Not your typical veto question

[Kilroy]

Unless you can get unanimous support for reversing the accepted trades I don't think you can un-ring that bell, but the trades shouldn't have been allowed and I'd definitely suggest you get a rule in place regarding roster dumps for next year. You may also want to consider switching from League Voting to Commissioner Approval for trades...only way to fly.

[MrDaveyHavoc]

Thanks for all your help everyone.

To the poster who said I dropped the ball by missing the first deal- maybe I intimated incorrectly but these deals were all concurrent.

We use a league vote system, and this is the first year of the league. There is no written constitution beyond the yahoo rules. It's a bunch of guys who used to work together, but not all of us still hang out on a regular basis. Here are the deals in full

Steve Smith of CAR, Greg Jennings, and Phil Rivers for Devin Hester, Brandon Lloyd, Rex Grossman

Ryan Grant, Johnathan Stewart, Eli Manning, David Garrard, and Kellen Winslow for Ike Hilliard, Chansi Stuckey, Brett Favre and Trent Edwards

Chris Johnson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Dwayne Bowe for Robbie Gould, Mark Bradley, Cedric Benson and Brady Quinn (this was the vetoed deal)


i talked to the manager who proposed the trades and he said that because his team was 2-7 or so that this was his way of making his team interesting again, as he was clearly out of the hunt. I'm thinking about instituting a consolation bracket where winner gets first pick or something like that, maybe a cut of the pool, in order to avoid this next season.




I'm interested as to why it is within my rights to veto all three deals outside of our league votes system? anyone else have thoughts on this?

[ABA316]

If you feel this owner was just trying to help friends or just get rid of good players for nothing than that is tanking it and affects the league as a whole. Commish should always act in league's best interest, so therefore if you feel that the person is doing something shady then take the steps to stop it.

That said if that is not the case (and I get the sense from your posts that this isn't, the guy's still playing the game and trying to shake it up) then the action already taken on each separate trade stands as it is.

Re the consolation: I have a league that expanded from 12 to 14 teams this year. Top 6 make the big bracket. 7-12 play for $50 to winner (the league fee). Gives almost everyone a chance at something and therefore less reason to throw it. We do have a written constitution which does specifically state no benching/tanking/firesales are allowed as well.

[dupree]

We have a consolation bracket which determines draft spots 1-6 for next season (Consolation winner gets #1 runner-up gets#2 etc...) the "winners" bracket gets reverse 12-7 (Super Bowl Champ gets 12 runner-up 11)

Also winner of teh consolation bracket gets his/her entry fee back.

We also use week 17 as the "Aloha Bowl" where the highest point total for the week wins $ = to the entry fee.

The basic test of a trade is "does it benefit (either real or trader perceived) both sides" I don't see how the owner in question can claim that any of those trades make his team better and therefore it is clearly a firesale/tanking that is happening....

[Dan Lambskin]

We have a consolation bracket which determines draft spots 1-6 for next season (Consolation winner gets #1 runner-up gets#2 etc...) the "winners" bracket gets reverse 12-7 (Super Bowl Champ gets 12 runner-up 11)

Also winner of teh consolation bracket gets his/her entry fee back.

We also use week 17 as the "Aloha Bowl" where the highest point total for the week wins $ = to the entry fee.

The basic test of a trade is "does it benefit (either real or trader perceived) both sides" I don't see how the owner in question can claim that any of those trades make his team better and therefore it is clearly a firesale/tanking that is happening....

i dont like having teams play for the #1, i dont think it's fair that a really good team that just missed the playoffs can get the #1 and someone who just had a terrible season ends up #6

one thing we did in our redraft was to still pick random, but to award the 10th place team 10 bingo balls, 9th =9, etc and draw picks that way

love the "Aloha Bowl" idea though

[MrDaveyHavoc]

i dont like having teams play for the #1, i dont think it's fair that a really good team that just missed the playoffs can get the #1 and someone who just had a terrible season ends up #6

--------------------------------------------


but if it's not a keeper league, what is the relevance of that really good team having the number one pick the following year? I agree that in keeper/dynasty leagues it is important for the top picks to go to the worst teams, but not so much in redraft leagues.

[dupree]

I see your point.

We do indeed keep 2 players (must be taken no higher than the 4th round and cost a draft spot 2 rounds higher than where they were taken last year). Though we still do it snake draft style as we are only keeping a max of 2 players per team.

But I don't like fostering the culture of "don't make the playoffs, then race for the bottom". Luckily my league mates agreed with that course of action for our league.

We stole the aloha bowl idea from a thread around here somewhere....

[MrDaveyHavoc]

But I don't like fostering the culture of "don't make the playoffs, then race for the bottom". Luckily my league mates agreed with that course of action for our league.

----------------------------

i would think the race isnt to the bottom, you still have to race to the top amongst the nonplayoff entrants to see who gets the first pick. this keeps from the exact scenario you speak of, racing to the bottom by tanking games and losing. this way there is an incentive for all teams to continue to remain competitive throughout the season.