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

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby bungle613 » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:46 am

To start, I agree with points 1-3 that were made. If alarms go off then it is the job of the commish to dig into it.

The problem is that you can't ask a commish for an opinion. I will agree that for the most part that an ADP for Hightower deal will favour the owner getting ADP.

BUT

What if it doesn't. It is no one elses decision other than the owners involved in the deal. Not the league, not a commish. I can throw out dozens of names that could have been had for little or alot over the past few years that have won leagues for people. Most notable are Colston, Boldin in my mind. I saw Harrison for Colston deals as well as Stallworth for Colston. It is up to the 2 parties involved to determine value, no one else. One owner believed in week 3 that Colston is the next superstar and perhaps another felt like he was a fluke.

If I'm in a money league and I get a deal vetoed that costs me $1000 I would be seriously pissed.


I could probably list 1000's of deals that may warrant a deeper look then just letting it go through but almost always, they can not be vetoed.

Preseason this year

Holt for Royal
Burress for Berrian
Grant for Hightower

All the vetoers out there would have slammed these. What would they say now???

Live with your own mistakes, not someone elses.
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 Matthias » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:21 pm

bungle613 wrote:To start, I agree with points 1-3 that were made. If alarms go off then it is the job of the commish to dig into it.

The problem is that you can't ask a commish for an opinion. I will agree that for the most part that an ADP for Hightower deal will favour the owner getting ADP.

BUT

What if it doesn't.

If it doesn't, then the guy getting Hightower will probably be as surprised as you are. As I said above, the first thing to check is run down the list and see if you think there is some reason that the deal is fishy, ignoring the players traded.

If you're playing in a private league with friends that are all competitive and you know that they aren't going to do anything underhanded, then let someone trade Holt for Royal in the preseason, fine by me. Because I trust that it was a good-faith attempt to improve a team.

But if it's a private league and you have someone who never pays that much attention and only uses the league to talk at friends and he's 2-7 and trades away ADP for Hightower, I'm probably going to veto it. You can investigate it and maybe he has a really great reason or maybe he's just blowing smoke. But if he's not trying and he doesn't care he doesn't have the right to ruin the league for the 9 or 11 guys that do.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby spodog » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:54 pm

Open offer to The Lung and Mark St. Amant:

Both you guys get a beer on me next time you're in my pub. Amant's article is spot on. Thanks for posting, Lung.
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 dream_017 » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:59 pm

Matthias wrote:But if it's a private league and you have someone who never pays that much attention and only uses the league to talk at friends and he's 2-7 and trades away ADP for Hightower, I'm probably going to veto it. You can investigate it and maybe he has a really great reason or maybe he's just blowing smoke. But if he's not trying and he doesn't care he doesn't have the right to ruin the league for the 9 or 11 guys that do.

That is more something to take care of in the off-season as a commish. Do not bring this person back. You can not go around managing his team for him, how is that good for the league? You probably have different player values than the other owners in your league, why do you get to make the yes/no call. If it a league where he is only there for fun and all the other owners are competitive then you let him know that this is not the league for him...not going around and managing his team to make sure it conforms to your standards. How is a team going to learn if a marginal or bad trade (on the surface) is being veoted.
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: 15305
(Past Year: 59)
Joined: 3 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Ford Field: Section - 132; Row - 19; Seat - 11

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby Matthias » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:44 pm

dream_017 wrote:
Matthias wrote:But if it's a private league and you have someone who never pays that much attention and only uses the league to talk at friends and he's 2-7 and trades away ADP for Hightower, I'm probably going to veto it. You can investigate it and maybe he has a really great reason or maybe he's just blowing smoke. But if he's not trying and he doesn't care he doesn't have the right to ruin the league for the 9 or 11 guys that do.

That is more something to take care of in the off-season as a commish. Do not bring this person back.

Well, all these are just cases of someone coming to this board and asking about a proposed trade. They're not asking, "Should I kick this person out of my league?" I agree with you; the best way is to have guys who are active and competitive and that's how it is in my leagues and I'm guessing that's how it is in your leagues, but you can't presume that is the case in every league where someone asks a question.
dream_017 wrote:You can not go around managing his team for him, how is that good for the league? You probably have different player values than the other owners in your league, why do you get to make the yes/no call.

