Approving pending trades

[oxhammer]

I'm involved in a pending trade. As league commish, I don't want to be unfair. I give people time to voice their opinions of every trade before approving or denying. There always seems to be people complaining about every trade. I know I'm getting a big name for less than the other owner could be getting. However, considering the team he has, it does benefit him in some ways. A couple people in the league want it vetoed. A couple in the league, outside of the owners involved, think it's good and should be approved. Another is skeptical and the rest haven't said anything.

Trades aren't all about where someone was drafted on draft day. Nor are trades all about current rankings either. They're about trading from a strength on a team to remove weaknesses. It's up to the owner of the other team to make a decision if his team is better off with or without the trade.

I know the other owner and I aren't cheating. I offered him quite a few offers for the same guy with him turning the other offers down. He didn't take the trade until he got something he wanted. Problem is, there's no proof for anything of this.

There's no chart out there that you can look at that makes it an easy decision about whether a trade is fair or not. I obviously want the trade because I'm involved in it. I also want everyone to be active in the league and not drop out either.

How do you guys go about decisions like these?

[Biohazard1454]

This is a very interesting topic. I've been dealing with the same issue for the last two years...see the "Trade Vetoing Power" thread that I started. These trades are really a gray issue. It sounds to me that your league is set up where the commish (you) is in charge of vetoing the trades rather than the whole league. I personally like the way that is set up rather than the whole league getting to vote if a trade is fair or not. It leaves the decision to a competent commish (hopefully) rather than your competitors. Now since you're the commish it makes it a little strange and tougher to decide the legitimacy of the trade. But I do like that you have given everyone a chance to decide.

Since it seems like there is a split in the decision of whether the trade is fair or not, it makes me wonder what the rankings are. If the players who disagree with the trade are above you in the standings, than you have to question their motives. Like I said, I don't believe that it's fair for your competitors to decide if a trade you make (that helps you out) is fair or not.

I agree with you that it's up to the trade parties to decide if a trade is fair and should only be vetoed if there is collusion or a team is dumping players. Others don't necessarily agree with that which makes it such a tough situation.

I also agree that trades shouldn't be viewed from the standpoint of where "so and so" was drafted. This, though, is a very hard point to get across to people this early in the season. Some people still view the draft as the be all end all of deciding a trade at the very end of the season let alone the first. Good luck telling that to some of your league members.

If you ask me, it sounds like there was no collusion in this trade and the other person involved was competent. Therefore the trade probably should go through. I think that you and the other party involved should discuss to the other league members the reasons for making the trade. If they are logical, all I can say is I hope the others in the league "see the light" and let it go through. Otherwise they might be vetoing it just because they don't want to see you get better and it is well within the rules (which sucks).

Good luck and let me know if you figure out a good solution to the problem!

[oxhammer]

Yeah, I just posted in your thread as well! haha

I'll give you an example of a trade last year from a post I made in my league yesterday...

"I remember last year. It was not so long ago. Del traded Halladay for Webb and Prior (or was it Woods). The whole league was in an uproar. "Veto that trade! No way is that trade fair! You don't trade Halladay for someone like Webb. Prior is on the DL!"

Only one person outside of that trade said that by the end of the year, at best, it would be a wash between Webb and Halladay. Prior, of course, never amounted to anything. How was Halladay's year last year compared to Webb's?

Halladay: 16-5 132 K 3.19 ERA 1.10 WHIP
Webb: 16-8 178K 3.10 ERA 1.13 WHIP

Who got the better deal? Still think whoever got Halladay in the trade came out better? Imagine if Prior amounted to anything that season. Del, what the hell were you thinking trading Halladay?!?"


The first year we did a baseball league, vetoing was by vote. I was in first place at the time and made what was an even trade. VETOED!!! I asked why a few times with no response...except for "you're in first". A couple days later, the owner I was trading with traded the same players to someone else for what I think was a little less in return. That trade was allowed. Leaving it up to a vote just doesn't work. Leaving it up to the commission makes for some hard decisions. It was recommended to me to have two commissioners for the league so that if one is involved in a trade, the other can be impartial. That works unless both commissioners are involved in a trade. Three commissioners?

[Biohazard1454]

So I read your thread that you originally posted with the trade for a catcher and an outfielder for Santana. It's a tough decision, which is why it's such a gray matter. Like I said, any deal should probably go through minus any collusion or dumping of players. But I can also understand why players in your league would veto the trade. I also understand that you can't have more and more commishes. I guess that it all comes down to having competent players in your league. I would assume competent players wouldn't accept lopsided trades but who knows (what if they do?). For example, I was recently talking with someone who was involved in a Lyle Overbay for Pujols trade a few years back. At the time they had a ton of different offensive categories (thankfully they've scaled back since I've played) and Overbay actually was leading Pujols in some of them. The guy traded Pujols for Overbay because he was lacking in those stats that Overbay was better in....sounds logical right. But it also sounds stupid...I mean Overbay for Pujols? There was no collusion or anything, and the team who was trading away Pujols had a reasonable excuse for trading him. Should the trade go through now? (just for your information, it did go through)

[philly4life553]

i say if both owners know what they are talking about and think it will help their team. the trade should be approved. so many people are so veto happy and if the trade isn't perfectly even, they want to veto it!