Fairest Trading Rules

[skinsrule]

Hey everyone. Love this site. My league is implementing trading amonest managers next year...What do you suggest is the fairest rules so things do not get controversal? Should there be voting, vetos, deadline, etc. ?


Thanks for all your help.

[Plindsey88]

I find that the best rule is:

24-48 hour waiting period after trades are announced where owners can petition the commish to veto a trade... But the sole decision whether or not to veto a trade lies with the commish....

If the commish is involved in the trade, a co-commish should be given veto power, and in the unlikely event the trade is between the commish and the co-commish, the trade should be veotable if 50+% of the remaining players feel it is collusionary....

Trades should ONLY be vetoable for collusion, though... Just because a trade seems lopsided is not enough reason to veto it... The only time a trade should be veoted is if you feel one of the players is making the trade ONLY to help the other team, and with no regard to his own success....

[merc]

Trades should ONLY be vetoable for collusion, though... Just because a trade seems lopsided is not enough reason to veto it...

Ditto!
And, I think 24 hours is plenty enought waiting time for any and all transactions in a FF league. Daily involvement and frequent activity should be rewarded, IMO. If someone doesn't check-in and misses out on a waived player or trade (they wanted to protest)... well, maybe they learn, and will start to check in more frequently from that point on...?

[dream_017]

Trades should ONLY be vetoable for collusion, though... Just because a trade seems lopsided is not enough reason to veto it... The only time a trade should be veoted is if you feel one of the players is making the trade ONLY to help the other team, and with no regard to his own success....

I agree with Plindsey and would add this to the veto option:

I would only block a trade or vote to veto one if:

* I believed that the two owners were in collusion
* One owner was dumping players because he was out of the playoffs
* If one owner was being scammed (ie. didn't know about a serious injury).

Who am I to judge how another owner wants to run his team.

If he just enjoys having his favorite players on a team, or has a hunch about someone that others don't agree with, that should not stop a trade...........IMO

[Plindsey88]

* If one owner was being scammed (ie. didn't know about a serious injury).

I don't like this exception.... If someone doesn't know about a serious injury, that is their own problem....

[BrutallyHuge]

Veto if it makes a team better than you or if you have suspicions that it will make the team better than you.

[flotsamnjetsam]

I agree with what everyone has said. I'd like to add that I prefer a trading deadline at the end of November. This helps prevent last minute collusion type trades right before the playoffs.

[merc]

I agree with what everyone has said. I'd like to add that I prefer a trading deadline at the end of November. This helps prevent last minute collusion type trades right before the playoffs.

I agree with this in a redraft league... but, for teams who aren't gonna make the playoffs, that time of year is their chance to trade old guys for hurt or underperforming young guys. Stopping this trading harms the poorly performing teams moreso than helping the playoff teams, IMO.... yet, those trades need to be looked at closely for potential collusion or for a team owner who might quit following that year and is trying to help a friend before he leaves the league. Maybe expanding the review time for post November trades to 72 hours helps to add to the review process?

[The_Dude]

* If one owner was being scammed (ie. didn't know about a serious injury).

I don't like this exception.... If someone doesn't know about a serious injury, that is their own problem....

This can get really tricky.

I had this issue two seasons ago when my buddy's wife was running his team while he was in Iraq. Bill isn't the sharpest fantasy football player, but his wife knows absolutely nothing and accepted a really really awful trade (she gave up Ricky Williams for Derrick Mason in a non-ppr league) with the league's first place team.

I'm not sure to this day that I actually did the right thing, although at the time it seemed like my only choice. But, part of it was that I put myself in that situation by playing in a league with more casual players.

If you consider everyone in your league to be relatively well informed about football, then I think its appropriate to have a very restrictive veto policy. However, I think that the nature of the league can change that.

[merc]

she gave up Ricky Williams for Derrick Mason in a non-ppr league

Hmmm, even now, not considering a potentially unknown 2006 suspension, this might actually be a good trade for both teams?

Mason was an alternating week good starter during the end of 2006, and before the trade and Brown's injury extent, who knew what Rasta Ricky might do?

Isn't there some more outwardly bad trade anyone can point to to plead for more league intervention?

How about folks who traded starting RBs for LJ at the half year mark to cover their Holmes backside?

How about dynasty teams out of the playoffs who traded a starting WR for Owens, on suspension?

There are lots of examples where teams might trade for future gain after they are out of current playoff potential, IMO. And allowing some other owners to stop those trades, as potential opponents of the near term beneficieries... is wrong.

This is a tough topic to decide... but I always side with the lesser team, if possible, and with total disregard to how it impacts other playoff teams. IMO, during the 24 hour review period, if the other teams don't like the trade... they can offer the other owner a better deal...