Because enforcing that there is no colluding, cheating, and dirty dealing is the job of the commissioner. It is to make the league fun for all 10-14 players involved, not just two yahoos who want to cheat the system. If you don't like it or think it shouldn't be that way, then easy, play in a league with no trade review and tell people to play in leagues with no trade review. But once people have joined a league where the commissioner is supposed to review trades, then that is the system that they're operating under.
dream_017 wrote:If it a league where he is only there for fun and all the other owners are competitive then you let him know that this is not the league for him...not going around and managing his team to make sure it conforms to your standards. How is a team going to learn if a marginal or bad trade (on the surface) is being veoted.

You guys keep putting words or ideas in my mouth. I never, not once, said that I'm for managing someone's team for them or that trades have to fit my idea of value. What I have said is that when someone asks about a trade being vetoed, the first thing one should ask is if there is any reason that the person suspects funny business. Is it a public league? Is the league, and especially the teams in question, competitive and want to win? Does the person have some reason to suspect that the owners involved are untrustworthy or would be willing to do an unfair deal with one another? If, and only if the answer to those questions are yes, and in descending order of importance, then the commissioner has no choice but to look at the value of the players involved, given the overall circumstances of the league (total rosters, schedule, etc., etc.). Because if you can't trust an owner not to be cheating you, then you can't trust that the reason that they're giving you for doing the trade isn't hogwash. So all that you're left with is the player values as they are generally understood.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby bobbing_headz » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:48 pm

Image
Less C*** More Rock
bobbing_headz
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 5602
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: North of the Border

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby joejlitz » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:58 am

bungle613 wrote:To start, I agree with points 1-3 that were made. If alarms go off then it is the job of the commish to dig into it.

The problem is that you can't ask a commish for an opinion. I will agree that for the most part that an ADP for Hightower deal will favour the owner getting ADP.

BUT

What if it doesn't. It is no one elses decision other than the owners involved in the deal. Not the league, not a commish. I can throw out dozens of names that could have been had for little or alot over the past few years that have won leagues for people. Most notable are Colston, Boldin in my mind. I saw Harrison for Colston deals as well as Stallworth for Colston. It is up to the 2 parties involved to determine value, no one else. One owner believed in week 3 that Colston is the next superstar and perhaps another felt like he was a fluke.

If I'm in a money league and I get a deal vetoed that costs me $1000 I would be seriously pissed.


I could probably list 1000's of deals that may warrant a deeper look then just letting it go through but almost always, they can not be vetoed.

Preseason this year

Holt for Royal
Burress for Berrian
Grant for Hightower

All the vetoers out there would have slammed these. What would they say now???

Live with your own mistakes, not someone elses.

Spot on, bungle.

And when Dream said that a commish's relative value of a player may not reflect the value the other 9-11 guys in the league have...that's a true statement as well. A player's value goes well-beyond the total number of fantasy points he produces. There are positional needs to fill, there are handcuffs to obtain, there are injury-prone starters that may frustrate an owner regardless of how much of a stud he is (how about an SJAX for Hillis trade these days?), and there is also the need that some owners have to own their favorite players or players from their favorite teams.

Commishioners are in charge of the league, but that doesn't always mean that they know what is best for the league.
"There is no charge for awesomeness or attractiveness." - Po (Kung Fu Panda)
Image
joejlitz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 7050
(Past Year: 37)
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Home Cafe: Football
Location: G-14 Classified

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby Matthias » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:39 pm

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.

Lessee.... the response to this in kind might be....

The one thing I hate in fantasy football right now? When would-be commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe King Solomon-Ayn Rand-Jeanne Dixon is running around Rotoworld right now, drunk on sweet internet publishing nectar, wantonly brow-beating commissioners and sacrificing their Tiki Barber Fathead. Their explanation? "We're protecting the trader." Huh? Unless a commissioner is blessed with the ability to read minds, they never knows 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? Maybe collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Maybe collusion. Frank Gore and Jay Cutler for Ray Rice and Joe Flacco? Maybe collusion. Larry Fitzgerald for Anquan Boldin? Maybe collusion. You might believe that some of these trades are closer than others, or be angry that you read about people who get their trades vetoed, but there is only one variable involved -- whether or not the teams involved intended to improve their teams or to cheat the league -- to say definitely whether or no there was collusion.

