I am curious to hear about how other leagues handle trading with fantasy football. What sort of rules do you have? What sort of restrictions do you impose? Do you have stories of trades that you would consider unfair.
I have been in a fantasy league for 10 years now and for the most part its been fun but its safe to say guys have gotten very creative with their trades almost to the point that its getting ridiculous and resulting in a bit bad blood between owners.
Any stories, thoughts, suggestions on the issues of trading would greatly be appreciated.
Our league has gone between: Comish decides or league votes. Both have their disadvantage. For comish, it's more of a dictatorship and if one of the parties is the comish, then you know it's going through. League votes you might have the situation where owners dont check their teams all that much and could possibly let a bad trade go through. The league votes have worked the best in our leages throughout the years because of the thought of "empowering" the owners.
And yes, I do recall a time where there was bad blood. I was trying to get a trade vetoed, so I personally talked to each person about vetoing the trade, it did end up getting vetoed. The reason behind the veto is that I wanted one of the players that one was trading for, the other owner found out and refused to talk to me for weeks. Until I decided to throw him a "bone" and of course he traded and he was more happy.
The reason behind the veto is that I wanted one of the players that one was trading for...
This is the problem with the league vote system -- idiot owners veto trades for stupid reasons. You cant veto a trade because you wanted one of the guys! You either should have made a better offer, or a quicker offer -- what you did was bush league.
For the most part, the leagues I'm in do commissioner approval. It's much quicker, and there usually aren't that many trades that need to be vetoed anyway. Usually if the commissioner is involved in the trade, someone else makes the decision on the trade.
Doing a league vote is usually only possible if you either have a very active set of managers or set a reasonable time limit for putting a vote in. I'm a bigger fan of commish approval because it's quicker, and if a questionable trade comes up, the commish can always ask for opinions from the league on trades.
Kudos to Leber for the amazing sig and to Metroid for the userbar and making them both fit 2008 and 2009 Defunct Dynasty League Champion
BrewCrew6 wrote:The reason behind the veto is that I wanted one of the players that one was trading for...
This is the problem with the league vote system -- idiot owners veto trades for stupid reasons. You cant veto a trade because you wanted one of the guys! You either should have made a better offer, or a quicker offer -- what you did was bush league.
Yes! You are absolutely correct sir, at the time I didn't understand that....was my first year playing. But that goes against most league rules because it interferes.
Well, my longest-running league has a commisioner and co-commisioner. The commisioner makes all trade veto decisions unless he is involved (in which case the co-commisioner decides). If they trade together, it's a league vote, but we've never actually run into that. To make the league fair, we rotate the commisioner out and replace him with the co-commisioner after every year, and a new co-commisioner is named (only requirement is you must hav been a part of the league for 3 years). That may sound fr more complicated than it actually is, but it works out very nicely.
I think that the Commish should just handle any vetoed trades. That way there can really be no collusion. Just make sure you have a commish that everyone trusts.
Yea, I think the best way is really to just get a commish that knows his stuff and is able to make the decisions on whether he thinks collusion is involved or not. It's far too easy for a league vote to be taken and for people to vote against trades simply because it makes the other teams better or because they were working on a deal for that player or whatever. Just too many wildcards when the only real good reason to veto a trade is if collusion is involved.
mattb47 wrote:Yea, I think the best way is really to just get a commish that knows his stuff and is able to make the decisions on whether he thinks collusion is involved or not. It's far too easy for a league vote to be taken and for people to vote against trades simply because it makes the other teams better or because they were working on a deal for that player or whatever. Just too many wildcards when the only real good reason to veto a trade is if collusion is involved.
I agree 100%. I'm OK with League Vote in some instances (there are a few Cafe Leagues I'm in that use it), but it gets abused far too often, so given a choice I prefer commissioner approval for trades. (and even then you need a commish that can separate his duties as commish from his also participating as an owner).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
In my league we instituted the league vote policy.
I run a 12 team league and seven "no" votes negates the trade. This makes it clear that at least 51% of the league feels the trade is unbalanced. I also have a 2 day time limit on the votes.
If the teams involved in the trade felt the votes were casted unfairly then I look at it and make a determination.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jayne_cobb » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:39 pm 
