Hey guys, I need a subscription based service to make rulings in my league. We have had differing opinions with regard to trading. Since I am the commissioner, (I regard myself more of the secretary in a democratic league) and also have a team, I feel it inappropriate that I make rulings on trades, even though I feel I have a good grasp on the concept of a fair trade. Most of the problems lie in the perceived values, i.e. players coming back from injury, addressing fantasy needs/weaknesses. For example, a team with several stud pitchers may settle for a little less of a bat in return since it fills a huge hole in his lineup and doesn't hurt his pitching staff. This gets a little tense sometimes. What I'd like to do is subject all the non add/drop transactions to an unbiased third party. Any ideas?
Just make the decision you think is right and if one of the teams cries, tell them to go jump in the river...............seriously, if people don't understand context when making a trade, then they shouldn't have any say in voting on a trade for sure.
then they shouldn't have any say in voting on a trade for sure.
Do you mean to say that every trade gets put to a league vote? Is this the generally accepted practice? I have shied away from this method because many teams generally vote "no" just because. In my own experience, in my Yahoo league where I don't know anyone, I vote no every time just because a yes vote makes both teams better; that's the point, right? As of now, every owner gets alot of liberty using waivers and trades. The only reason why I make it stop at the commissioner's office is to prevent total chaos, like the rogue team from destroying the leagues integrity. Honestly, these are great guys and have good baseball minds, but every once in awhile a questionable trade pops up, and the issue is this: Do team owners have the right to make a bad decision or take a chance at a longshot? And second, who says the commissioners judgment is the correct judgment? I know I am sitting on both sides of the fence, but as a team owner, I'd like someone else to be responsible for axing a trade, otherwise, I'll have to leave the league because there will always be someone who doubts the motives of the commissioner, even if he has a great reputation. Too bad these forums couldn't be the impartial jury... Maybe every time I get a trade come through, I put it in the trade section of the forums for a day or two, and let everyone here decide. I was going to use baseball doctors, but they seem to be out of business..
If this is a serious league with serious managers, you could use a "Panel" system, which I employ in my league. The Commish and two other respected, knowledgeable, fair managers form a three man panel that votes on all trades. Each guys votes to uphold or veto the trade, majority (2 out of 3) rules. You should also have two alternates in the event that one or both of the managers involved in the trade are on the Panel. Panelists should give some rationale for their vote, which will be made public. I have found this to be a nice middle ground between having a dictator Commish and an anonymous league vote, which has its own problems that you've highlighted already. Something to consider...
Thanks for the advice... Technically, i.e. in the bylaws, there is a provision for a rules committee, just as you described, which I have seen used in a football league. I adopted the bylaws from another league, but never really used them, I guess shame on me.. It would have been nice to have it in working order last year. It's not too late, I'll give it a whirl... Thanks for the insight..
The Panel is awful. We tried it last year and it became a debacle. If a trade comes up that people start VETOING the teams involved can explain their reasons for the trade. If it still gets a majority VETO then it gets stopped. Its a fair standard across the board.
Why was the panel system in a debacle in your league? I've been in multiple leagues that use it in one form or another for several years now, with great success. It's not perfect but overall it's been far better than "commissioner rules" or "whole league votes" ever were.
rchemo wrote:Hey guys, I need a subscription based service to make rulings in my league. We have had differing opinions with regard to trading. Since I am the commissioner, (I regard myself more of the secretary in a democratic league) and also have a team, I feel it inappropriate that I make rulings on trades, even though I feel I have a good grasp on the concept of a fair trade. Most of the problems lie in the perceived values, i.e. players coming back from injury, addressing fantasy needs/weaknesses. For example, a team with several stud pitchers may settle for a little less of a bat in return since it fills a huge hole in his lineup and doesn't hurt his pitching staff. This gets a little tense sometimes. What I'd like to do is subject all the non add/drop transactions to an unbiased third party. Any ideas?
Todd A..
What we do in our league is at the Auction have the normal $260 salary cap. When the season starts, it becomes a $290 cap. No one approves trades. If you can stay under the cap, it is a fair trade. It gives enough room for some salary dump, but not a lot. It has worked well.
Our league dropped vetoing of trades this year alltogether. The voting itself causes to many problems and that ruins everyones fun. If there is a questionable trade, it should be brought to the comissioners attention in private to look at. In our eyes, trades should only be struck down if there is clear evidence of collusion. otherwise, trades can be so subjective that it is tough to determine intent.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by rchemo » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:06 pm 
