Trade Veto Issue - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Trade Veto Issue

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby murphysxm » Thu May 31, 2012 7:15 pm

Either you have a league with owners you trust, who are bettering their teams and you are probably micro managing or you have a league of cheats and need to kick em out. It doesn't matter if a trade betters the other 8 teams in the league, just the two involved. Have you thought about the David Sternish precedent you have set by vetoing the trade?

I appreciate your willingness to reach out for advice, clearly we disagree, which is fine. Curios to hear others weigh in
Image
murphysxm
Moderator
Moderator

ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2596
(Past Year: 222)
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby Perfectibilist » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:02 pm

There is absolutely no way, aside from illegal wiretapping or extremely convenient eavesdropping, that you could possibly know for sure what these owners' intent behind this trade. Is it suspicious given the circumstances? Maybe. Is it so lopsided to the detriment of the entire league that it should be vetoed? Absolutely not in my opinion. Is it setting a dangerous precedent? Again, not in my opinion. It is a keeper league, so trades like this are inevitable. Just because one team is doing well, does that take away his right to try to shore up his starters/bench to make a deep playoff run? I don't think so. Just because one team is doing poorly and won't make the playoffs, does that take away his right to make a move in the best interest of his team to strengthen his keepers for next year? I don't think so to that either. Depending on league scoring and bench situation I don't really think that either of those teams gave up too much, and on the surface it appears that they each did it to better their own teams.

In my opinion, a vetoable trade should be something so unbelievably bogus that you have to re-read the players involved or look someone up on Wikipedia to find out who he even. Aaron Rogers for Ryan Perrilloux, straight up, veto. Aaron Rogers for Joe Flacco, as lopsided as it may seem, the commissioner is not the supreme judgment of talent or potential points. In my league I would contact those two owners to inquire as to their reasoning, but more than likely I would allow that trade to stand as long as they both thought that they would doing something to benefit their team. As a team owner, I am not responsible for upholding the fairness and equality of the other teams’ rosters. My job is to make my team better without cheating, and any way that I can do that should be allowed.

I'm not really sure what you can do to rectify the situation, but I personally think that it is you that have set the dangerous precident. If someone offers you Arian Foster for an an injured Adrian Peterson, are you really telling me that you would reject that trade? How do you think those teams would feel about that?
Image
Thanks to Freyaka for the sig!
Perfectibilist
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 662
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Denver

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby Hags888 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:57 am

I agree with a lot of what has been said already.

Basically, I'd wanted to reiterate that, your league is a keeper league. Which means, teams have to think not only about the current season, but also the future. I think you were wrong to veto the trade. If you look at the trade within the context of only the 2011 season, then yeah, it's lopsided because of the injuries. But this is a mistake, because the context of your league includes future seasons (again, Keeper League). I get your point that you want to minimize teams just out-right tanking their season and making trades for the future when a large chunk of the season still has yet to play out. So, I like the idea of moving the trade deadline up sooner. If the regular season is only 12-14 weeks long, then you'll want your trade deadline no later than the half-way point (and maybe even a week sooner). That way, every team still has a mathematical chance to win once the trade deadline passes, and therefore, you'll hopefully avoid teams purposefully tanking their season with trades. But at the end of the day, since it's a keeper league, teams have every right to make trades to improve their future, especially when their present is a lost cause.

While it seems like Team 1 is giving up something minimal in only 3 players (2 injured) to get a bounty of players, compare the players in a vacuum without the context of the 2011 season, because I think in a keeper league you kind of have to do that a little bit.

Aaron Rodgers > Michael Vick (just barely, and it depends on the year because I think generally both of these guys have potential to be a top 3 finisher)
Kellen Winslow<<<<<< Jimmy Graham (not even close, Jimmy Graham is like a #1 WR)
Rashard Mendenhall < Peyton Hillis (these are pretty even, and both were injured, but Mendy's was more severe with his ACL and there's a chance he's just "done", Hillis has a chance to recover and shine in KC)
Wes Welker >>>>>>> Nothing (not even close, but used to help balance out the above two, maybe it's giving up too much, but it's hard to say)

Analyzing within a Keeper League context, this trade is fair to me and didn't deserve a veto.
SKOL VIKINGS!
Hags888
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 385
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Texas

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby Johnny Blood » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:25 pm

This was a bad veto for the reasons already given. In this case you yourself admitted it wasn't collusion, but you have asked for a procedure that will 'prove' collusion. You should rather attempt to populate the league solely with trustworthy people and then let them manage their teams. I don't really have any anxiety about how I would prove collusion in my league.

