Two part question for Commissioners

**The Franchise** · 11-09-2011, 10:25 AM

Or anyone who wants to chime in.

A buddy and I are co-commissioners in our league. It's a keeper league that is in it's first year. We're trying to determine what direction we should take on some issues that have come up this year. The main one being how trades are approved.

First Question:
As it is right now both of us discuss the trade that both teams have agreed upon and determine if it should be vetoed or not. 95% of the time we have no problem with it. We have teams in the league that want to go to a league vote to approve trades. We're not sure that we want to go there because it opens the trades up to other teams voting no because they either have to play them or they don't want the other team to get better. So to the Commissioners that are out there.....what system do you run for trades?

Second Question:
I received notification last night that a trade had been approved by both teams. I went in to look at the trade and questioned the thought behind the trade. I know both of the teams....so I texted the team that offered it. This is the trade.

Team A gives up: Ryan Mathews and Deion Branch

Team B gives up: James Starks

Mathews is the #11 scoring RB in our league and Starks is the #30 scoring RB. The trade made no sense to me....so I texted the team that was giving up Mathews to make sure that he didn't approve it by mistake. He said that Mathews was hurt and that he was going to trade him. I informed him that Mathews wasn't hurt and then he turned around and requested that the trade be vetoed. He informed the other guy that he had misinformation and that he was pulling the trade offer.

Now the other team is throwing a fit because the trade was approved by both teams. I talked to the Co-Commish and explained to him that I couldn't approve the trade anyways because I thought it was to lopsided.

So....would you have vetoed this trade?

Where does the line get drawn when it comes to vetoing trades as a commissioner? Should we just let all trades go through and let teams be stupid?

Sofa King · 11-09-2011, 10:31 AM

Veto that bitch.

The only reason that guy is complaining is because he knows its an absolute ripoff and he wants to get away with it.

**The Bad Guy** · 11-09-2011, 10:42 AM

I think it's reasonable that Starks has more value than Matthews moving forward. Matthews is a glass man and when the weather gets colder in GB, Starks is going to get more chances.

I would not veto that.

**The Franchise** · 11-09-2011, 10:50 AM

Would you put it up to a league vote?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 11-09-2011, 10:54 AM

We use a league vote in our $ league, and the Commish has final say, to where owners can't veto a fair trade just because they don't want a team to get better.

On the 2nd trade, it would depend on several things. What are the records of the team in question - could this be collusion? Are they good friends, etc.

Need more info.

**doomy3** · 11-09-2011, 10:59 AM

No, I wouldn't veto it. Mathews has a groin injury that he is coming back from, and who knows if he can stay healthy. I don't think commissioners should ever get involved in stuff like this unless there is collusion going on. What happens now if Mathews loses carries to Tolbert coming off injury and Starks outscores him from here on out? One team loses the trade because you essentially talked them out of it.

DJ's left nut · 11-09-2011, 11:32 AM

You don't veto that one, not even close.

When I've been the commissioner I've eliminated the voting element in every single league - if you don't like it, quit. There's not 'approval board' for trades in any major sport and frankly they're prone to groupthink. I run 2 baseball and 1 football league, both long-term keepers and everyone in there knows the drill. I'm the commish, I get final say. I've vetoed one trade in about 4 years.

Trades get vetoed for one reason only: Collusion. If these two people entered into a trade with the purpose of intentionally upsetting competitive balance, you veto the trade.

That wasn't the case here. This was a poorly informed owner that shouldn't be saved from his own stupidity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how 'unfair' any trade is; everyone operates at arms length. You had a chance to rip off the other idiot yourself, all you had to do was click the 'propose trade' icon. Guys that bitch about 'unfair trades' should've done a better job of scalping the moron themselves.

I'd be livid if you vetoed that trade. The commish isn't the arbiter of what's 'fair'; he's the arbiter of what's legal. There was absolutely nothing against the rules about that trade - it absolutely has to go through.

**The Franchise** · 11-09-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

We use a league vote in our $ league, and the Commish has final say, to where owners can't veto a fair trade just because they don't want a team to get better.

On the 2nd trade, it would depend on several things. What are the records of the team in question - could this be collusion? Are they good friends, etc.

Need more info.

Don't know each other.

The team who has Mathews is 8-1.

The team who has Starks is 5-4.

