BrutallyHuge wrote:I would kick these chumps out of the league.
They're probably going to continue to scheme and try to collude. Next thing you know they'll churn rosters, then waiver back players, then hack your computer, then elect one of them commissioner, then ruin your league for good.
Nah, they're both good guys, and I think it was just an honest mistake. Neither of them recognized that trades made in order to "borrow" players = collusion.
The better solution is going to be to kick these chumps' asses when they play my team. Fear me!
14-team league w/ typical scoring (1 pt for 10 yds rushing or receiving, 1 pt for 25 yds passing, TDs = 6 pts)
The Nation of Fear
QB - Steve McNair (Ten)
WR - Hines Ward (Pit)
WR - Isaac Bruce (StL)
WR - Roy Williams (Det)
RB - D. McAllister (NO)
RB - Chris Brown (Ten)
TE - Alge Crumpler (Atl)
K - Brett Conway (Min)
DEF - Jacksonville
Bench
QB - Joey Harrington (Det)
WR - Andre Davis (Cle)
RB - Ron Dayne (NYG)
RB - Emmitt Smith (Ari)
Yeah I was actually involved once in a trade proposal that had me giving up some draft picks for Manning in order to have manning for my team for that year. And the deal involved me trading Manning back to the other owner at the end of the year for less than what I paid. In essence I was just renting Manning for a fee. I thought it was a genius trade. But I do actually realize that this type of trade is actually collusion. Because each year there could be teams going back and forth 'renting' players just to win that year and returning the favour the next year.
In this case however, I wouldn't have vetoed the trade without first asking the owners what their intentions were and that you would not allow the same players to be traded back. If they still wanted to do the trade then it should have been allowed since the one owner was in such a bind.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
lifeform wrote:I am the commish of a 14-team Yahoo league.
I have never vetoed a trade before, but I have a situation where I think it might be the right move.
A Tiki Barber for Dennis Northcutt trade has been made. Unless my evaluation is way off, Tiki (with 269 total yds & a TD this year) is a nice RB2, while Northcutt (with just 19 total yards receiving this year) is a borderline waiver wire guy.
Does your league count return yards? That evens things up quite a bit. Some would argue Northcutt is a legit sleeper once Garcia realizes what he can do, plus Tiki could be argued as a question mark for different reasons.
I'm somewhat concerned that you didn't do what the Cafe advised -- did you ask the owners their intention before veto'ing? Did they give you reason other than your own suspicions that they might trade back? You seem like a reasonable commish, but I hate the veto in nearly any form, and until these two were actually guilty of something, I think you had to let that trade go through.
Opinion Ape wrote:Does your league count return yards? That evens things up quite a bit. Some would argue Northcutt is a legit sleeper once Garcia realizes what he can do, plus Tiki could be argued as a question mark for different reasons.
I'm somewhat concerned that you didn't do what the Cafe advised -- did you ask the owners their intention before veto'ing? Did they give you reason other than your own suspicions that they might trade back? You seem like a reasonable commish, but I hate the veto in nearly any form, and until these two were actually guilty of something, I think you had to let that trade go through.
No return yards in our league. My email to the owners involved confirmed that they were, in fact, planning a trade-back.
I could have let the trade just go through and then nailed them on the trade-back, but I think I did the right thing by confronting the situation before the offending behavior took place, an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all...
Now the issue is that one of the guys in the league thinks that I'm introducing new rules (no trade-backs) mid-season. My argument is that this is not a new rule, it's the clarification of an existing rule barring collusion. I feel like it's pretty clear cut: Making an unbalanced trade along with a private agreement to take some additional future action = collusion.
Opinion Ape wrote:Does your league count return yards? That evens things up quite a bit. Some would argue Northcutt is a legit sleeper once Garcia realizes what he can do, plus Tiki could be argued as a question mark for different reasons.
I'm somewhat concerned that you didn't do what the Cafe advised -- did you ask the owners their intention before veto'ing? Did they give you reason other than your own suspicions that they might trade back? You seem like a reasonable commish, but I hate the veto in nearly any form, and until these two were actually guilty of something, I think you had to let that trade go through.
No return yards in our league. My email to the owners involved confirmed that they were, in fact, planning a trade-back.
I could have let the trade just go through and then nailed them on the trade-back, but I think I did the right thing by confronting the situation before the offending behavior took place, an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all...
Now the issue is that one of the guys in the league thinks that I'm introducing new rules (no trade-backs) mid-season. My argument is that this is not a new rule, it's the clarification of an existing rule barring collusion. I feel like it's pretty clear cut: Making an unbalanced trade along with a private agreement to take some additional future action = collusion.
Given that new information, I agree with you 100%. That's collusive, and "no collusion" is an old rule. Sounds nicely handled -- and I'm willing to bet those guys know they're dead in the water already, and are just scrambling for a non-existent loophole.
Opinion Ape wrote:Does your league count return yards? That evens things up quite a bit. Some would argue Northcutt is a legit sleeper once Garcia realizes what he can do, plus Tiki could be argued as a question mark for different reasons.
I'm somewhat concerned that you didn't do what the Cafe advised -- did you ask the owners their intention before veto'ing? Did they give you reason other than your own suspicions that they might trade back? You seem like a reasonable commish, but I hate the veto in nearly any form, and until these two were actually guilty of something, I think you had to let that trade go through.
No return yards in our league. My email to the owners involved confirmed that they were, in fact, planning a trade-back.
I could have let the trade just go through and then nailed them on the trade-back, but I think I did the right thing by confronting the situation before the offending behavior took place, an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all...
Now the issue is that one of the guys in the league thinks that I'm introducing new rules (no trade-backs) mid-season. My argument is that this is not a new rule, it's the clarification of an existing rule barring collusion. I feel like it's pretty clear cut: Making an unbalanced trade along with a private agreement to take some additional future action = collusion.
I'm just wondering what the guy who was getting Tiki had to gain with the tradeback. Was he in trouble with his RBs this week or something where he needed Tiki as much as the other guy needed Northcutt. I just don't understand why one guy would help the other with out getting something in return.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG wrote:I'm just wondering what the guy who was getting Tiki had to gain with the tradeback. Was he in trouble with his RBs this week or something where he needed Tiki as much as the other guy needed Northcutt. I just don't understand why one guy would help the other with out getting something in return.
The other guy has Curtis Martin on a bye this week, and will need to use Suggs off his bench. Tiki would've been a nice one-week fill-in for him. So they both had something to gain for Week 3.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by lifeform » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:47 pm 
