How would you address the following problem, or if it even is a problem.
There is one owner who was inactive for a large portion of the season. Around the trade deadline, the owner (Owner A) became active and made a trade with Owner B. The problem is that the trade was very lopsided. As the league is a no veto league, the trade went through. It became clear fairly quickly among several league members that Owner A turned down better offers or did not return phone calls or messages. Adding to the controversy, Owner A is close friends with Owner B, more than likely explaining why Owner A traded with Owner B even when it was not in his best interest. Everyone in the league is at least acquaintances or friends with everyone else.
Do the league members have a legitimate gripe that there was favoritism, collusion, etc considering the various factors? This is a keeper league. The trade involved players with high value for 2012 but no value for 2013 for players with no value in 2012 and little (but better than nothing nonetheless) value for 2013.
The results of this year are behind us (or will be in a week). I am wondering what you would suggest doing to the owners or league rules.
You guys made the decision to make this a no veto league, and because of that you open up the possibility of people taking advantage of those rules, or lack there of. Personally, I suck it up and let it go, but consider revising the rules to include trade vetoes. If you still don't want to have vetoes in the league, then the other managers could send a message by freezing these guys out of trades for a season, or two.
The rules allow commissioner veto in case of collusion or cheating. The commissioner deemed that not enough people thought it was collusion, or thought anything should be done, in order to veto the trade. Some people took the opinion that it was collusion but hoped that the one owner would go away without a fight if this trade went through. In reality, those who did not think it was collusion were parties to the trade or close friends with one of the owners.
The problem is a small minority of the league are close knit and therefore voted no on collusion. What is the best way to restore order and fairness
maybe make a 3 member voting panel if the commish gets 3-4 messages on a particular trade the panel votes on it. Theres no reason for a team to make a giveaway trade with no keeper value; sounds like the league was ok until this 1 deal so maybe it is a 1 time problem. Any owner who is inactive for a long time really doesn't need to be invited back; maybe that solves the problem. Leagues w/ friends it is better to not make bigger problems than you have to, but any league w insider trading going on isn't worth playing in.
get rid of the inactive owner. I would stamp out any threat of cheating. If that means dropping 3 teams, do it. Its no fun when teams are cheating, why worry about not finding owners for next year when this could happen again next year anyway.
I firmly believe leagues should be commish veto only and in cases like this, where a team has NOT been active or setting lineups and then reappears to make a lop sided trade, it get's shot down, no questions.
If the trade was fair and Owner A was inactive for most of the season, you let it go, and give props to Owner B for getting Owner A off his lazy rear end, but the trade has to be fair.
An inactive owner should not be allowed the same rights as an active owner. How you define "inactive" is questionable, but if he was gone for 2+ weeks, especially in a daily league, I think as commish you have every right to veto the trade.
The fact the owner turned down other, more respectable trades, just adds to the fact the commish had the power to step in.
Don't invite the inactive owner back next year.
Twitter: @dmojr - Always available to talk fantasy or be that second opinion before a trade.
Nothing you can do with your settings, but i view these situations in the realm of cheating. Its the "hooking up a buddy" trades. The longer you do this, the easier it is to notice it. Personally i see it as Team B isnt trading to improve his team. He's hooking up a buddy who is getting a windfall from this "buddy" relationship. This isnt fair to the other owners in the league and hurts the overall fairness of the league.
Another example of this happened this year in one of my leagues. Me and team A are in playoffs. There was a couple really good additions on waivers (forget who but obvious pitching pickups). Team A had used up his transactions for the week btw. Team C (who is friends with Team A) is not in the playoffs but logs in at 3am to pick these guys up. Obv this is BS, picking these guys up hurt me, helped his friend and he wasnt even in the playoffs. Commish did nothing.
same type of situation though, hooking up a buddy is a form of cheating, one guy isnt trading to improve his team and the other guy is getting a windfall. Hurts the league overall. The buddy trades are great examples against the idea that trades should never be vetoed unless proven collusion.
Clearly too late to do anything about it this year. So I'd include in the rules next year some form of 'trade protest'. In our league, any single owner can protest a trade. There is a small cost involved which is waived if their protest is found to be upheld. Once protested, we have a three-team panel vote on the legitimacy of the trade. The three teams are chosen based upon where they are in the standings. We take one team from each tier (upper,middle, lower) and they have a couple of days to vote either to allow the trade or block the trade.
While it may seem like there's the potential for a lot of trades to be protested, it actually very rarely happens. Nobody wants to be seen as a 'trouble maker' and there's always the possibility that if you protest a trade, somebody is going to reciprocate and protest your trade. More over, our league is a keeper auction style and when it comes to pitchers being traded, one owner's view of a potential closer/ace is another owner's view of an under performer/journeyman.