Fair trade or veto? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Fair trade or veto?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Pete123444 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:24 pm

Bowie wrote:
BrutallyHuge wrote:
Pete123444 wrote:i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.


I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Unless there is cheating involved, how does this trade ruin the league. If one team goes on to dominate, so be it (any other team in the league could have offered a buy low trade too, if they had thought of it). That is the object of the game. It is not the commish's job to keep the league competative, it is his job to interprit and enforce the rules to promote fairness. When one team dominates a league, for whatever reason, it is up to the other managers to continue being competative themselves.
You'd think we were in kindergarden playing musical chairs with an extra chair (we're all winners!!!).


just curious, do you know why there is a salary cap in the NFL? i don't think they're allowing 5 and 6 year old kindergardeners in the NFL. see that's where we all disagree. i do think it is the commish's job to try to maintain a balanced league and promote fairness. i used to have the idea that veto's are for collusion only. but after playing in about 100 leagues,my mind has been changed through experience.

it seems like allot of commish go the extra mile to make their league the best they possibly can make it. snake drafts,waiver wire systems,best possible point systems,whatever.all things to make it as even as possible. these things tell me they want a good competitive league. this is just one more step in doing so.
Pete123444
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2523
Joined: 5 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tucson Arizona

Postby Bowie » Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:56 pm

Pete123444 wrote:just curious, do you know why there is a salary cap in the NFL? i don't think they're allowing 5 and 6 year old kindergardeners in the NFL. see that's where we all disagree. i do think it is the commish's job to try to maintain a balanced league and promote fairness. i used to have the idea that veto's are for collusion only. but after playing in about 100 leagues,my mind has been changed through experience.

it seems like allot of commish go the extra mile to make their league the best they possibly can make it. snake drafts,waiver wire systems,best possible point systems,whatever.all things to make it as even as possible. these things tell me they want a good competitive league. this is just one more step in doing so.

The NFL has a salary cap because it has a monetary interest in maintaining a competative league. What they have realized (Hockey and Baseball have not, yet), is that parity is good for the league as a whole. Since the league as a whole signs the television contracts, and the league television contracts bring in a greater piece of the money pie than individual teams' attendance, radio deals, ect. (correct me if I am wrong, here), the health of the league over the individual team is paramount.

None of my fantasy leagues, on the other hand, have television contracts. Hence, we do not need to sell ourselves to others. I am in leagues for the competition. I want to see who beats who. Unless it is an absolutely awful trade (this one is not), or collusion, I wouldn't want a commish telling me I can't better my team. If I were in money leagues, I would feel even stronger about this. If I had a chance to better my team in a money league, and a commish vetoed a reasonable trade which I thought would better my team just because that commish wanted to protect competative balance, I would ask for my money back.

Obviously, there are different sides to this issue. If others want to give a commish wider responsabilities and powers than I do, fine. These issues should, however, probably be discussed and defined before the season.

Edit: As for snake drafts, waiver wire, ect.: Snake drafts are an issue of fairness. Everyone can offer a trade, but not everyone can pick #1 in the draft. Waivers (esp. a pure rolling system), give further, if short lived, compensation for those not allowed to pick #1. Admittedly, I don't know exactly how a best possible points system would work, so I can't really comment on it.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby Mudd » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:09 pm

Definitely a lopsided trade, but I don't like vetos so I'd let it go.
Mudd
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 714
Joined: 7 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: 1A, Famous Potatoes

Postby eaglesrule » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:13 pm

the point of playing is so people can make thier own decisions.

Wonder how many people were screwed on vetos kurt warners breakout year, or portis' etc. you get the point.

In real life the "league gets screwed" when a team like the patriots adds a player like cory dillon. that doesn't make it any easier for afc east teams.

The argument is obnoxious IMO. It is insulting to players trying to legitimately play. someone has to win and someone has to lose. Those are facts. The salary cap is relevant TO A POINT. But then again, there are also teams playing to win, and playing to make money.

An NFL team can approach things with one of three goals in mind.
win the super bowl, make money, or be competitive -- make money and hope to get a little lucky.

Fantasy leagues have one: to win. your example is irrelevant.

The whole point to playing is for players to manage THEIR team. Obviosuly, people will make mistakes, and that is factored into the overall comeptition level. People begrudgingly accept the role of "luck" when it is players on the field, but somehow hate it when luck determines a league with a trade.

yes, it affects the "balance" of the league. But the goal of a leagues isn't to be balanced, it is to produce a winner. And it sure isn't fun for the two people who are suppossedly allowed to make their own decisions, but suddenly aren't because the league forbids it.

Does anyone "veto" a really stupid draft pick? Hell no, that would be absurd, wouldn't it? Everyone laughs. But in a lot of regards that effects the balance of the league in the same way, or even worse sometimes.

