That is not exaclty what the original poster stated. His 2 examples are
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.
and I agree with him. It is not up to a commish to judge any, and I will stand by that, ANY deal that does not throw up serious flags. A commish should not be spending 30 minutes disecting a deal to "see" if anything is wrong with it. A bad deal, a collusional (even a word???) deal sends up fireworks 99 times out of 100. This is when a commish steps in. I am not interested in being in a league that has a commish who investigates to find that one collusional deal that may slip through at the cost of questioning 99 legit deals.
New owner to FF deals LT2 for Royal. So be it. Casual owner who is somewhat inactive deals LT2 for Royal. So be it Owner decides to call it a year and play for the future in a keeper, so be it.
A commish has no right in making his opinion the truth. A commish wants to protect a league then do so but do it the right way.
Loaning of players, completely inactive player who appears to make a deal, top 10 RB or WR or whatever for a kicker this is what a commish protects against.
Matthias wrote:The whole attitude of, "I don't care what the trade is; never veto" isn't advice, it's a dogma.
And that was never what the 'attitude' said.
It was: "Commissioners should practically never veto trades, unless they are so outrageously lopsided as to suspect collusion."
Furthermore, one thing you seem to be hung up on, Matthias, is the proving of collusion. That was never indicated either. If a trade is so obviously lopsided that collusion is suspected, that's what I'm going to tell the participants and reject it on those grounds. Whether they are actually colluding or not, I don't care. I agree with you that proving such may be next to impossible in most cases, and commissioners should not even bother to waste their time with that activity.
This doesn't have to be rocket science. I think this is getting over-analyzed to an extreme that is hardly necessary. People come into this forum with their "Should I veto trade?" questions and 99 out of 100 times it's a legit trade that commissioners have no business vetoing. Really, the only intent here was to provide a very simple "rule of thumb" for people to go by, which would help cut down on the unnecessary amount of threads (and time & energy) dedicated to this topic. Again, a very large percentage of this fantasy community, and many long time experts, seem to agree upon this, as well as the participants of every fantasy league I've ever participated in since 2001. Simply put, only trades so obviously lopsided as to suspect collusion should be the only ones not allowed. There's no reason for commissioners to ever make it any more difficult than that. That's all the complicated it needs to be.
bungle613 wrote:That is not exaclty what the original poster stated. His 2 examples are
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.
and I agree with him. It is not up to a commish to judge any, and I will stand by that, ANY deal that does not throw up serious flags. A commish should not be spending 30 minutes disecting a deal to "see" if anything is wrong with it. A bad deal, a collusional (even a word???) deal sends up fireworks 99 times out of 100. This is when a commish steps in.
No. This is where you guys are getting confused.
Collusion does not equal greatly unbalanced. Collusion is its own idea which exists separate from the fairness of a deal. Not that Merriam Webster is the bible, especially on these types of concepts, but they're as good as most, and their definition of collusion:
Main Entry: col·lu·sion Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere Date: 14th century : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Now, if you want to say, "No veto except for something that only a retarded chimpanzee would accept when given a keyboard" then say that's your standard. But if you want to say, "No veto except for collusion" then at least know what it is that you're talking about. Because what collusion means, and what you're really trying to protect, is two owners from working together to beat the rest of the league in a deal that wouldn't otherwise make sense. And to do that, whoever is evaluating the trade has to take into consideration all of the surrounding circumstances but primarily whether or not the people doing the deal have a history and likelihood of being competitive or they are likely to be cheating the system. And you cannot do that just by looking at the players traded and saying that as long as it isn't absolutely bat-crazy insane, it's not collusion.
Certainly the presumption is that the deal is legit. But there some that may not be, even without using the retarded chimpanzee as your yardstick.
The Lung wrote:Simply put, only trades so obviously lopsided or where the people involved in the deal are untrustworthy as to suspect collusion should be the only ones not allowed. There's no reason for commissioners to ever make it any more difficult than that. That's all the complicated it needs to be.
If you added the phrase in italics, we would agree 100%.
bungle613 wrote:That is not exaclty what the original poster stated. His 2 examples are
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.
and I agree with him. It is not up to a commish to judge any, and I will stand by that, ANY deal that does not throw up serious flags. A commish should not be spending 30 minutes disecting a deal to "see" if anything is wrong with it. A bad deal, a collusional (even a word???) deal sends up fireworks 99 times out of 100. This is when a commish steps in.
No. This is where you guys are getting confused.
Collusion does not equal greatly unbalanced. Collusion is its own idea which exists separate from the fairness of a deal. Not that Merriam Webster is the bible, especially on these types of concepts, but they're as good as most, and their definition of collusion:
Main Entry: col·lu·sion Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere Date: 14th century : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Now, if you want to say, "No veto except for something that only a retarded chimpanzee would accept when given a keyboard" then say that's your standard. But if you want to say, "No veto except for collusion" then at least know what it is that you're talking about. Because what collusion means, and what you're really trying to protect, is two owners from working together to beat the rest of the league in a deal that wouldn't otherwise make sense. And to do that, whoever is evaluating the trade has to take into consideration all of the surrounding circumstances but primarily whether or not the people doing the deal have a history and likelihood of being competitive or they are likely to be cheating the system. And you cannot do that just by looking at the players traded and saying that as long as it isn't absolutely bat-crazy insane, it's not collusion.
Certainly the presumption is that the deal is legit. But there some that may not be, even without using the retarded chimpanzee as your yardstick.
Very fine line to walk Matthias. Not an easy thing to judge whether 2 buddies are just making a deal or whether they are trying to collude.
