fantasy football: ruling on trades

[cthomer5000]

My league had a pretty memorable blowup over a trade a few years ago, one which resulted in one owner leaving after the season (I at least respect him not quitting immediately) and starting a league of his own.

We're contemplating bringing this member back into the fold (mostly because he can bring 5 more people to juice up our league), and it again got me thinking about how annoying it is when a trade isn't viewed as totally fine by the whole league.

I can't recall the specifics of the trade, but it boiled down to being a trade in the 2nd week of the season where the major parts trading places were WR Rod Gardner and another player for RB Priest Holmes. This was after the first week of the 2002 season.

Now my real question is, as comissioner (which I am), do you reject a trade becuase you think it's a bad trade, or because you think there is something a bit sinister going on?

Although I'm "techinically" commish, it boils down to being the guy who is trusted to hold the money ($100 per person), set the league up on yahoo, and just kind of preside over determining the rule set we use (which we've tinkered with a tad each season, as per owner input). On any major decisions I basically have two senior owners and co-founders I consult when making a controversial decision.

At the time we emailed a lot about the specific trade, and decided that none of us would make that trade ourselves (we felt that Holmes was 95% likely to be the more valuable player all season long), but also felt that we could see where the owners where coming from in the trade, and were absolutely certain there was no foul play invovled. Remember, this was in the height of Steve Spurrier mania, where it seemed conceivable that Gardner could be good for up to 1,500 yards and 12+ touchdowns - given that we felt there was a chance (although perhaps not a great one) that Gardner would turn out to be a super-stud player, we decided to let the trade stand.

Of course Spurrier flopped, Gardner was essentially a FF bust, and Holmes had one of his dream seasons. The owner who acquired Holmes made the playoffs as the #2 or #3 seed and won the championship (although it was in a major upset). [ On a complete side note, in our 3 years of existence the same owner has lost every single championship game, while viewed as the favorite every time. The Marv Levy jokes have been flowing for quite some time. ]


Now again, my question is really:

Do you reject a trade becuase:

A. You think it's a bad trade
or
B. Because you think there is something shady (cheating) invovled.

Just looking for feedback from other commissioners or long-time FF owners.

[sachmo71]

In my former keeper league, I almost quit after an owner traded Kurt Warner for Tom Brady straight up. This was in Brady's rookie year, so Warner was still one of the most prolific QB's in fantasy football. The trade carried 7-5, but I was livid.

Turns out, the guy who got Brady definately got the better end of that deal. I vetoed it because I thought it was an unbalanced trade. I was wrong.

Since then, I've decided that unless I feel like an owner is deliberatly tanking, I won't veto a trade, because in fantasy football, there are no guarantees.

[rkmsuf]

I don't think you can reject a trade based soley on you thinking it's a bad trade. You said yourself in the above you could see where the original deal made some sense. If that came across in emails between other owners I can't see shooting down the trade unless you think it's done out of shadiness and not stupidity.

I will always go with a vote of owners and then take it up with "core" members(we have had the same 5 guys together since 1995). I've seen some questionable ones but it's been my expierience it's mostly just dumb moves.

Usually the shady ones are obvious...the one above didn't sound all that obvious.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Usually the shady ones are obvious...the one above didn't sound all that obvious.

I should have remarked that the guy acquiring Gardner was also a total Redskin homer. In 2003 he put together the most pathetic team of basically every Skin he could get his hands on. His team was basically a 'W' on everyones schedule, and he was an extra 100 bucks in the pot.

Sadly, he doesn't appear interested in returning this year. I mean, I like competition, but there is nothing wrong with having a couple bottom feeders putting more money in the pot in bigger leagues.

[gstelmack]

B. Clearly. You can't legislate stupidity.

I had a lot of fun last year playing a fantasy team made up primarily of Patriots, with a few Panthers/Bucs thrown in. I had a lot of fun being able to actually root for both the teams I like and the players I like, instead of having to choose. In that circumstance, I might have made a trade that seemed stupid to others but fit my team philosophy just fine. I had a lot of fun with the team, and ended up finishing middle of the pack (lost a tiebreaker to make the playoffs), so it's not like it tanked.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I should have remarked that the guy acquiring Gardner was also a total Redskin homer. In 2003 he put together the most pathetic team of basically every Skin he could get his hands on. His team was basically a 'W' on everyones schedule, and he was an extra 100 bucks in the pot.

Heh. Figures this shows up right after I post mine. Anyway, so he picked the wrong team to back. Where's the crime in that?

Of course, I don't play in money leagues, so my opinion probably carries less weight. Everything changes when there's money on the table, and you just have to expect some cutthroat behavior. As even you admitted earlier, this was the height of Spurrier-mania with the Super Bowl being discussed. Why not put together a team of players from your favorite team when that team is picked to go to a Super Bowl?