It isn't the role, nor the intention of the game to be dictating people's moves for them. I can semi understand it TO SOME MEASURE
like say if someone trades todd pinkston and gets randy moss.

but when it is a trade that even has a modicum of justification, you gotta butt out.

think of how miffed you would be if you wanted to get kurt warner his first year, and someone vetoed the trade, thinking you got "ripped off". I would be furious.

every star has to have a first year where he put up the stats. the previous year, he was "unproven". I bet a lot of people with this mindset vetoed a lot of trades in their day.

It is inappropriate to intervene.

I don't even think it is that bad, Portis is better, but I think he is overrated this year. barber is underrated. In the wash, someone's judgment is obviosuly going to be off, but the margin for error is pretty wide, as tiki is looking good now and portis/johnson aren't.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Melo255 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:35 pm

Bowie wrote:
BrutallyHuge wrote:
Pete123444 wrote:i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.


I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Unless there is cheating involved, how does this trade ruin the league. If one team goes on to dominate, so be it (any other team in the league could have offered a buy low trade too, if they had thought of it). That is the object of the game. It is not the commish's job to keep the league competative, it is his job to interprit and enforce the rules to promote fairness. When one team dominates a league, for whatever reason, it is up to the other managers to continue being competative themselves.
You'd think we were in kindergarden playing musical chairs with an extra chair (we're all winners!!!).


Perfectly put. Agree 100%
Melo255
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 78
Joined: 5 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Coastal North Carolina

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:43 pm

What if after week one, someone would have proposed the following trade:

Curtis Martin and Isaac Bruce

for

Fred Taylor and Darrell Jackson


Everyone would have said, "Nope, that's not fair..." Everyone would have been preaching about how it was one big game for Martin and Bruce, and that Taylor and Jackson were so good last year that the trade was unfair (in favor of the guy getting Taylor)...

BUT, after 4 weeks, I think we can all agree that that is not the case, and in fact the trade IS unfair, but it is unfair in the favor of the guy getting Martin...

Imagine how pissed you would be if you were the Fred Taylor owner and the Commish vetoed that trade, and here you were stuck with two underperforming players when you could have had two players that are kicking ass all over the place....

As a commish, you can never assume your assessment of a situation is correct...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Bowie » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:04 pm

Good point, Plindsey. If commishes were flawless judges of talent, they would dominate their leagues every year (so much for a competative league).
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby pappymojo » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:10 pm

If I were one of the players and you vetoed this trade I would quit the league.

You're saying that Team B gets the worst end of this trade but that's based on what you think. Portis may have a very average year. He is with a new team under a new coach with a crappy QB and crappy receivers. CJ may also have a very average year. He has a first year QB throwing the ball to him and defenses are keying on him based on his success last year.

Tiki may have the best year of his career. He has a new QB and an easy schedule. Stallworth might do well too. His RB is hurt and that could open things up.

Let the trade through.
'nuff said
pappymojo
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant


Posts: 447
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: boston

Postby Chopper » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:19 pm

eaglesrule wrote:the point of playing is so people can make thier own decisions........
It is inappropriate to intervene.


eaglesrule,
I agree 100%.
Original post edited for brevity only. I agree with the rest of it too.
Chopper
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 1259
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: adrift

Postby no1cowboysfan » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:28 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:What if after week one, someone would have proposed the following trade:

Curtis Martin and Isaac Bruce

for

Fred Taylor and Darrell Jackson


Everyone would have said, "Nope, that's not fair..." Everyone would have been preaching about how it was one big game for Martin and Bruce, and that Taylor and Jackson were so good last year that the trade was unfair (in favor of the guy getting Taylor)...

BUT, after 4 weeks, I think we can all agree that that is not the case, and in fact the trade IS unfair, but it is unfair in the favor of the guy getting Martin...

Imagine how pissed you would be if you were the Fred Taylor owner and the Commish vetoed that trade, and here you were stuck with two underperforming players when you could have had two players that are kicking ass all over the place....

As a commish, you can never assume your assessment of a situation is correct...


a very valid point, one i had not included in my argument...

if somebody told me curtis martin would be a top 3 fantasy back this year, I'd tell them to lay off the hard stuff... I would have held on to Fred Taylor...

Commisioners can not see the future... who is to say the other owner had thought about the trade... and was a genius, not a fool. If Commisioners were so good, why dont they always win? I will restate my point... unless it involves conspirators, commisioner vetos... even popular vote vetos... should not be used.
Image

'Cause I'm Cow ... Boy ... for life.
no1cowboysfan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5255
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: From Diego to tha bay ...

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 0:42 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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