Fishy trade. Vetoable?

[steelerfan513]

I don't understand why Owner ignorance shouldn't be vetoable.
Also, this guy that is getting Maroney already has Addai and now has Bulger. It's pretty ridiculous.

It is good to include ALL information before bashing someone else in a thread. Under normal circumstances, this isn't a terrible trade.

So it's a bad trade because it makes a team too good? That sounds more like vetoing because you don't want to lose than vetoing for any actual valid reason.

I think the original poster is trying to say that this trade would upset the competitive balance of the league, and although that can be true in some cases, this trade is definitely not like that. A trade that I would consider upsetting the competitive balance of the league would be something like LaDainian Tomlinson for Greg Jones or something of that nature, a trade that is so obviously unbalanced that any person who has even heard of football would know how ridiculous the trade is. This trade isn't ridiculously unbalanced at all, especially not to the level that it is vetoable.

[talan37]

I post a lot in FBC in the commishioner section, and saw this trade and thought i could add something to it.

Owners are very often extremely trigger-happy with the veto, which can eliminate the chances of making any trades.

That being said, I think a few too many people are gung-ho about letting owners do whatever they want, a bad trade getting through can destroy the competitive balance of a league. Is it worth letting one owner who wasn't going to win anyway "learn his lesson" to completely destroy the league for 10 other people?

Also another thing to think about- If two players are "colluding" its pretty much impossible to know for sure unless they are utterly stupid enough to give you the aim logs, or voice recordings etc etc. You will never "catch" people actually colluding except through circumstancial evidence unless your dealing with real-life people with iq's of 50. Noone will ever admit... "yeah me and john schemed to make one good team." People say all the time "yeah I caught this guy cheating because he has two screennames in one league", you think you caught him, you have no definate proof, but there is an awful lot of circumstancial evidence.

There are also other sorts of collusion beyond player A says to player B lets make an awesome team. There is collusion via Apathy where an owner doesn't follow his team and will accept any trade that comes his way regardless of his roster or value. In this same vein is owners who are out of the race and don't really care, so will make trades that are obviously unfair because they want to screw someone else, or because they just don't give a crap. These type of trades can just as easily ruin a league as two guys actively trying to do so.

So when you evaluate whether a trade is vetoable or not, you need to consider all of the circumstancial evidence.

The facts-

Using Yahoo's ADP(its only 1 game into the season and noone has a serious injury so you should be using what there value going into the season was considered, one game doesn't significantly change anyones value unless there is an injury)

Team A:
Maroney-11.9(round 1)
Bulger-35.5(round 3)

Team B:
Housh-29(round 3)
Lynch-70(round 6)

Value-wise straight up, that is pretty unfair. Assuming Bulger and Housh are marginally different in value(about 1/2 rounds difference), you have a HUGE difference between Maroney and Lynch.

There are mitigating factor's though, Team A might have a strong quarterback he can rely on and doesn't want bulger to sit on his bench, so it would improve his team to get rid of bulger in a slightly unfair trade for an upgrade at WR. Without seeing rosters though its impossible to figure this out. Both teams should be genuinely trying to improve there teams. In addition there are theoretical injury concerns with Maroney.

If this was a league with people I knew(coworkers/friends) and I was commishioner I would ask them why they wanted to do the trade. If they had ok reasoning I would let it go through. I would also let it go through assuming roster related factors as mentioned above.

If this significantly hurt the team giving up Maroney and Bulger(Ie. He has 3 good receivers already and no backup QB) and he had no good reason for doing so other than(because its my team) I would vote to Veto.

I do think this trade is far enough off in value that there needs to be another reason for the trade to be ok whether it be because of your roster, or what have you. You don't simply get rid of your first round draft pick for a significantly lesser player at the same position without good reason. If you were that concerned about injury you wouldn't have drafted him in the first place.

Veto's are rarely simple imo unless its obviously unbalanced(which it rarely is).

[dgan]

I like the previous post, but frankly, I have to say that if you don't want to be in a league with bad players or rookie players, don't be in that league. Just because it 'ruins' it for everyone else doesn't mean you have the right to run his team unless you are paying his entry fees. Basically, if the guy pays his fees, he is allowed to do anything he feels is in the best interest of his team. If you're in a league with morons who make bad trades, find a different league. Don't revoke his trading privileges unless you're going to pay his entry fee.