It would be redundant to explain again why this was a bad veto but let me make a few other comments.

I sent an email to both parties stating that this trade was uneven and to rework the deal to make it more balanced and I would approve it. i.e. team 1 include one more non injured player, or team 2 remove Welker.
This is way too much micromanaging. Don't take this the wrong way but from my perspective you are just abusing your commissioner powers. You're lording veto power over them and telling them "remove Welker / add Grossman / etc". That's bad form, commish, and is guaranteed to create more future problems. You are not the oracle of perfect trade equity. Just veto it or leave it.
There are some things I handled inappropriately mainly I should have contacted both parties before I vetoed the trade to see if they would rework the deal before bringing it to light to the whole league. In the future I will do that, though I don't suspect this will be an issue again.
What do you mean by "bringing it to light of the whole league"? Does 'it' mean the trade itself, or your veto? Has the league not even seen the accepted trade yet? If not, there is a huge problem with what you are doing. I hope that's not what you mean.

But even if the whole league has already seen the trade, again, proposing reworkings of deals is just meddling, especially if some information is being hidden from the rest of the league. Stay out of it.

Keeping your veto threat private from the rest of the league until after you try to engineer some backroom coercion on the involved teams is also awful. Everything should be transparent.

The closer to the trade deadline the scrutiny of trades increases.
This makes no sense to me. The trade deadline's purpose is to prevent a certain set of problems. But now you want to use your intuition and judgment to prevent those problems before the trade deadline? No. The trade deadline is when you no longer allow trading. You're saying the trade policies are dynamic and continuously changing up until the deadline. No good.

My suggestion is to be more open minded about keeper league trade strategy and be far less quick to use your commissioner powers, both in your vetoes and in your behind the scenes dealings. There's no reason at all for a commissioner to be giving trade reworking advice, especially if the rest of the league is in the dark about the trade or the veto. That's an obvious source of many future problems. I'm not surprised there is a rift in your league now.
It creates a major situation in the balance of the league, the consolation bracket gets significantly weaker with the top player giving his team away, and the money bracket gets significantly weaker by allowing one team to totally change his lineup by giving up a couple benchers, and a great tight end. So what should every other manager do? If that trade goes through the only thing they can do is try the same type of trades.
People who like this kind of stuff create keeper leagues. I'm confused why you created a keeper league. Keeper leagues, just like major league baseball and some other leagues, create a system in which contenders trade for the present and bad teams trade for the future.

You keep harping on "these teams are in contention" and "these teams are out of contention," which means the above poster is right---you are being short sighted. Every single team is in contention. For the future. If you don't want transactions based in the difference between contending now and contending in the future you should play redraft or have an extremely early trade deadline. But really, I doubt the trade deadline will stop your concerns. You're probably then going to worry about teams out of contention making waiver moves for the future, dropping "studs" and screwing things up among those who are "in contention."

Your job is to create a fair set of bylaws, not to tinker throughout the season in search of "balance." Only an oracle could see the future and provide balance. I think you are imagining problems and making your role as commish way too active. Good luck!
Johnny Blood
Cheerleader
Cheerleader


Posts: 10
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby shawngee03 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:11 pm

+1 to what everyone else has already said

this type of trade is common place in every keeper league i am in, in every sport. especially baseball. by midseason its a mad dash to trade expensive good players for top prospects or injured guys in order to retool for next year

i am actually a little shocked that you wouldnt want this behavior to happen. all of my keeper league commishes highly encourage it, as it keeps everyone active and having fun throughout the season, regardless of where you sit in the standings this year. like others have said, i dont see the point in having a keeper league if you dont want this type of trade to happen
shawngee03
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 714
Joined: 6 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby K0wned » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:00 pm

shawngee03 wrote:+1 to what everyone else has already said

this type of trade is common place in every keeper league i am in, in every sport. especially baseball. by midseason its a mad dash to trade expensive good players for top prospects or injured guys in order to retool for next year

i am actually a little shocked that you wouldnt want this behavior to happen. all of my keeper league commishes highly encourage it, as it keeps everyone active and having fun throughout the season, regardless of where you sit in the standings this year. like others have said, i dont see the point in having a keeper league if you dont want this type of trade to happen