I will err on the side of trusting that the deal is legit and not have to question my league mates on each and every deal. I will stick to "protecting" the league from retarded chimps.
bungle613 wrote:Very fine line to walk Matthias. Not an easy thing to judge whether 2 buddies are just making a deal or whether they are trying to collude.
I will err on the side of trusting that the deal is legit and not have to question my league mates on each and every deal. I will stick to "protecting" the league from retarded chimps.
If it's a fine line, then you let the trade through. But if it's not a fine line, either because the players are so ridiculous or the surrounding circumstances are so suspect, then you veto.
An example of what I'm talking about is this thread here. On a simple player basis, the trade looks alright.
Chris Johnson and Visanthe Schianco for Clinton Portis and Antonio Gates
My guess is most people would prefer Portis & Gates as they're the more sure commodities, but there could definitely be someone who was turned off by Portis' injury concerns and a big believer in CJ4.24. But... when you look at the owners involved....
Team A (1st place, 8-2) and Team B (Last place, 1-9)
with the additional information that Team B has been not updating his roster, has been leaving in an injured QB the past few weeks, assuming this is not a keeper league (the OP never said one way or another), and if you have some reason to think that Team A and Team B are less than trustworthy guys, then the commissioner has to use a judgment call on the veto. I would not advise someone to automatically approve it as there are outside circumstances which makes one suspect collusion, even though the players involved are not as blatant as Adrian Peterson for a Martin Gramatica.
This is all a long way of saying that the players in a deal are one of the things that you consider when trying to figure out if there is collusion happening, but it is not the only thing. Obviously, you will never know for sure one way or another, even the most lopsided trades may be the result of some private valuation, but all you can do is look at everything going on and give your best judgment.
And the best alternative, of course, is just to play in a competitive league with guys you know and trust, and then the commissioner never has to even consider veto'ing anything but is rather just there to fix accidental mistakes (say, someone dropping the wrong Adrian Peterson when they picked up a free agent) and deal with website hosting issues.
15 years of playing. Probably around 100 leagues. Have commished maybe 20 seasons in a variety of leagues and the only deal I have ever vetoed was in 2004.
DemonKillers trades.......SA,westbrook,steve smith and Shockey
to
TheVikings for Toomer,Suggs,DAvenport,AMos Z., Eddie Kennison, Antionio Bryant
Vikings was pissed at the league and was bailing. Retarded chimp thought accepting this deal would be cool.
Literally 100's of trades have come across my eyes and this is the only deal I vetoed.
As we have both said, we both agree on what we want to have happen in a league, we just seem to differ on what course of action should be taken to achieve it. I would prefer to trust my co-owners to manage things themselves.
bungle613 wrote:15 years of playing. Probably around 100 leagues. Have commished maybe 20 seasons in a variety of leagues and the only deal I have ever vetoed was in 2004.
Probably 8 years of playing, have commished for about 5 in a variety of leagues and the only deal I have ever vetoed was a few years ago in a public league where one other guy and I found out and had definitive proof that someone else had multiple teams in the league and was trading with himself.
bungle613 wrote:As we have both said, we both agree on what we want to have happen in a league, we just seem to differ on what course of action should be taken to achieve it. I would prefer to trust my co-owners to manage things themselves.
No, where we differ is I am saying through all this when people post for advice, they are not part of my league. I don't know what their league is like. And until you ask them do you know the guys? Do you trust the guys? Does everyone in the league compete or is one guy involved punting on the season and just doesn't care? you can't give really good advice just based off of the players involved. It has nothing to do with me trusting my co-owners or you trusting your co-owners, what it has to do with is when some random person in their unknown league comes in and asks for advice, you have to establish if their league is like your league or isn't it. That's where we differ.
Fair enough but read through the last 15 "should this be vetoed" posts. Very few of those even warrant the question of trust. I prefer not to chase after a possibility but to look at the players involved first. If that triggers something in my head, then I will dig depper, not the other way around.
A poster who includes the info that 1) they are friends or family 2) Have given up 3) Are angry with the league I will reply based on that info.
A poster who asks if I believe Chris Johnson and Visanthe Schiancoe for Clinton Portis and Antonio Gates and states that Johnson is mediocre and Shiancoe is garbage my answer will simply be NO. Not, look for this or look for that. The answer is no, it should not be vetoed.
Matthias wrote:An example of what I'm talking about is this thread here. On a simple player basis, the trade looks alright.
Chris Johnson and Visanthe Schianco for Clinton Portis and Antonio Gates
My guess is most people would prefer Portis & Gates as they're the more sure commodities, but there could definitely be someone who was turned off by Portis' injury concerns and a big believer in CJ4.24. But... when you look at the owners involved....
Team A (1st place, 8-2) and Team B (Last place, 1-9)
with the additional information that Team B has been not updating his roster, has been leaving in an injured QB the past few weeks, assuming this is not a keeper league (the OP never said one way or another), and if you have some reason to think that Team A and Team B are less than trustworthy guys, then the commissioner has to use a judgment call on the veto. I would not advise someone to automatically approve it as there are outside circumstances which makes one suspect collusion, even though the players involved are not as blatant as Adrian Peterson for a Martin Gramatica.
All that other info (last place to first place, negligent owner, less than trustworthy guys, etc.) means diddly squat to me.
Is the trade horribly unbalanced? No. End of story - the trade would go through the leagues I commish.
In my book, a trade is only collusive in fantasy football if it greatly benefits one owner over another.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bungle613 » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:45 pm 
