Recently an issue came up with a league that I am the commissioner of that I wonder if you all could explore. A team manager that lost interest in the league decided to trade off his entire roster, proposing some very unbalanced trades. 3 such trades were proposed by him and accepted. All three were unbalanced. (Tomlinson, Bowe, and Chris Johnson for Mark Bradley, Robbie Gould, and Brady Quinn was the third one, to give you an idea of the disparity.) Then something interesting happened. The first two were accepted, however the third was vetoed. All three had, in my opinion, the same degree of one-sidedness; the owner was clearly just looking to empty out his roster and the other owners he proposed the deals to considered it foolish not to accept. The question in my mind is, why did the league veto the last trade without also vetoing the first two. The owner of the team benefiting in the vetoed trade has asked me to step in and either allow all three or reverse all three. I am not sure what to do here, as it seems to me all of this was done within the league rules, however it just seems fundamentally wrong to veto one but not the others. What I HAVE learned is to keep the veto power to the commissioner rather than give it to the league in future leagues. Let me know what you all think. Thanks in advance
Did you talk with the manager who "lost interest?" If you feel that he really is not trying to improve his team through the trades, and that he is just dumping players away, then I suggest that all three trades should be vetoed. Is the manager definitely out of playoff contention? And do you know the people in the league well? If you are sure that the manager doesn't care about the league, IMO those trades shouldn't be allowed.
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
Well, you're kind of caught in your own rules. If you have league voting, which is what it sounds like it is, then two trades are therefore OK and one is vetoed. You can appeal to the owners who got the first two trades to undo them and trade back, but once you've let people vote, you have to live with the consequences. Tell the third owner he's out of luck, same as everyone else in the league who didn't get a super friendly deal proposed to them. And then next year you can talk about going to commissioner, or a panel, or whatever.
So spodog: Tomlinson, Bowe, and Chris Johnson for Mark Bradley, Robbie Gould, and Brady Quinn by an owner who has stopped caring.... that makes 6?
Matthias wrote: So spodog: Tomlinson, Bowe, and Chris Johnson for Mark Bradley, Robbie Gould, and Brady Quinn by an owner who has stopped caring.... that makes 6?
As Mrdaveyhavoc said, this is not your typical veto question. The scoreboard has been updated, thank you
As you point out, this guy appears to be a victim of his own league rules. Looks like they'll be drafting some better rules in their offseason.
============================= Scoreboard (from 2004 to 2008): ============================= Number of times this board has had a post containing a vetoable trade:6 Number of times this board has had a post containing a trade that should not be vetoed:5,281
blech...that's why i hate the "rules are rules" approach...you cant forsee every situation, and in times like that you need a commish to make an impartial decision...but since, "rules are rules" i guess let it go and next year form a trade committee
Hall of Fame Hero
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: being a fan of the worst franchise in the NFL
Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, the next move you should do is to tell the owner who basically ruined the league for everyone else that he's been traded for an owner to be named later as you've "lost interest" in having him be part of your league next year.
Do you have a written constitution? If not you need one first off.
Second if it addresses making moves only to improve one's own team (as the one in my league does) you can all 3 trades under that rule.
If it doesn't or you don't have a rule, you're stuck with what's happened.
The veto system, is it league owners? If so then I would say that what the league has decided on each separate trade is set in stone. Perhaps someone else is upset that they couldn't get to the firesale?
I'd probably reverse all the deals and you should have prevented them in the first place. Whether it's "league votes" or not. And I'd certainly make it clear that the one owner will not ever be in the league again.