* 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.
What exactly did you do?
You mention not knowing if you did the right thing, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere what you actually did.
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...
Read The_Dude's post again. His incident with Ricky & Mason was from 2 seasons ago.
One other important but often overlooked thing is to make sure everyone in your league is on the same page. If you use vetos, make sure the criteria for a veto are agreed upon by everyone, and then written down. Vetos are controversial all by themselves, but nothing is worse than a league where different owners have different opinions on when vetos should be used.
Get everybody on the same page from the start, and you'll save yourself a whole lot of in-season headaches.
Read The_Dude's post again. His incident with Ricky & Mason was from 2 seasons ago
Regardless... in a dynasty league, it still might have been a fair trade?
It was early in the 2003 season, excuse me, so 3 seasons ago, when Ricky had 1600 total yds and 10 tds. Mason had his career year that year (1300 yds and 8 tds), but she had no other quality rbs on her roster. Ricky had a couple of off weeks, my friend offered her the trade and she accepted. No rational person would have accepted the trade in those circumstances (re-draft league, non-ppr, etc.).
I vetoed... but that's not really the point of this thread. The point of my post was that its important to know the people that you're playing with in order to determine (1) if they are at least making lucid decisions and (2) if trades between 2 teams might constitute collusion. When acting as commish, I don't like to veto trades, but I also don't like to let people who eat, breathe and sleep fantasy football take advantage of someone who's new to the game --- particularly in a free league with my friends when the object is to have fun. With great power comes great responsibility (or some bs like that).
I am the Walrus
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: My ivory tower, where I oversee the intellectual development of America's youth
I don't like to veto trades, but I also don't like to let people who eat, breathe and sleep fantasy football take advantage of someone who's new to the game --- particularly in a free league with my friends when the object is to have fun. With great power comes great responsibility (or some bs like that).
Okay... I can agree with that.... but, are all the Cafe leagues I am in ones where we are competing as newbie friends?, or as diehard FF competitors?
BYW, I've offered my Rasta Ricky to who seemed like the least attentive other owner in two of my leagues and DOH... they kicked my ass for that offer...
Sorry, but even in Yahoo free FF eagues based on toy train collectors or Home theater enthusiasts... we win, via trades and pick ups FA's based on our efforts and knowledge... and not on pity...
Who wants to play in a league where they might win due to the other team's inattentiveness or lack of sheer interest?
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig
[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]