I am looking to overhaul my leagues trading system. It is a league where at times it seems like anything (other than the MOST blatant of trades goes through). I would like to hear some of your leagues best ideas to avoid this kind of problem. i have thought of suggesting that every trade be voted on but then i am afraid the exact opposite problem would occur.....I want to avoid a case where NO trades will end up going thru either. I know NO system is perfect, but i would like to hear what works well for your league.
Ask 10 people what the perfect system is and you will get 10 different answers. So I will just comment on the system I use.
In our league, the Commissioner (me) has total veto powers. I will accept the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the league by vetoing deals that I feel are unbalanced. Of course, since I also play, I have banned the Commissioner's team from trading, effectively vetoing all my own trades. I feel that it's a necessary step if I am to wield a pretty heavy hand when it comes to vetoes.
Last year we had solid owners so I didn't need to veto anything but the year before I think I vetoed about 20% of the deals. When I do veto, I explain my reasoning typically saying why one team wasn't benefitting enough. I then offer up suggestions on modifying the deal to bring the trade more into balance.
For me, vetoes are not permanent. If I incorrectly veto a deal, I will admit my mistake and allow the two teams to make that deal. The teams will possibly lose some stats but that's better then allowing a deal that I should have vetoed. In the latter case, it IS permanent and the damage is irrepairable.
What I try to do is create an environment where owners don't feel like they need to trade to compete. In most leagues, there will be 2-3 clueless owners who repeatedly get ripped off by 1-2 sharks. Lots of fantasy players know what I'm talking about. Once you've played in a league like that and get sick of it, you end up looking for a league like mine.
"And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere. But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear." - The Rains of Castamere
I think that a commissioner is the best way to control the market in a league. We had a fairly major 'uprising' last year with one guy who had declared that 'I'm tired of getting my butt kicked and I'm going to influence the playoffs' offering to unload his team to the highest bidder and requesting everyone submit their bids so he could get the best deals. I offered him Zito for Clemens which he said he'd accept so, at that point, I looked at all the trades suspiciously.
He put riled up the 'libertarians' to protest any controls on the market w/ all sorts of 'it's his team, he should be able to do what he wants with it'. He had a couple of deals cooked up, both of which involved him 'losing' quite a bit of market value. To be fair, I offered everyone the chance to explain how the deals were fair (sorry I can't remember the particulars...) but, as all I got back was 'you dictator, mind your own business' I vetoed them. The first place player (who ended up coming in second to a 3rd place team...) did thank me for not colluding to screw him over but it did get a bit ugly.
Afterwards however, while in the process of picking names out of the hat for the football draft, the 'bailer' did state that 'we need a witness with integrity, like AcidRock23' and I saved the email for future reference. Had I allowed the deals to go through, I suspect that it may have cost us a player or two this year but it's hard to tell. I did not, needless to say, accept the offer to trade me his Clemens for my Zito though...
I agree that the commissioner should have the say in all trades and speaking as a commissioner for the past several years I have only vetoed one trade in all that time. If you play in a keeper league you can understand someone trading for cheap players for the following year. I wouldn't play any league that wasn't keeper.
Veto systems are always problematic, and there probably truly isn't anything even approaching perfect. One thing I've found useful in the past is a system with two separate vetoes: one for collusion, one for trades that shouldn't be allowed for other reasons (such as taking advantage of first-year owners, which is a no-no in my league).
At the very least, the separate vetoes help keep tempers from flaring when owners feel they're being accused of collusion when hit with a 'generic' veto.
Good luck finding the system that works best for your league!
I'll also share what I do in the league I commish:
I have final authority over trades. If a trade looks suspicious, I'll first ask teams not involved to give me their input (maybe I don't know something), and if they also are suspicious, I will ask the two owners to explain. So far, I have never had to veto a trade. It's a competitive league, and nobody likes to lose.
We also have a "keep-5" rule, so that kind of helps with the trades, but it also makes it much more difficult. For example, last year we had a number of very lop-sided trades (e.x. Lance Berkman & Javier Vazquez for Zach Greinke and Melvin Mora), but Berkman & Vazquez were very expensive, and Mora & Grinke were both $1 players.... In 2004 it was really uneven, but now the team trading away Berkman/Vazquez has two fantastic $1 keepers....
IMO Keepers make analysing trades much more difficult...
stoner420 wrote:so be a good commish and only veto something if it is really illegit. like let manny for vlad trades go through but not manny for posada
This is where it gets tough...For example, if ALL Team A's catchers are injured and the best one on the WW is Paul Bako, most teams will figure it out and Team A will need to give away the farm for a C. If Team A has a decent OF and can afford to lose Manny, then while it is not a good deal, it is a fair deal.
IMO trades shouldn't be vetoed for bad decisions, only for collusion.
collusion only. life is full of people wanting to get fleeced and its only fair to help them out.
league voting s a horrible way to do it unless you require every nay to provide a solid argument. otherwise, you get people vetoing everything they are not part of because a trade will invariably help someone, which is typically bad for the non-participants.