Trading in Fantasy Football. - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Trading in Fantasy Football.

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby Timbathia » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:03 pm

I agree with commish and co-commish decide. League votes is always problematic.
Timbathia
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 975
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Geelong, Australia

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby Fantasy Man 27 » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:44 pm

We have a trade committee. They are the most active members of the league. We also have alternate committee members incase one of the members was involved in a trade. You have to get 2/3 of the vote to get it approved. We have only had one veto.
Image
Fantasy Man 27
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 368
Joined: 8 May 2007
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Florida

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby treat24 » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:15 pm

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 here... I'm huge fan of commish approval. mattb is right on... If I have LT and I make a solid offer for SJax that really helps the other guy, it would be unfair of the league to knock that trade down, essentially not allowing to teams to make a fair trade that improves both rosters. collusion is the ONLY reason ever for a trade to be vetoed...

as for stories, not really... pretty normal trading, good ones and bad ones... no hard feelings really...
Last edited by treat24 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
treat24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafecasterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18188
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I'm drinking 'til I forget the 1999 NFC Championship game.

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby maddog60 » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:13 pm

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.


Exactly. While an abusive commish with sole veto power can kill a league, I think it's easier to find 1 person who can objectively look at all the trades, and respect the power of the veto for its intent (stopping collusion) than it is to get an entire league to do that.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby jayne_cobb » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:26 am

Hey everyone. I really appreciate this discussion. Its nice to hear what goes on in other pools.

I guess when reading your posts and applying it to our league what I need to come up with is a solid defintion of the word "collusion". I certainly think that on one end of the scale you have something as extreme as "I will trade you all my best players for your worst players and we split the winnings". However on the other hand you might have a scenario where one owner is trading for the present while another owner is trading for the future. So some might see that as a "I scratch your back you scratch mine" type of trade and as such consider it collution. However some might think whether trading for the present or future that could be considered a legitimate strategy and dosen't really mean the two owners in question are conspiring against the rest, just both trying to make their team better, one for the present and one for the future.

Its that grey area in the middle that our league sometimes has trouble defining. Any thoughts? Maybe examples? A way to define collusion? I realize you likely have to take each trade on a case by case basis,but just hearing the converation and your thoughts will really help me brinsg some ideas and examples to our league.

Thanks
jayne_cobb
Water Boy
Water Boy


Posts: 54
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby dream_017 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:56 am

jayne_cobb wrote:Hey everyone. I really appreciate this discussion. Its nice to hear what goes on in other pools.

I guess when reading your posts and applying it to our league what I need to come up with is a solid defintion of the word "collusion". I certainly think that on one end of the scale you have something as extreme as "I will trade you all my best players for your worst players and we split the winnings". However on the other hand you might have a scenario where one owner is trading for the present while another owner is trading for the future. So some might see that as a "I scratch your back you scratch mine" type of trade and as such consider it collution. However some might think whether trading for the present or future that could be considered a legitimate strategy and dosen't really mean the two owners in question are conspiring against the rest, just both trying to make their team better, one for the present and one for the future.

Its that grey area in the middle that our league sometimes has trouble defining. Any thoughts? Maybe examples? A way to define collusion? I realize you likely have to take each trade on a case by case basis,but just hearing the converation and your thoughts will really help me brinsg some ideas and examples to our league.

Thanks


I am with the majority in the cafe that believe unless there is collusion than a trade should stand.
This was posted a while ago** and I think it is very good in judging 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.



** NOTE that this was posted a while ago so some of the player references may be out of date
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: 15315
(Past Year: 69)
Joined: 3 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Ford Field: Section - 132; Row - 19; Seat - 11

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby eaglesrule » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:17 pm

I think its harder in football than it is in baseball. I mean I have pulled the trigger on trades that would only help me for two weeks before. But it had to be done as I needed to win out and couldn't afford to lose another game. in that scenario, I've traded very solid players for fill-in backs who could explode. I reserve the right to "overpay," if, in my estimation (and my estimation is really the relevant estimation when it comes to MY team), I need to sacrifice perceived value for results right now. I think with either fantasy sport that I play (baseball or football), if everyone perceived things the same way, there is no real point to playing. Too much vetoing is unfair because essentially, its the league making my rankings for me.