This. This type of trade is the reason for keeper leagues. It keeps people interested even when they are out of contention. If a trade that benefits one team now and one team in the future doesn't seem fair to you, I would suggest you just do redraft leagues.
K0wned
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 153
Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby flint650 » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:08 pm

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input it is really appreciated. It is nice to find a passionate community that truly intends on helping commishes run their leagues better. After reading all of this information, and also talking with my league I have come to the conclusion that the trade veto was a bad idea and in the future will be diligent in understanding the viewpoints of the managers in the league when they are making trades.

I did go to my league with the info I learned here and asked them the same questions and while the response was varied I came to the conclusion that vetos should almost never be used. I have stated to my league that in the future the veto would only be used in the most egregious of circumstances, i.e. a top 5 keeper QB for something tantamount to a waiver wire kicker, and I am instituting new policies so that any trade review that goes before the rules committee has to incorporate the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" in the sense that you must be able to prove some type of cheating/collusion.

Again I appreciate all the input and look forward to being an active member of the community.
flint650
Cheerleader
Cheerleader


Posts: 13
Joined: 30 May 2012
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby Perfectibilist » Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:37 pm

flint650 wrote:I appreciate all the input and look forward to being an active member of the community.


Glad we could help, and glad to have you around. ;-D
Image
Thanks to Freyaka for the sig!
Perfectibilist
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 662
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Denver

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby LS2throwed » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:54 pm

murphysxm wrote:You can't have a keeper league and not expect teams to think about next year. This shouldn't have been vetoed. Unless there is collusion the veto button should never be pressed. If you want to move up the trade deadline to help mitigate this you can, but it's still going to happen.


Bingo.


I think the issue here is the commish(no offense at all) is trying to find the rationale for the trade when in actuality he doesn't need to. To me, that's not your job as commish IMO. I see a ton of trades happen that I wouldn't do but you can't veto that kind of stuff. You also can't veto very even trades where a losing team is going for keepers and a winning team is going for the ship.


I personally don't see a single thing wrong in this scenario. It's a fine line being a commish that is on top of things and over stepping boundaries. You have to let guys make moves as they see fit, not as you see fit. Unless Aaron Rodgers was being traded for VY there is no reason to veto.



I know you came to your decision, just putting my 2 cents in for the future. ;-D As long as your open to all situations and willing to listen to the complaints thats all you can ask for out of a commish.
Image
Current Cafe Dynasties:
4th and Goal
Fourth & Inches
Double D
Any Given Dynasty
Eat Cheese Dynasty
NFL's Finest
Cafe Very Special Forces
LS2throwed
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 5373
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Arlington, Texas

Re: Trade Veto Issue

Postby murphysxm » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:27 pm

flint650 wrote:I just wanted to thank everyone for their input it is really appreciated. It is nice to find a passionate community that truly intends on helping commishes run their leagues better. After reading all of this information, and also talking with my league I have come to the conclusion that the trade veto was a bad idea and in the future will be diligent in understanding the viewpoints of the managers in the league when they are making trades.

I did go to my league with the info I learned here and asked them the same questions and while the response was varied I came to the conclusion that vetos should almost never be used. I have stated to my league that in the future the veto would only be used in the most egregious of circumstances, i.e. a top 5 keeper QB for something tantamount to a waiver wire kicker, and I am instituting new policies so that any trade review that goes before the rules committee has to incorporate the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" in the sense that you must be able to prove some type of cheating/collusion.

Again I appreciate all the input and look forward to being an active member of the community.


Kudos to you for both receiving feedback with an open mind and communicating back to the masses. You are the type of person that makes this site work. Stick around!
Image
murphysxm
Moderator
Moderator

ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2596
(Past Year: 222)
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Indianapolis

Previous

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 19:14 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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