FELLOW COMMISH'S!!! Is this trade vetoable? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

FELLOW COMMISH'S!!! Is this trade vetoable?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby logan » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:27 pm

i would be surprised if it does get through the other owners but i agree i wouldn't veto it outright.
Image
logan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 7273
(Past Year: 12)
Joined: 4 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby SwiperNoSwiping » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:53 pm

Yeah I don't like that deal at all...but shouldn't be vetoed in my opinion...

Good luck ;-D
SwiperNoSwiping
Grillmaster
Grillmaster

Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 22027
Joined: 3 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Has Left The Premises.

Postby elldog5 » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:09 pm

absolute crap. No way I'd let that go through without speaking to each of the owners myself. It's been the case in one of my leagues where there is this one guy who has accepted two pretty bad offers after coming back from the bar, shitfaced late at night. Perhaps that is the case.
elldog5
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 177
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby matmat » Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:18 pm

heh. it's lopsided, but a lot depends on league settings;
do you start a TE? is it a performance league? whatever.. i wouldn't veto.
How is my typing? Call 1-555-382-5968
Many posters could benefit from this.
Image
matmat
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1816
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hovering over a keyboard.

Postby dream_017 » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:56 am

One of the best at explaining if a trade should be vetoed:

The Balanced Man wrote:
Here is what my league uses as a standard to judge. Don't know if it helps:

1. FAIRNESS IS when the trade reasonably benefits both teams involved.

2. There is a Presumption of Fairness for all trades.

3. Three Factors involved in what reasonably benefits both include: Statistics, Potentiality, and Team Needs.

4. In order to reject a trade, you should feel that there are no reasonable benefits to both teams in Statistics Potentiality, and Team Needs. Hence, if one or more Factor is reasonably fair for both sides, and they are reasonably equivilent, the trade should be UPHELD. If no factor are reasonably fair, The Trade should be REJECTED.

5. The case may also exist where on player is high on one factor, and the other player is high on another. For example, one may want to trade a player that has very high potential (Ex: Steven Jackson) for a Player that is Statistically Superior (Ex: Andre Johnson). This trade should be accepted as long as you feel that it reasonably benefits both teams, even though the benefits to the teams do not derive from the same factor.

6. Statistics- Look at this by examining how statistics compare. The league suggests considering three year player averages, last years stats, and the stats for the current year.

7. Team Needs- Team Needs include: The need to fill a position (EX: A team is short on Quality RB), The need to change team structure in order to win more games (EX: I am 4-5 and need different personnel to gain different results), and the need to add depth to ones roster.

8. Potentiality- Potentiality is when a player has a chance to score many more points in upcoming weeks than they have previously. (EX: A RB starting because a starter will not play, addition of a Stud QB to an offense that will make a WR that much better, etc. However, a current stud player does not have any potential. A stud is statistically superior, but there is little chance that they will score many more points in upcoming weeks as compared to former weeks.
dream_017
Cafe Google
Cafe Google

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 15305
(Past Year: 59)
Joined: 3 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Ford Field: Section - 132; Row - 19; Seat - 11

Postby knapplc » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:52 pm

Don't veto it just because it's lopsided, veto it if it's obviously two owners getting together to screw another owner or the league in general.

If both owners are paying their money, both have to be responsible for their own decisions.

Think about it this way - would you stop an owner from drafting Nate Kaeding in the second round because it's a ridiculous time to pick up a kicker? Of course not - he has to be smart enough to not do that.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:08 pm

knapplc wrote:Think about it this way - would you stop an owner from drafting Nate Kaeding in the second round because it's a ridiculous time to pick up a kicker? Of course not - he has to be smart enough to not do that.


i'm amazed that people here find the desire, week after week, to repeat, "no veto except for collusion." it really should just be a sticky. and, at the end of the day, what it comes down to is: (a) is the league set up so that the commissioner can veto a trade? (b) are you the commissioner? (c) do you want to veto the trade?

and, the drafting analogy is singularly inappropriate. someone drafting extremely poorly doesn't affect anybody because it affects everybody equally (basically, it just moves the number of league members from x to x-1). someone trading extremely poorly, however, hurts the league as a whole by giving a very large boost to one individiual team.

people in my league can draft however the hell they want. they trades, though, are subject to my scrutiny (although we've never had a problem).
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby knapplc » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:31 pm

If you're tired of people saying this then stop reading these threads. It's the most sound advice and will be repeated here as many times as someone asks the question.

The draft analogy is actually very appropriate. If one owner drafts stupidly it affects the entire league. In my league one of our many-year veterans decided to draft backwards this year, picking a DEF, kicker, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, QB, etc. His team stinks, the other three teams in his division are disproportionately better and the team behind him consistently took players that he should have. He F'ed up his division and the division of the owner drafting behind him.

Just because you're the Commish of your league doesn't mean that you should make decisions based on how YOU feel. You should have some sort of guideline in your league stipulating how and why trades should be vetoed. Run the "collusion" theory written about by everyone here by your league and see if they'd rather have you make decisions on their trades that way or by your whim.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: FELLOW COMMISH'S!!! Is this trade vetoable?

Postby Wesley Walker » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:38 pm

danleroi22 wrote:Team A trades Fred Taylor
Team B trades Larry Johnson and Antonio Gates

I'm not sure guys... do you think this trade needs to be vetoed or is it fair?


That's a bad, bad trade. Can you imagine, a 2nd string RB and a lowyl TE for a starting RB? Deplorable.

I wouldn't veto it, btw.
Wesley Walker
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 1687
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Seattle

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:28 pm

knapplc wrote:The draft analogy is actually very appropriate. If one owner drafts stupidly it affects the entire league. In my league one of our many-year veterans decided to draft backwards this year, picking a DEF, kicker, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, QB, etc. His team stinks, the other three teams in his division are disproportionately better and the team behind him consistently took players that he should have. He F'ed up his division and the division of the owner drafting behind him.


you're missing the point. in reality, every other owner is an owner drafting behind the backwards-drafter. the owner drafting directly after him is not getting the benefit of the pick he forfeited and retaining his own pick: he's still only making one pick. and thus, the owner drafting after him gets one player better than he would have, and it continues on down the line. in sum, since everybody benefits equally, there is no harm to the league overall.

where league balance gets damaged is when one team is disproportionately benefited, i.e. with a stupid and unbalanced trade.

in the real world, individuals are prevented from executing contracts which are grossly unfair or where one of the participants was at a significant knowledge and/or sophistication handicap. they're called contracts of adhesion and are routinely struck down by united states courts of law. i haven't seen any wisdom on these pages, defending the lassiez-faire principles embedded in this philosophy, sufficient to think the courts system has the worse of the argument. all the argument is is dressed-up (or dressed-down) ayn rand objectivism. and sometimes, a little regulation is a good thing.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 14:46 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact