Commissioners should NEVER veto trades! - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Moderator: Football Moderators

Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby The Lung » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:58 pm

I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, and it's not your job to examine every single trade under a microscope to decide upon "whether the competitive balance of the league is kept intact." When Adrian Peterson gets traded to another team for a kicker, then you have reason to suspect funny business. Anything short of that, the trade should go through!

Here's a funny passage from Mark St. Amant of Rotoworld on the topic:

From: Fight the Power

I hate three things in fantasy football right now: When commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe Caesar-Crassus-Pompey triumvirate is running amok in one of my leagues, drunk on sweet power nectar, wantonly vetoing trades and sacrificing virgins. Their explanation? "We're protecting the competitive integrity of the league." Huh? A commish should only veto a trade if it's collusion. Period. Last place owner trades AP & Andre Johnson to first place owner/longtime roommate/best man/brother-in-law for Fred Lane & Rae Carruth? Collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Not collusion. You might prefer one side of the deal vs. the other, or be angry that your offer for Calvin was shot down, but there are simply are too many variables involved -- Ronnie's 8 TDs vs. inconsistency; T.O.'s rebound potential vs. meltdown potential; Calvin's athleticism vs. QB worries; LenDale's TDs vs. RBBC with Johnson -- to veto.

Look, commissioners, as dashing as you might look in a fake general's uniform with Fisher Price war medals on it, you're not a dictator. You don't veto unless it's a blatant attempt to defraud/cheat the league. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to the trade negotiations: owners have to live with their decisions, and that includes buyer's/seller's remorse. And the only time you should wield commish power is if an absentee owner is, say, still starting Tom Brady each week. So back off, Kim Jong-il. No one wants to see your freakishly massive forehead and Harry Carey glasses 'round these parts anymore.


;-D
(~);}

Image

(~);}
The Lung
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9850
(Past Year: 68)
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Disgusted with Mocha Bean

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby bungle613 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:25 pm

Man, I just bought that uniform.

Nice post Lung.
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: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby JasonSeahorn » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm

Lung is just mad that his trade of giving up Vinatieri for Peterson was vetoed.
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: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby WaCougMBS » Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:31 pm

Now this is a necessary public service if I have ever seen one! We are about to start a weekly segment on the podcast just to rag on the foolish Commish's Corner post of the week :-b
Image
Av/sig by deluxe_247
WaCougMBS
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
Radio PimpEditorModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafecasterTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8164
Joined: 29 May 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New to the "block"

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby flotsamnjetsam » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:54 pm

The Lung wrote:I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, and it's not your job to examine every single trade under a microscope to decide upon "whether the competitive balance of the league is kept intact." When Adrian Peterson gets traded to another team for a kicker, then you have reason to suspect funny business. Anything short of that, the trade should go through!

Here's a funny passage from Mark St. Amant of Rotoworld on the topic:

From: Fight the Power

I hate three things in fantasy football right now: When commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe Caesar-Crassus-Pompey triumvirate is running amok in one of my leagues, drunk on sweet power nectar, wantonly vetoing trades and sacrificing virgins. Their explanation? "We're protecting the competitive integrity of the league." Huh? A commish should only veto a trade if it's collusion. Period. Last place owner trades AP & Andre Johnson to first place owner/longtime roommate/best man/brother-in-law for Fred Lane & Rae Carruth? Collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Not collusion. You might prefer one side of the deal vs. the other, or be angry that your offer for Calvin was shot down, but there are simply are too many variables involved -- Ronnie's 8 TDs vs. inconsistency; T.O.'s rebound potential vs. meltdown potential; Calvin's athleticism vs. QB worries; LenDale's TDs vs. RBBC with Johnson -- to veto.

Look, commissioners, as dashing as you might look in a fake general's uniform with Fisher Price war medals on it, you're not a dictator. You don't veto unless it's a blatant attempt to defraud/cheat the league. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to the trade negotiations: owners have to live with their decisions, and that includes buyer's/seller's remorse. And the only time you should wield commish power is if an absentee owner is, say, still starting Tom Brady each week. So back off, Kim Jong-il. No one wants to see your freakishly massive forehead and Harry Carey glasses 'round these parts anymore.