That said, one thing with football is you can also tell (in a rough estimate) kind of way, how that will help point totals on average. So i think a good way to look at it is to figure out an acceptable "variance" in points to account for differences in opinion. That said, reggie wayne for correl buckhalter should bever go down.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby Sixxgunn » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:33 pm

Kilroy1872 wrote:
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).



That is the only way to go. The other thing you have to have is owners that understand the pressure a commish is under to make those decisions. Far too often, the correct decision will be made, but there will still be people complaining about it simply because it helped someone out besides themselves. Sometimes it is like being a parent watching over these owners, and occasionally they need a slap on the wrist!
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1065/sixgunn7ao0rc.jpg[/img][/url]
Sixxgunn
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4887
(Past Year: 3)
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Who?

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby spodog » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:58 pm

I'll offer you another option that our league really likes and has used for over a decade now:

Trades are assumed "good" unless challenged by an owner in the league. If a challenge is issued, then the commish puts the trade in a pending status and ships the details of the trade of to a commissioner of another league with long standing, experienced players. The owners in that league (who are totally independent of our league, the majority don't even know anyone in our league), review the trade and pass judgement as to whether it is fair or not. This is sent back to our commish and the ruling of this "indepdent review board" is final in terms of the challenged trade. It is a little more work, but removes all the issues of subjectivity and conflict of interest in the other methods.

This system = ;-D ;-D ;-D

System with commish who everyone trusts = ;-D

System with all owners voting = :-t :-t
spodog
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerCafe SpotterWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4058
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: At my trailer on the beach in Malibu

Re: Trading in Fantasy Football.

Postby ironcityboy88 » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:31 pm

spodog wrote:I'll offer you another option that our league really likes and has used for over a decade now:

Trades are assumed "good" unless challenged by an owner in the league. If a challenge is issued, then the commish puts the trade in a pending status and ships the details of the trade of to a commissioner of another league with long standing, experienced players. The owners in that league (who are totally independent of our league, the majority don't even know anyone in our league), review the trade and pass judgement as to whether it is fair or not. This is sent back to our commish and the ruling of this "indepdent review board" is final in terms of the challenged trade. It is a little more work, but removes all the issues of subjectivity and conflict of interest in the other methods.

This system = ;-D ;-D ;-D

System with commish who everyone trusts = ;-D

System with all owners voting = :-t :-t


Not bad, but being as they are that "independent", the only thing you have to worry about is that these people don't "know" the people making the trade. Is one owner trading for a WR (by giving up a slightly better RB) because he's a fan of that "real" football team and simply likes him better? Do these people know the trade history of the teams involved, their dedication to the league, their active participation (past and present) in the league, their competitiveness, their "reasons for making the trade" which are not as obvious sometimes as you might think...sometimes it is better to be "judged" by people that know that people involved.

If a league has a solid commissioner, an unbiased and impartial commissioner, who is the sole individual responsible for vetoing a trade, then this is the system to use. I have been a commissioner (in the same league) since 1993. My fellow owners know that I am fair and impartial, sometimes I don't like accepting the trade because it might benefit a rival of mine, but I do it anyway (now, I'll still talk smack to the owners AFTER the trade is done, but that's about it). Bottom line, if you're changing out a lot of owners in your league every year, somethings wrong, and you need to correct it. If you have a "waiting list" of people that want to join your league, but haven't had an opening in years, you as a commissioner are doing something right. Keep up what you're doing, ask for input from the other league owners, but just realize that you as commissioner have the final say, whether people like it or not. If you're fair, they'll be fine with any decision you make even if they don't agree with it.
ironcityboy88
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 722
Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Windy City

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 3:49 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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