Trade Objection.....should I be that guy?

[TREFF]

What bothers me is when leagues have voting process and never vote against... whats the point of going through the whole process... if you have a process that stops awful trades then stop the trades... hopefully this will teach the leagues to abolish the voting rule... The whole i only vote against when i think owners are colluding is absolute bull, because how do u prove it?? the only way is if it is an awful trade, so why does it matter if the trade is significant or not??

Only thing I can say is, not everyone sees it as that black and white.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Only thing I can say is, not everyone sees it as that black and white.

Then explain the difference between a collusion trade and an awful trade...

 

[Sam Sportboy]

What bothers me is when leagues have voting process and never vote against... whats the point of going through the whole process... if you have a process that stops awful trades then stop the trades... hopefully this will teach the leagues to abolish the voting rule... The whole i only vote against when i think owners are colluding is absolute bull, because how do u prove it?? the only way is if it is an awful trade, so why does it matter if the trade is significant or not??

In my money league we had a team with two owners. We needed another owner as somebody quit on us. The team split. Same year after week 3 one guy was 3-0 and the other was 0-3. I shit you not the 3-0 team traded DHB to the 0-3 team for Burner and his 6th round pick....................what do you think? Collusion? The trade went through but they never heard the end of it and we did have to make a collusion rule....................so yes, even in leagues that have been around for 20+ years there is shady shit that goes on.................

 

[Sam Sportboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^collusion^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then explain the difference between a collusion trade and an awful trade...

Team A gets Daryl Richardson and Kenny Britt
Team B gets Lamar Miller and Hakeem Nicks

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Shitty Trade^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[TREFF]

Then explain the difference between a collusion trade and an awful trade...

Again, its not that black and white. . can't explain it any better than that. Every case is different and far too many factors are in play to just say so matter of fact-ly

One big sign though, would be a trade much more lopsided, and involving a player or two that can actually change a team. .not a handful os slightly above average players.

 

[tlance]

Here is how you know. Ask each owner to justify how the trade helps their team. If the team getting Richardson and Britt has sound logic, then the deal should be allowed. I think it is very assumptive of anyone to say that

"this is a bad deal for you because ....." Are you 100% sure that Miller and Nicks will outscore the other 2? I am not. I think there is about a 25-30 percent chance that team A ends up winning this trade in the long run. It is a bad trade in terms of value today, but way too close to veto unless Team A can't justify his position.

 

[tlance]

What bothers me is when leagues have voting process and never vote against... whats the point of going through the whole process... if you have a process that stops awful trades then stop the trades... hopefully this will teach the leagues to abolish the voting rule... The whole i only vote against when i think owners are colluding is absolute bull, because how do u prove it?? the only way is if it is an awful trade, so why does it matter if the trade is significant or not??

I think most good leagues have provisions like this to make everyone feel safe. I know that if there is a horrible trade in my $ league that the other owners have the right to veto. Now, in 5 years playing 3 different fantasy sports with these guys, only 1 trade has ever been vetoed.

The reason is because everyone in the league trusts one another. Some trades are 1 sided, but every move is made in good faith with each owner trying to improve his team. That is all you can ask. Just like in real life, there is a winner and a loser to every trade. Sometimes they go the way we think, sometimes they don't.

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

Here is how you know. Ask each owner to justify how the trade helps their team. If the team getting Richardson and Britt has sound logic, then the deal should be allowed. I think it is very assumptive of anyone to say that

"this is a bad deal for you because ....." Are you 100% sure that Miller and Nicks will outscore the other 2? I am not. I think there is about a 25-30 percent chance that team A ends up winning this trade in the long run. It is a bad trade in terms of value today, but way too close to veto unless Team A can't justify his position.

Thanks Tlance for helping to explain that owners can have different opinions on value of players and league strategy. One man's garbage can be another man's gold.

Collusion is when the trade is designed to benefit one of the teams in the trade at the expense of the other or at the expense of the league. When both teams think they are improving, even though it doesn't appear that way to some others, then let the trade stand.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think most good leagues have provisions like this to make everyone feel safe. I know that if there is a horrible trade in my $ league that the other owners have the right to veto. Now, in 5 years playing 3 different fantasy sports with these guys, only 1 trade has ever been vetoed.

The reason is because everyone in the league trusts one another. Some trades are 1 sided, but every move is made in good faith with each owner trying to improve his team. That is all you can ask. Just like in real life, there is a winner and a loser to every trade. Sometimes they go the way we think, sometimes they don't.

So if you can defend it well then it is not collusion... that is a joke... you can defend anything, and you can make at least one good point in every argument...

how do you define the degree of collusion?? why only focus on the obvious??

In a non-voting league you have to go out of your way to stop collusion, and therefore let almost everything go(this is good)
But in a voting league how can you allow any trade that is awful??

 

[TREFF]

But in a voting league how can you allow any trade that is awful??

Because, it's not up to you, or I, or anyone else and our own personal evaluations of good/even/bad/awful..it's up to the owners involved. Unless it crosses the line and obviously affects the league's competitive balance, pure and simple. If you want to vote these types of trades down, fine, so be it.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

We can't predict the future and we can't be 100% sure of anything. But it would still be idiotic to let something like, say, Adrian Peterson for Gresham pass. That reasoning doesn't hold.

So it only works if there's a 25-30% chance that one person is getting ripped off. Well first off, who are you to come up with the percentage value on these players, and then where exactly do you chop that percentage off? If there's a 20% chance a player is getting ripped off, is that still ok? What about 10%? 5%? Looks like a slippery slope to me and it's not possible to quantify something so subjective. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why not here? This trade looks incredibly stupid at best.