;-D




Awesome post Lung. From now on I'm just going to post a link to this thread in every "should I veto?" thread. ;-D


Now we just need a "WHIR" explanation & "how to post a link" explanation stickied in the Beginners forum. :-b :-B
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for the awesome sig!
flotsamnjetsam
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17169
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New York State Of Mind: 18-1

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby Lunger » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:18 pm

Nice post. Just curious... Does anyone out there have their league set up for trades to go through automatically or still have commish review it "just in case."? I'd like to set mine to go through automatically but is that a bad idea?
Lunger
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 857
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby dupree » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:26 pm

We still do a 24 wait so the Commish has time to review it in case of Collusion, never had to actually veto a trade.
dupree
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 247
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby padrino990_200 » Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:59 pm

thank you
padrino990_200
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1239
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby spodog » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:26 pm

NEVER is a pretty big word, but the scoreboard I've been maintaining the last 4 years* for veto posts in the Commissioner's Corner forum seem to support a value that is statistically indistinguishable from NEVER:

http://www.fantasyfootballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=238&t=423535&p=2934692&hilit=scoreboard#p2934692





* - which means I totally made these statistics up, but they are pretty accurate.
Image
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: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby Matthias » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:36 am

The Lung wrote:I seem to see a lot of "Veto Trade?" threads in this forum. And based on my experience, as well as the observed common sentiments from many, many other seasoned Cafe experts, the answer is that commissioners should practically NEVER veto trades, unless the trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is involved.

Well, that's the rub, though, ain't it. Even ignoring the problem of people who are semi-awake colluders so have enough sense to do a trade that is something just better than Adrian Peterson for a kicker, say..... Adrian Peterson for Tim Hightower or Adrian Peterson for Peyton Hillis, you still have the problem of deciding exactly where you define "obviously lopsided". You really don't solve the problem, you just push it off into forcing a solution of something else.

The best Veto or not discussion I've seen in three or so years at the Cafe was over at the Light Side this spring here. The gist of it came down to the below.
Basically, I would put out again (maybe refine a little) an idea that noseeum and I agreed upon last week. And that's that one of the last places to look for the appropriateness of a veto is the players traded. The factors to consider, in order of importance, are...
1) Do you know everyone? If it's an anonymous public league, skip to the end.
2) Are these all guys who are trying? Even between friends/relatives, you can get the guy who does the league because he's asked but will give up halfway through and decide that he's going to trade away all his roster to get all players whose last name start with C or some nonsense because it amuses him.
3) Are all these guys you trust, particularly the two involved in the trade? I've seen threads of people talking about how trades were done between father/teenage son or between roommates/best friends and after the tempest in the teapot it came out that actually, yah, one of them was trying to help the other out.

If the answers to all those 3 questions are yes, then stop. The trade is fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at Longoria for Pujols in my league because all the guys are grown men and we don't have any shenanigans. It would be more embarrassing to them to be thought of as a dirty dealer than it would be to finish in the cellar. The only real close case I could think of if all 3 of those answers are yes is if you have a true newbie who really doesn't know anything and is getting ridiculously fleeced, but even then I don't think a veto is as appropriate as busting the balls of the fleecer and trying to shame him into giving the newbie a decent deal. If not, then lesson learned.

If the answer to those questions are no, then you start probing if there's something else going on. The problem with stating by fiat, "No veto except for collusion" is that you set up this essentially unprovable standard. Fantasy sports are a game that some people take seriously and some don't. There aren't millions of dollars riding on it and in many cases there isn't a single dime. So it's very possible for people (who don't fit the 3 criteria above) to be influenced by something outside of pure player values to make it worthwhile to them. And without any real power of investigation, all you have is the word of the people who you think could be cheating. All you have are the value of the players traded, placed into the context of the league scoring, setup, rosters, etc. And so then you're forced to rely upon the value of the players traded to decide if this is something legitimate or something else.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

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 20:55 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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