I agree with Matthias here. Letting some give away his best players for basically nothing in return ruins the league. I would call it collusion by ignorance. You can say "its his team he can do what he wants", and thats great, until one guy trades away all his studs to another guy for nothing. But but, he can do what he wants though! Because you let 1 guy do what he wants you have ruined the league for 10 other guys.
In a non-keeper league this is a veto hands down. Bonderman is an easily replaceable pitcher, and Longoria is a rookie(at a deep position) who probably goes undrafted in most leagues, and while you may not like beltran he is VASTLY more valuable than these two.
You simply can't be trading away a top player, for totally unproven rookies, and possible upside pitchers.(bonderman was 301st value in a 12teamer last year, meaning easily replaceable waiver wire) Because there are plenty of unproven rookies and upside pitchers to be had. While only few top players to be had.
...Because you let 1 guy do what he wants you have ruined the league for 10 other guys.
Come on. Trading away Beltran for these two guys is NOT going to ruin a league. As I mentioned before, if the trades ARE grossly lopsided, then TRUE collusion can be suspected. But here? Remember how Popovich whined about how the Lakers got Pau Gasol so cheap? It's the same thing here: All those who either didn't make an offer, or made a worse offer now scream for a veto, because they didn't win the sweepstakes.
In real life fairness is never really a concern($$$ is), in a 12 team fantasy league though it is.
While 1 trade might not ruin it, where do you draw the line? If he makes 2 bad trades? 3? 5-6? This is a bad trade period, and should be discouraged, and if within the power of the league(imo) vetoed. You draw the line in the sand before it gets out of hand, not after.
Last edited by talan37 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
You deserve a better answer then my whatever, so here goes.
Commissioners can be corrupt and you will never escape that regardless of what league you participate in. The best league that I play in the commissioner does not even have a team in the league. Therefore, he is objective and does not interfere with the league. He only stops trades if there is collusion and that has happened before.
I happen to be a commissioner in close to 5 leagues for every sport. I set the rules up so that trades are instantly made and shown on a roster and I do not touch them unless I can prove collusion. Two years ago this happened in one of my football leagues. A guy who was last place in the league tried to gift wrap two players for his buddy, by dropping them onto the waiver wire. When it happened I intervened and locked both rosters and tossed the one participant that was in the playoffs out and put the 7th place finisher in. I have never had a problem since.
I don't like league voting because I believe that most players don't understand how to use league votes. There are 3 common areas where I have seen league voting misused:
1. Players will veto trade because it makes a team much stronger 2. Players veto trades because they assign their own value to players and based on those values veto a trade. 3. Because they have been vetoed and are now not allowing any trades to go through
It is impossible for a league owner to be objective because they have a rooting interest. When an owner gets angry because he believes that someone is messing up "his league" then he displays that self-interest first-hand. Every trade effects your league somehow and by vetoing a trade based on that rationale you can veto anything that has a negative effect on your team. You can't use that reasoning to put down a trade because it is inconsistent. Do you understand how many trades can be vetoed because with that sort of thinking.
Also, dealing with ADP. Last year I played in a league that used league voting (the last votes league I ever played in) and a preseason trade was vetoed based solely on draft position and it was my trade. I offered up Hafner for Prince Fielder straight up. Hafner was a 2nd round pick last year and was coming off a great year, Fielder was an unknown and in that particular league he was drafted in the 20th round. I made offered that trade solely based on spring training and what experts were saying about those two guys. That trade was vetoed because Hafner had a high ADP and Fielder had a low ADP. Well I don't need to explain what happened? Hafner went on to play horribly and Fielder went on to have a monster year. By midseason I was no longer able to make that trade because Hafner's value had decreased so much. That is just one example of how ADP has been used to veto.
Part of the fun in fantasy sports is being able to manage your team. I have said it before and I will say it again because I believe strongly in it. I want to manage MY team how I see fit. I don't want somebody else assigning their values to MY players and I certainly don't want someone basing their decision on how my trade effects THEIR team. My trade may benefit/hurt my team and I should be allowed to take that risk.
Beltran for Bonderman and Longoria may be a bad trade and to be clear, I do think it is a bad trade, but it is not the ultimate destruction of a fantasy league. I have seen worse trades go through and I have seen many trades that I thought were just horrible turn out to be great moves and I have seen trades that I thought were fair turn out to be rather lopsided. It happens. Just let people make their own decisions.
I also agree with motown about the ARod trade. If I saw someone giving up ARod for Kelly Shoppach straight up then I would assume player dumping and block the trade, but I have never played in a league where that occurred before the season started. Usually player dumping happens during the season, especially when teams fall into the basement of the fantasy league.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with most everything you've said. And although I don't commish 5 leagues a sport, I do tend to about 3-4 leagues a year, some football, some baseball. And have in all of my leagues only commissioner review of trades; and have never blocked one. But I have voted to veto ridiculous trades in other people's leagues: partially that's because I think that there's a different standard of review with league votes vs. commish overview and partially because in the leagues I run I get good people and don't have to play kiddie cop.