If these are people you know personally, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and let that guy be stupid and then of course make fun of him. If these are people you don't know, then I'd veto that. I don't like to veto trades but if I see something that appears to be one owner shooting himself in the foot without any comprehensible reason why that would make sense to him, then I'm vetoing it. If enough people veto it, it gets rejected. If I'm the only one who feels that way, it goes through and life goes on.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Because, it's not up to you, or I, or anyone else and our own personal evaluations of good/even/bad/awful..it's up to the owners involved. Unless it crosses the line and obviously affects the league's competitive balance, pure and simple. If you want to vote these types of trades down, fine, so be it.

But when a league has a voting process then by the rules it is telling you to make the judgement... Follow the rules of the league, that is the advice on draft day, and how to set up lineups; why not how to handle other teams?? I dont like vetoing trades and luckily never did, but if i am in a league where we vote if a trade should be vetoed i will give my opinion... if it is a one sided trade then i will vote that it should be vetoed...

 

[Sox33OSU]

If you have the option to vote, then vote. If you think it's clearly a lopsided trade, then vote against it. Personally I think this is very lopsided. There's a good chance that Britt may not be playing much anymore anyhow after his idiotic Twitter comments while Hicks is on pace for well over 1000 yards, and Richardson, though he has looked decent in a PPR format, hasn't been all that amazing, while Miller has extremely high upside. If I were in a league with voting rights, I'd vote no.

 

[wilwhite]

The problem is that most leagues don't say why people are voting, just that they can. At one end of the spectrum a guy might veto as basic strategy, balance of the trade be damned. At the other end maybe somebody only objects if they think there's collusion. And in the middle there's the awful "I don't think the trade is fair" stuff. And in most leagues it's a total mish-mash with no guidelines.

Also people leap at the opportunity to force their valuation down other people's throats, and since vetoes are free, people get riled up about essentially insignificant trades.

If you say, "a trade veto is an accusation of collusion" that weeds out a lot of chaff. This trade would get no vetos in that case, or maybe one, and Monkey's trade last year wouldn't have been vetoed.

That would actually settle the "how do you know it's collusion" question - it's collusion when half the other owners vote that it is.

 

[tlance]

That is fine Milk.

But, if you are in a long standing league like Monkey is and people start vetoing because they "don't like a trade," you ruin the integrity of the league more than a one sided deal could ever do. A bad trade may affect 1 season. A bad veto could destroy an entire league. Monkey is already talking about past season's vetoes affecting this decision.

My advice, if you play in a private league, don't start vetoing just because it is allowed.

If you think about it, what is the purpose of trading? A good trade should make both teams better, right?

If that is the case, then it is in every owner's immediate interest to object all trades to keep the opposition from getting better.

Trade votes are there to keep people honest, not to give owners a chance to decide if they "like" the trade.

 

[tlance]

Essentially, when you vote against a trade, you are declaring the owner incompetent. In any league that I commish, if an owner repeatedly gets taken advantage of in trade, I will boot them from the league before I veto a deal.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That is fine Milk.

But, if you are in a long standing league like Monkey is and people start vetoing because they "don't like a trade," you ruin the integrity of the league more than a one sided deal could ever do. A bad trade may affect 1 season. A bad veto could destroy an entire league. Monkey is already talking about past season's vetoes affecting this decision.

My advice, if you play in a private league, don't start vetoing just because it is allowed.

If you think about it, what is the purpose of trading? A good trade should make both teams better, right?

If that is the case, then it is in every owner's immediate interest to object all trades to keep the opposition from getting better.

Trade votes are there to keep people honest, not to give owners a chance to decide if they "like" the trade.

not liking a trade is one thing, i would never veto if i dont like a trade... it is if i hate a trade, if a trade is clearly onesided... Every trade has a winner and a loser, in fact it is said that a perfect trade/deal makes both sides walking away disappointed.. All i am saying is if there is a system to protect the league from bad trades why not use it?? hopefully it teaches the league that having a voting system is not good...
Again what is the point of having a voting system if no trade ever gets vetoed?? just abolish the rule...

 

[SmokingMonkey]

getting a good kick out of this thread, and Ive been bustin some balls on the guy that got Britt. I'll always give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I kinda hope all 4 of them suck for a few weeks so they get benched, then have a huge day while sitting on their bench, lol

 

[Sam Sportboy]

getting a good kick out of this thread, and Ive been bustin some balls on the guy that got Britt. I'll always give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I kinda hope all 4 of them suck for a few weeks so they get benched, then have a huge day while sitting on their bench, lol

So they did make the trade? Wow! I call Miller/Wilson pretty even (but Wilson would get the nod IMO if he gets out of the doghouse) but Nicks/Britt is an ass raping if you ask me. I understand certain players are gonna be valued more by certain owners but I personally just don't see it here. Regardless, I'd just talk shit and make fun of them myself........I mean hell, you have a very strong team in that league anyway.........screw 'em.

 

[TREFF]

Again what is the point of having a voting system if no trade ever gets vetoed?? just abolish the rule...

Milk. .we've explained this time after time. . to protect against collusion. We've given you the "I'd you don't want it, vote it down in YOUR league", and we'll give it to you all day long. If you can't see the purpose behind the voting rule. . please stop asking why. . we've told you why, you're refusing to either understand, or to accept it. . either way, this conversation is getting old