[primelord]

I am the "commish" for a fantasy hockey league some buddies of mine and I participate in every year. We have run into this situation a few times as well and my stance has always been unless I think there is collusion going on I am going to let the trade go through.

Not every trade needs to be exactly balanced. And in some cases a team is so hard up for help at a position they may need to over pay in order to land someone. The same can be said for the guy that is loaded at a position. He can ask for the world if he doesn't feel the need to trade for a player.

I also don't think a good player should be punished just because he is better at evaluating players than his trading partner. If it is just a bad trade, but there is nothing sinister going on it should be allowed.

Where it gets sticky for me is when people have a problem with trades I am involved in. Since I am the commish I obviously can't make an impartial ruling. In those cases the person protesting and I generally agree on an objective 3rd party. In the past that has ranged from another owner in the league to posting it on a message board. Needless to say going outside of the league can obviously only lead to a rulign on whether or not the trade was balanced. I have got screwed on several very good deals for me that way.

[Maple Leafs]

The authoritative guide to this sort of thing:
http://www.footballguys.com/mcindoe_badtrades.cfm

[Warhammer]

I would definitely say B.

I had the same thing happen, but I was involved in the trade, about 2 years ago. I was fighting for first place towards the end of the season. I traded my QB, I had Brad Johnson, Marc Bulger, and Rich Gannon, and I traded Gannon for some WR or RB help, I forget which. Anyhow, I traded Gannon to the player who was playing the team I was fighting for first with that week.

Everyone had a hissy about me trading Gannon because I was not getting fair value, etc. But at the time, Johnson was on a hot streak, I had a solid backup in Bulger, and Gannon was riding the pine.

Long story short, I go on to win the regular season with a 10-2 record. The person I traded Gannon to barely makes the playoffs, wins two games, plays me in the finals, and pulls out a win because his RB went nuts and had like 4 TDs that day.

Both teams won in terms of the trade, but it was almost not allowed. Until I went to the commish and explained my reasons, he was going to deny the trade.

[cthomer5000]

[quote=Maple Leafs]The authoritative guide to this sort of thing:
http://www.footballguys.com/mcindoe_badtrades.cfm[/QUOTE]

It pretty much sums up my beliefs on dealing with this stuff. "When in doubt, let it stand."

[Celeval]

B, depending on experience level. If it's an old pro taking severe advantage of a newbie, then that could result in an overturn. "Peyton Manning might pass for 30 TDs... but Quincy Carter + Jake Plummer + Josh McCown could combine for 40!"

[Samdari]

I think you can overrule them ONLY when you have not only suspicion, but evidence of chicanery. In extremely rare cases, I guess a trade that is "clearly unbalanced" and that would essentially "upset the balance of power" in the league. My definition for either would be unanimous vote of all other members of the league, not just a simple majority.

Remember, fantasy value is in the eye of the beholder. Just the other day, I was offended at someone offering me Kevan Barlow/C receiver for Kevin Jones/B receiver. I could not believe the guy was offering me downgrades at both WR and RB. Then he pointed out he though he had made a reasonable offer since most regard Barlow as more valuable than Jones. After processing this stunning piece of information, I was reminded that not everydeal will be valued the same as I do.

So, this member left the league because you did not overturn the Priest Holmes deal after game 1 of 2002? That is humorous to me, as I was mocked after my 2002 draft in which I took Holmes and Gannon with the 12/13 picks in a 12 team snake draft. Nobody in my league believed in him, even after his 1555 rushing yards in 2001 .

[spleen1015]

This coming season will be the 6th year I've commished a league and I never overturned a trade. There have been trades made by some folks that weren't very good. To avoid that sort of thing in the future, I didn't invite the offenders to play anymore. Usually, if someone makes a bad trade, they don't know what they're doing anyway. I want my league to be competitive. The competition makes it fun.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Samdari

So, this member left the league because you did not overturn the Priest Holmes deal after game 1 of 2002? That is humorous to me, as I was mocked after my 2002 draft in which I took Holmes and Gannon with the 12/13 picks in a 12 team snake draft. Nobody in my league believed in him, even after his 1555 rushing yards in 2001 .

He finished out the year, but I think he felt that trade should have "clearly" been overturned. The fact that the guy receiving Holmes eventually won the title probably gave him all the evidence he needed (despite the fact that the actual final victory was a big upset). He didn't leave the league so much as voice his displeasure and not return the next year. It's not a keeper league, so he didn't really "quit."

