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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.