They've never met each other.

They've both said that they would be fine putting it up to league vote but I think I'm just going to put it through.

**Old Dog** · 11-09-2011, 11:47 AM

I run two different ones and here's what we do in both (and the third one I'm in has switched to this)

Question 1: Commissioner has full and only say as long as he isn't involved in the trade. If it isn't collusion it's approved. If the commissioner IS involved in a trade there's a three member panel that must approve it.
This is teh only way to do it IMHO, I hate a league vote as there always seems to be an owner that will veto anything just because it doesn't benefit his team.

Question 2: It would be approved in my league as long as I didn't expect collusion. The Matthews owner thinking he was hurt tells me he wasn't paying good attention, but it's not my job to run the other 11 teams. You can't fortell the future. What looks to be a stupid assed trade may not be in the long run (case in point below from one league this season)

Just before week one a team offered J. Charles and R. Wayne for Fred Jackson and Wes Welker. He said he just didn't feel comfortable with Wayne and I told him OK, and damn near the whole league commented that "someone was getting screwed". They were right, someone did.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 11-09-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Don't know each other.

The team who has Mathews is 8-1.

The team who has Starks is 5-4.

They've never met each other.

They've both said that they would be fine putting it up to league vote but I think I'm just going to put it through.

No collusion there.

Put it through.

**The Franchise** · 11-09-2011, 11:55 AM

Talked to the team that was giving up Mathews and he's cool with me pushing it back through. He understands that it was his stupidty and that I shouldn't have to babysit his team.

Works for me.

From here on out I'm dubbing our trade system the "Stupid Owner Trade System". Unless it's obvious collusion....it's going through.

**The Franchise** · 11-09-2011, 11:59 AM

Thanks for all of the help.

**doomy3** · 11-09-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You don't veto that one, not even close.

When I've been the commissioner I've eliminated the voting element in every single league - if you don't like it, quit. There's not 'approval board' for trades in any major sport and frankly they're prone to groupthink. I run 2 baseball and 1 football league, both long-term keepers and everyone in there knows the drill. I'm the commish, I get final say. I've vetoed one trade in about 4 years.

Trades get vetoed for one reason only: Collusion. If these two people entered into a trade with the purpose of intentionally upsetting competitive balance, you veto the trade.

That wasn't the case here. This was a poorly informed owner that shouldn't be saved from his own stupidity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how 'unfair' any trade is; everyone operates at arms length. You had a chance to rip off the other idiot yourself, all you had to do was click the 'propose trade' icon. Guys that bitch about 'unfair trades' should've done a better job of scalping the moron themselves.

I'd be livid if you vetoed that trade. The commish isn't the arbiter of what's 'fair'; he's the arbiter of what's legal. There was absolutely nothing against the rules about that trade - it absolutely has to go through.

This.

I ****ing hate leagues where people vote down trades just because one team or the other got the better end.

In fact, I've played in CP leagues like that, and people have voted down numerous trades. Pisses me off.

11-09-2011, 10:25 AM
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2985047	Two part question for Commissioners Or anyone who wants to chime in. A buddy and I are co-commissioners in our league. It's a keeper league that is in it's first year. We're trying to determine what direction we should take on some issues that have come up this year. The main one being how trades are approved. First Question: As it is right now both of us discuss the trade that both teams have agreed upon and determine if it should be vetoed or not. 95% of the time we have no problem with it. We have teams in the league that want to go to a league vote to approve trades. We're not sure that we want to go there because it opens the trades up to other teams voting no because they either have to play them or they don't want the other team to get better. So to the Commissioners that are out there.....what system do you run for trades? Second Question: I received notification last night that a trade had been approved by both teams. I went in to look at the trade and questioned the thought behind the trade. I know both of the teams....so I texted the team that offered it. This is the trade. Team A gives up: Ryan Mathews and Deion Branch Team B gives up: James Starks Mathews is the #11 scoring RB in our league and Starks is the #30 scoring RB. The trade made no sense to me....so I texted the team that was giving up Mathews to make sure that he didn't approve it by mistake. He said that Mathews was hurt and that he was going to trade him. I informed him that Mathews wasn't hurt and then he turned around and requested that the trade be vetoed. He informed the other guy that he had misinformation and that he was pulling the trade offer. Now the other team is throwing a fit because the trade was approved by both teams. I talked to the Co-Commish and explained to him that I couldn't approve the trade anyways because I thought it was to lopsided. So....would you have vetoed this trade? Where does the line get drawn when it comes to vetoing trades as a commissioner? Should we just let all trades go through and let teams be stupid?
Posts: 92,204