Look, fantasy writers, as dashing as you may look in a fake expert title with cute little icons for medals, you're not a dictator. You don't tell a commissioner on the ground what to do unless you're involved with that league or know what's going on in it. We're not sure if you believe you have the power to alter the space/time continuum or merely that you have read the mind of every fantasy player from now until infinity, but the reality is you don't know what's going on in the mind of people trading, and much less than the person appointed to judge it. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to commissioner school: league owners have to live with the decisions of the commissioner they appointed, and that includes veto remorse. And the only time you should wield your commissioner powers is when it's your own league. So back off, Joseph Stalin. We're not marching to your drum; we have our own band to play and noone want to hear dictates from Central Command telling us how to run our leagues. But you can keep the medals; they're the best thing you have going for you.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Commissioners should NEVER veto trades!

Postby bungle613 » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:24 am

Matthias wrote:
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.

Lessee.... the response to this in kind might be....

The one thing I hate in fantasy football right now? When would-be commissioners go wild. See, a wannabe King Solomon-Ayn Rand-Jeanne Dixon is running around Rotoworld right now, drunk on sweet internet publishing nectar, wantonly brow-beating commissioners and sacrificing their Tiki Barber Fathead. Their explanation? "We're protecting the trader." Huh? Unless a commissioner is blessed with the ability to read minds, they never knows 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? Maybe collusion. Ronnie Brown & T.O. for LenDale White & Calvin Johnson? Maybe collusion. Frank Gore and Jay Cutler for Ray Rice and Joe Flacco? Maybe collusion. Larry Fitzgerald for Anquan Boldin? Maybe collusion. You might believe that some of these trades are closer than others, or be angry that you read about people who get their trades vetoed, but there is only one variable involved -- whether or not the teams involved intended to improve their teams or to cheat the league -- to say definitely whether or no there was collusion.

Look, fantasy writers, as dashing as you may look in a fake expert title with cute little icons for medals, you're not a dictator. You don't tell a commissioner on the ground what to do unless you're involved with that league or know what's going on in it. We're not sure if you believe you have the power to alter the space/time continuum or merely that you have read the mind of every fantasy player from now until infinity, but the reality is you don't know what's going on in the mind of people trading, and much less than the person appointed to judge it. It's not your job to "protect" a grown man who unfortunately rode the short bus to commissioner school: league owners have to live with the decisions of the commissioner they appointed, and that includes veto remorse. And the only time you should wield your commissioner powers is when it's your own league. So back off, Joseph Stalin. We're not marching to your drum; we have our own band to play and noone want to hear dictates from Central Command telling us how to run our leagues. But you can keep the medals; they're the best thing you have going for you.


You do when a response is solicited in a public forum.

So if your tongue in cheek repsonse holds any truth, you can start by asking all these guys asking (ASKING) for input into there situation to stop posting here if they do not want to hear us.

The bottom line is use your head as a league participant or commish.
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 Matthias » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:48 am

bungle613 wrote:You do when a response is solicited in a public forum.

So if your tongue in cheek repsonse holds any truth, you can start by asking all these guys asking (ASKING) for input into there situation to stop posting here if they do not want to hear us.

Not true. First, the above was written as a response to Lamont's piece who is writing a fantasy column trying to influence every league in existence, not advice to anyone posting in a forum about their individual league. Second, it does no good for people to ask for advice if the response is going to be the same no matter what their question is. I don't object to people giving advice; I object to people giving blind advice. The whole attitude of, "I don't care what the trade is; never veto" isn't advice, it's a dogma. And that's not what people come to ask their questions for.
bungle613 wrote:The bottom line is use your head as a league participant or commish.

That's all I'm sayin'.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

PreviousNext

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 14:28 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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