vetoable trade? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

vetoable trade?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby Bobbleheadrusty » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:33 pm

bungle613 wrote:
LS2throwed wrote:
bungle613 wrote:
You can't assume it is collusion.



Sorry, but if I'm commish, and I see a waiver wire kicker being traded for a WR1 I'm pulling the plug, I don't want to be involved in any leagues shifting the power like that, if you want to trade for one of the best kickers cool so be it, but I don't see anybody going about it by trading a dominant WR, if he really did want that kicker I'd tell him he needs to rethink his methods of what he wants to give up...Now player for player I'm very leniant, but I don't think this is acceptable in any league I am in.


I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that! :-b


Well, short of a confession how would you ever prove collusion? When a deal is this ridiculously uneven you have to 1) Veto it and 2) Assume collusion unless you can be convinced otherwise.
Bobbleheadrusty
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 282
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby LS2throwed » Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:25 am

bungle613 wrote:I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that! :-b



I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.
Image
Current Cafe Dynasties:
4th and Goal
Fourth & Inches
Double D
Any Given Dynasty
Eat Cheese Dynasty
NFL's Finest
Cafe Very Special Forces
LS2throwed
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 5373
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Arlington, Texas

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby bungle613 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:57 am

LS2throwed wrote:
bungle613 wrote:I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that! :-b



I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.


Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.
Image
Image
bungle613
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10988
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: straight ahead, hang a left, look down

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby Bobbleheadrusty » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:31 pm

bungle613 wrote:
LS2throwed wrote:
bungle613 wrote:I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that! :-b



I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.


Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.

So you are saying if a guy has Romo, Cutler and Eli and was weak at RB you would be ok with Romo for Ray Rice?

Because, while rosters may show surplus/need you still need to look at the players involved.
Bobbleheadrusty
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 282
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby bungle613 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:49 pm

Bobbleheadrusty wrote:
bungle613 wrote:
LS2throwed wrote:

I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.


Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.

So you are saying if a guy has Romo, Cutler and Eli and was weak at RB you would be ok with Romo for Ray Rice?

Because, while rosters may show surplus/need you still need to look at the players involved.


You need to look at everything and yes, I would allow that deal. I would talk to the 2 owners involved but it is unlikely that the deal is collusion. I am not goign to try and guess how someone values a player. Say I veto Romo for Rice and the guy trading for RIce heard that RIce was going to get the majority of the carries this week Rice goes off for 170 total and 2 tds and continues to put up top 10 fantasy numbers for the rest of the season.

A commish is not there to babysit league owners. I don't play in leagues that need babysitting and would highly suggest for even casual fantasy football players to get out of Yahoo public leagues where really bad trades are done.

I have been the commish of 2 leagues for 7 and 9 years and a co-commish in another league for 4 of its 5 years. In all 3 leagues, 1 deal in all 25 total seasons has been vetoed. It was in 2004

team 1 trades.......SA,westbrook,steve smith and Shockey to

team 2 for Toomer,Suggs,DAvenport,AMos Z., Eddie Kennison, Antionio Bryant

It wasn't even solely vetoed on the players involved but more so on the fact that one of the owners involved was upset and leaving the league and a moron thought he could take advantage. Team 2 left immediately, team 1 left the league shortly after.

It's the way I do things, some guys will disagree and I don't have an issue with that either. If your league is happy with the way it runs, continue that way.
Image
Image
bungle613
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10988
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: straight ahead, hang a left, look down

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby JasonSeahorn » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 pm

Romo for Rice would be better than this. I agree in not vetoing right away but you have to contact the manager getting Mare and see what his reasoning is for doing the trade.
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for sig, he is welcome to sail with the Captain too!

I will win all of the fantasy cafe games.....next year
JasonSeahorn
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5309
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Beantown, Taxachusetts

Re: vetoable trade?

Postby Script-Ohio » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:23 am

While I'm firmly in the "don't veto unless it's collusion" camp, a deal THIS clearly lopsided is more likely to be collusion than not. I'd veto it.
Script-Ohio
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 657
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Columbus, OH

Previous

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 19:31 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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