11-09-2011, 10:31 AM	#2
Sofa King Hello Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: South Dakota Casino cash: $952096 VARSITY	Veto that bitch. The only reason that guy is complaining is because he knows its an absolute ripoff and he wants to get away with it.
Posts: 23,227

11-09-2011, 10:42 AM	#3
The Bad Guy Scott Pioli Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The Copacobana Casino cash: $9373645	I think it's reasonable that Starks has more value than Matthews moving forward. Matthews is a glass man and when the weather gets colder in GB, Starks is going to get more chances. I would not veto that. __________________
Posts: 23,212

11-09-2011, 10:50 AM	#4
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2985047	Would you put it up to a league vote?
Posts: 92,204

11-09-2011, 10:54 AM	#5
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4851115	We use a league vote in our $ league, and the Commish has final say, to where owners can't veto a fair trade just because they don't want a team to get better. On the 2nd trade, it would depend on several things. What are the records of the team in question - could this be collusion? Are they good friends, etc. Need more info.
Posts: 60,268

11-09-2011, 10:59 AM	#6
doomy3 Supporter Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $5313539	No, I wouldn't veto it. Mathews has a groin injury that he is coming back from, and who knows if he can stay healthy. I don't think commissioners should ever get involved in stuff like this unless there is collusion going on. What happens now if Mathews loses carries to Tolbert coming off injury and Starks outscores him from here on out? One team loses the trade because you essentially talked them out of it.
Posts: 12,854

11-09-2011, 11:32 AM	#7
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $2879099	You don't veto that one, not even close. When I've been the commissioner I've eliminated the voting element in every single league - if you don't like it, quit. There's not 'approval board' for trades in any major sport and frankly they're prone to groupthink. I run 2 baseball and 1 football league, both long-term keepers and everyone in there knows the drill. I'm the commish, I get final say. I've vetoed one trade in about 4 years. Trades get vetoed for one reason only: Collusion. If these two people entered into a trade with the purpose of intentionally upsetting competitive balance, you veto the trade. That wasn't the case here. This was a poorly informed owner that shouldn't be saved from his own stupidity. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how 'unfair' any trade is; everyone operates at arms length. You had a chance to rip off the other idiot yourself, all you had to do was click the 'propose trade' icon. Guys that bitch about 'unfair trades' should've done a better job of scalping the moron themselves. I'd be livid if you vetoed that trade. The commish isn't the arbiter of what's 'fair'; he's the arbiter of what's legal. There was absolutely nothing against the rules about that trade - it absolutely has to go through. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,603

11-09-2011, 11:47 AM	#9
Old Dog Supporter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Central Kansas Casino cash: $4676131	I run two different ones and here's what we do in both (and the third one I'm in has switched to this) Question 1: Commissioner has full and only say as long as he isn't involved in the trade. If it isn't collusion it's approved. If the commissioner IS involved in a trade there's a three member panel that must approve it. This is teh only way to do it IMHO, I hate a league vote as there always seems to be an owner that will veto anything just because it doesn't benefit his team. Question 2: It would be approved in my league as long as I didn't expect collusion. The Matthews owner thinking he was hurt tells me he wasn't paying good attention, but it's not my job to run the other 11 teams. You can't fortell the future. What looks to be a stupid assed trade may not be in the long run (case in point below from one league this season) Just before week one a team offered J. Charles and R. Wayne for Fred Jackson and Wes Welker. He said he just didn't feel comfortable with Wayne and I told him OK, and damn near the whole league commented that "someone was getting screwed". They were right, someone did.
Posts: 10,670

11-09-2011, 11:55 AM	#11
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2985047	Talked to the team that was giving up Mathews and he's cool with me pushing it back through. He understands that it was his stupidty and that I shouldn't have to babysit his team. Works for me. From here on out I'm dubbing our trade system the "Stupid Owner Trade System". Unless it's obvious collusion....it's going through.
Posts: 92,204

11-09-2011, 11:59 AM	#12
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2985047	Thanks for all of the help.
Posts: 92,204