I respect people defending that it is their team and that they want autonomy. However, in all things, people have to understand that everyone in the league has a vested interest in maintaining fair play. If a trade is really so bad as something like A-Rod for Joe Crede, then I reserve the right to block it in the best interests of the league even in the absence of collusion. A truly bad trade will ruin the league for every other owner and one person's ownership of their team doesn't include that right.
And I get a little reactionary about this because the, "no veto except for collusion" has become such dogma around here that people stop thinking. I once tested exactly how far the brainwashing went and put up a poll over on the fantasy football site: the poll asked people if they would vote to veto a trade of draft picks, pre-draft, one team's first 5 rounds of picks for another team's picks in rounds 6-10. Something like 80% of people voted that they would allow that trade. Now, I understand arguments against ADP and I understand the arguments of personal valuations and all that but there is no advantage from trading your picks five rounds down. But people couldn't bring themselves to admit it. So that's why it upsets me sometimes: people just refuse to use their head.
Sorry to hear about your Hafner/Fielder trade, though; that's a tough shake.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
I respect people defending that it is their team and that they want autonomy.
But then you state:
"...no veto except for collusion" has become such dogma around here that people stop thinking. I once tested exactly how far the brainwashing went...So that's why it upsets me sometimes: people just refuse to use their head.
Do you respect the other point of view, or do you think we are all mindless because we don't agree with you? Since I presume you have lumped me into your group, I will tell you that I actually feel quite strongly about this as well; I THINK quite clearly about it, thank you very much. See, to me, it's all part of the game...
And you stated that you agreed with "most" of what Russell stated. You do? If you did, then you would agree that at least some of the other camp are not in fact "brainwashed?" So...I am confused. Your basic argument is that it ruins a league if a trade tilted to one side is transacted. Fine. I disagree, but...fine. What about the rest of Russell's comments that you "agree" with?
I'll just say this. I also respect the idea of free markets but having spent 6 or so years studying and working in the area of Antitrust, even the best markets have to be regulated, in moderation, in order to operate well.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
I would view a trade that packaged ARod for Crede as player dumping, which would fall under collusion. I myself would also not allow that trade.
That is an obvious black and white trade though. ARod is the consensus number 1 pick this year and most people know him. I don't put the ARod trade in the same category as a Beltran (who i've seen drop to the 4th round in a 10 team league) for Bonderman and Longoria, although it does come close. I believe in my first response to this topic I said that this trade was borderline vetoable. I wouldn't have a problem with it being vetoed or with it going through. However, I do disagree with the reason you gave for the veto. Mainly because there can be a broad interpretation applied to that rule.
I think one of the reasons you see so many people that say "no trade blocked except for the collusive trades" is because it is the lesser evil of the two. So many of us have been torched by a bunch of rogues in our leagues that veto based on these fallacious reasons that we just threw up our hands and said, "Screw it, allow everything." As long as we monitor who we let into the league then often we don't have to worry about bad trades. So in a competitive league I tend to trust that the owners want to win and won't trade to sabotage their team.
Now I don't know about Motown, but I used to be a league votes guy 3 years ago. I didn't want unfair trades. I vetoed a trade: Clinton Portis for Madieu Williams (IDP football league) because I thought the person trading Williams was getting a steal. Once I viewed the rosters of both teams I saw that the guy trading Portis was running back heavy and very weak on defense, so I understood the reasoning behind the trade. It kind of opened my eyes a bit to how wrong I was by vetoing that trade. I valued Portis highly because of Funston's Big Board, yet that guy had a low value of him because he had two other elite running backs. He was just trying to improve his team.
Anyways, I don't see either of us swaying from out position on this. So I agree to disagree with you. Good discussion though. I'm sure we will be disagreeing on this topic again in the future.
btw, it's okay that I didn't get the Hafner trade because I ended up winning the league anyways. Just didn't have the bragging rights I would have had.
In our league we try to avoid vetoing trades that aren't collusive. Generally what we allow is for people to "steal" trades away in order to make everything a little fairer. So two people propose a trade, the trade goes up for everyone to see. When someone goes to the commissioner saying that the trade is unfair, he will say (because we all agreed to this) "then make him a better offer". That tends to make people offer "fairer" trades and can balance things all by itself.
Take for example this year in our league. There was a guy in our league with Hanley Ramirez but poor pitching, and he desperately wanted more pitching. He set up a trade for Tulowitski, Markakis, and Billingsley, but made it known he really wanted more pitching. Another team proposed a trade for Jeter and Brad Penny for Ramirez straight up. The guy took the new offer because I guess he likes Penny. Almost everyone in the league though this was a bit weak for Ramirez, but the commish basically said... "if you think Ramirez is worth more, offer the guy something". So what one team did was (and he didn't need a shortstop because he drafted Jimmy Rollins), he came to me and said "I know you don't have a shortstop... what would you give me for Ramirez?". I offered him Sizemore and Harang for Ramirez and Bay. I also offered it to the original owner so he didn't feel cheated. In the end because we have this rule where you can steal trades, it all got worked out. The guy traded Hanley Ramirez for CC Sabathia, James Shields, and Edgar Renteria. Then the new owner traded me Ramirez and Bay for Sizemore and Harang. Everyone was OK with these trades (except the guy who tried to get Ramirez cheap, but he kinda expected it to get beat).
It's just one way to do it, but it tends to make people give closer value on trade offers in our league.