The competitive balance is less about balance and more about competitive...as long as they guy is honestly trying to compete, it doesn't matter how unbalanced you think his trade will make the league. His team, his decision.

[West Coast Bias]

Using Yahoo's ADP(its only 1 game into the season and noone has a serious injury so you should be using what there value going into the season was considered, one game doesn't significantly change anyones value unless there is an injury)

I don't completely disagree with you, but I do believe that there is a more accurate determiner of value. This early in the season, barring an injury, the value should be determined by the spot in which they were drafted in their particular league. That would be like me trading , say, gasoline for firewood here in Tennessee, but using the average worldwide value. In other words I can scream all day long that the national average for gas is $2.98 but if it is $2.16 in Tn, then that is it's value. Or if Kelly Blue Book says my car is worth $15,000 but the highest offer is $13,900, then that is the value.

In my league I got T.Holt late in round 3 (the 7th WR taken). Now people veto the trade using the argument that he is a top 3 WR. Well two weeks ago we just determined, as a group, that he was the 7th. There is no greater or, I should say, more unbiased indicator than where this group chose players.That is where the rubber meats the road, or, to use another cliche', that was the value we determined when our money was where our mouths were.

Thanks for your well thought out argument, even if we don't agree.

Brandon

[Peacesells]

Was hoping for some feedback on wether or not you guys think it's fair to veto this trade.
I think it's one sided.

TJ Houshmanzadeh
Marshawn Lynch

for

Marc Bulger
Laurence Maroney

Thoughts?

So, 2 weeks into the season..is this still such a lopsided trade? I don't think Maroney is turning into the stud you think he is.

Peace

[Felix the Cat]

That being said, I think a few too many people are gung-ho about letting owners do whatever they want, a bad trade getting through can destroy the competitive balance of a league. Is it worth letting one owner who wasn't going to win anyway "learn his lesson" to completely destroy the league for 10 other people?

This column by Andy Behrens (about the only one of his which isn't just plain horrible) puts it nicely.

Don't talk to me about competitive balance, either. None of us are trying to achieve that. In fact, the purpose of everything you do as a manager is to achieve competitive imbalance. You're trying to win. Everyone should be trying to win. As long as all parties in a trade believe they've improved their chances, there's not much left to consider.

[Peacesells]

That being said, I think a few too many people are gung-ho about letting owners do whatever they want, a bad trade getting through can destroy the competitive balance of a league. Is it worth letting one owner who wasn't going to win anyway "learn his lesson" to completely destroy the league for 10 other people?

This column by Andy Behrens (about the only one of his which isn't just plain horrible) puts it nicely.

Don't talk to me about competitive balance, either. None of us are trying to achieve that. In fact, the purpose of everything you do as a manager is to achieve competitive imbalance. You're trying to win. Everyone should be trying to win. As long as all parties in a trade believe they've improved their chances, there's not much left to consider.

What an awesome quote...great find!

[nateb]

It's a fine line. You can't protect idiots from themselves but you don't want idiots tipping the competitive balance either.

I would not have vetoed the trade mentioned in this post though.

[Goody]

It's a fine line. You can't protect idiots from themselves but you don't want idiots tipping the competitive balance either.

I would not have vetoed the trade mentioned in this post though.

Competitive balance has nothing to do with trades. The only reason a trade should be vetoed is if there is collusion. Now if someone trades LT for Leon Washington, yes, the competitive balance would be tipped, but that is not the reason to veto it. There is no doubt collusion in a trade like that and it is up to the commissioner to investigate and have each party explain his reasoning behind the trade. Keeping competitive balance should not be considered when a trade is proposed.....EVER!!!

An example of this is a team who drafts better than everybody and has the best team after the draft. The competitive balance is tipped, but you can't do anything about it. It is all part of the game. The veto should only be used to uphold the integrity of the league, not to uphold the competitive balance.

[West Coast Bias]

I agree with the above post. Look, a person should be able to buy low and sell high. That is part of being better than your opponent. If a person drafts so well that he has great depth at a position where he had the foresight to better judge demand later on, he should be allowed to be rewarded by trading that player to another team. The trade might not be close to even numbers wise, but still help his team by bolstering a position that people overdrafted on.