in general, or he's simply not ready for the role of commissioner.

 

[renesauz]

I see no problem with the trade. No guppie involved, as you state. The reasoning behind it is anyones guess. In our league, redraft no keeper, after week 6 traders must be within 100 points of each other. Other than that we have a jury of 3 owners that can vote on a veto if ned be, but it has never happened.

this is almost as dumb, imho. I can think of dozens of legit trade possibilities which this rule would kill.

 

[trader jake]

New poll:How f'n stupid is our commish for complaining about this trade?Ridiculous - should be impeached.Idiotic - should be impeached.Lamebrain - should be impeached.What's the big deal? He's always been stupid.

 

[smackdown101]

I see no problem with the trade. Certainly nothing to get his panties in a twist about. I want to hear how this falls out. Keep us posted.

 

[zeus]

Here is what he posted after i emailed him this thread and my opinion on the potential veto. We had a trade a three years ago: Mannning/LT for Suggs/Brady/Holt that was very stupid--that is what he compares this LJ for Gore/Gallaway trade too.

Just so everyone knows… the rule of thumb “we” use in approving or denying trades is the “collusion rule” very aptly described in Bill’s email.

While I agree with 99% of the collusion rule, I do think on very rare occasions trades should be discussed beyond the suspicion of collusion. I used to be 100% with the collusion rule, but the Manning/Tomlinson trade brought something else into play. That trade is an example that goes well beyond opinions of who got the better end of a deal. An extremely stupid trade can upset the sanctity of a league just as much as collusion. There’s a gentleman’s rule in fantasy football that you don’t blatantly take advantage of a rookie owner. Unfortunately, some people never get past that rookie level of fantasy knowledge.

The opinion of a “professional” fantasy columnist is just that… another opinion. We’ve got people in this league that have played fantasy football as long and in many cases longer than these “experts”. Any one of those veterans could make a “rankings list” or render an opinion that would be just as valid as those columnist. Just because they have a forum doesn’t make them any more an expert than the next guy.

I’ll bet there’s only one person in this league that would rather have Gore/Galloway than Johnson. I do feel that this trade has the “potential” to have the same lopsided effect on the league that the Manning/Tomlinson deal did. That’s my Commissioner’s opinion. My personal opinion is it was an absurdly stupid trade on the Clown’s part regardless of who accepted it…

 

[username]

Fuxx yo dictator of a commish.

 

[SwampDawg]

Agree with everybody else. The trade is not vetoable. Really, the only time to veto a trade is if clear collusion is occuring. Nobody can predict the future performance of players with 100% certainty.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Here is what he posted after i emailed him this thread and my opinion on the potential veto. We had a trade a three years ago: Mannning/LT for Suggs/Brady/Holt that was very stupid--that is what he compares this LJ for Gore/Gallaway trade too. Just so everyone knows… the rule of thumb “we” use in approving or denying trades is the “collusion rule” very aptly described in Bill’s email. While I agree with 99% of the collusion rule, I do think on very rare occasions trades should be discussed beyond the suspicion of collusion. I used to be 100% with the collusion rule, but the Manning/Tomlinson trade brought something else into play. That trade is an example that goes well beyond opinions of who got the better end of a deal. An extremely stupid trade can upset the sanctity of a league just as much as collusion. There’s a gentleman’s rule in fantasy football that you don’t blatantly take advantage of a rookie owner. Unfortunately, some people never get past that rookie level of fantasy knowledge. The opinion of a “professional” fantasy columnist is just that… another opinion. We’ve got people in this league that have played fantasy football as long and in many cases longer than these “experts”. Any one of those veterans could make a “rankings list” or render an opinion that would be just as valid as those columnist. Just because they have a forum doesn’t make them any more an expert than the next guy. I’ll bet there’s only one person in this league that would rather have Gore/Galloway than Johnson. I do feel that this trade has the “potential” to have the same lopsided effect on the league that the Manning/Tomlinson deal did. That’s my Commissioner’s opinion. My personal opinion is it was an absurdly stupid trade on the Clown’s part regardless of who accepted it…

Please have your commish come on here. Please help him set up an account. Then have him answer these:1) What is the sanctity of this league? Is this a church league? Is the Pope playing in this league? Is this a long time sacred league?2) If you are so worried about rookies being taken advantage of then don't invite them into the league! Remember that you are not a babysitter and are not to hold the rookie's hand on trades.3) Who has played fantasy football the longest in your league?4) What "level" are you at fantasy football Mr. Commish?

 

[Mario Kart]

No trade leagues =