I think i'm also one of those guys who didn't quite believe Holmes was for real after 2001. I feel really stupid in retrospect, but 2002 was the year I finally realized I can't go cheap on running backs (I did in previous years and got lucky a few times, but you're just playing with fire).

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I think i'm also one of those guys who didn't quite believe Holmes was for real after 2001. I feel really stupid in retrospect, but 2002 was the year I finally realized I can't go cheap on running backs (I did in previous years and got lucky a few times, but you're just playing with fire).

Well, I will admit I only had Holmes 6th on my RB list that year. I felt lucky to get him at 12, but had no inkling that he was about to have an all time great fantasy season (along with Gannon). There was reason to discount him somewhat - in 2001, he was still being pulled at the GL for Richardson.

[Blackadar]

You should only veto a trade when it's:

A. Clear there's something fishy going on - the dreaded collusion
B. It would unbalance (and otherwise wreck) the entire league. If, by completing the trade, it becomes a foregone conclusion that one team is going to run away with it, then you have to veto it. Otherwise, there's no point playing. Let me say, however, that this RARELY happens.

And you always need to find out what's the motivation behind the trade. Some folks just like to deal and will trade, even when they don't get the better end. Some become infatuated with their favorite team - they project unrealistic expectations - and will do almost anything to get them. I remember drafting Kordell Stewart with the #1 choice a few years ago, partly because I was a Steelers fan and just couldn't bear to see anyone else have him. Needless to say, it was a painful lesson and I think it was the only year I didn't finish in the top 3 in any football league I've ever joined.

I was playing in a league a few years ago - started up here if I remember correctly - where one of my trades was vetoed by the commish. The initial reason given was he didn't think it was balanced. I was pretty pissed, so I went digging. Upon further review, he viewed my team as one of the few teams in the league that had a chance to beat his and didn't want to see me get any stronger. In other words, he used his position of power to cheat. After I found that out, I waived my entire team and quit. It's the only time I've done that (and I hated to do it), but the league was wrecked because he was cheating and I was going to be damned if he was going to get away with it.

[The_herd]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Since then, I've decided that unless I feel like an owner is deliberatly tanking, I won't veto a trade, because in fantasy football, there are no guarantees.

This is absolutely the way to do things. I'm in a baseball league with some guys I was stationed with in Germany and we had a senario play out similar to the one cthomer described and I was involved.

The first month in the season I realized I was in desperate need of pitching, but I had plenty of offense. So made the following offer (remember 1st month of the season):

I send:
Pujols
Ishii

I get:
Vernon Wells
Bartolo Colon
Odalis Perez

In hindsight, not a good trade for me at all. I needed pitching and I considered Colon a top 5 pitcher entering the season. Wells is 25 and getting better. Perez has the best stuff in Dodgers rotation and the potential to easily win 15-18 games. However, it was vetoed 7-5. We actually had 2 owners threaten to leave over this. Interestingly, they were both for the trade. That trade being vetoed killed virtually all trade talk for quite a while. Everyone knew all trades were going under the microscope from there on out.

I'm always willing to give an owner the benifit of the doubt in trades that I consider unequal. Maybe they see something I don't. I can honestly say that I've never, ever voted to veto a trade. That trade wouldn't have worked out for me, but it getting vetoed really killed some of the relationships between owners. In '02 Holmes was coming off his 1st really good season as RB and I'm sure the guy didn't think he could reproduce the numbers he had just put up. Its a matter of perspective and as I said, I'm willing to listen to any owner and give him the benifit of the doubt. Vetoing trades can kill leagues and its not worth it.

[Glengoyne]

In the second week of 2000(I think) we had a trade in our league go through, that sent Jimmy Smith off in exchange for Edgerin James. Now Jimmy Smith opened that season with two monster performances, so I could understand someone weak at receiver giving up some value at RB to land a star WR. I felt James was possibly the best back in the game at the time, so I didn't want to let him get dealt for a receiver, especially when the guy getting James already had Marshall Faulk. I couldn't reccomend against the trade though. I knew it was a bad/lopsided deal, but for goodness sakes it was only week two, and Smith was just about the highest point scorer in football at the time.

The end result was the guy with James and Faulk practically ran the table on the way to a championship. I had Faulk on my team as well, and he ended up beating me by just a few points when James scored three or four touchdowns in our semi-final week.


Note: When I say I had Faulk too...I should explain. We have 32 teams in our league. Since that is obviously too many teams to handle in a draft, we have four 'divisional' drafts, each with eight teams. There are a few inter-divisional games during the season when you will run up against teams with some of your players starting for them, and in the playoffs of course you run into the same thing.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I was playing in a league a few years ago - started up here if I remember correctly - where one of my trades was vetoed by the commish. The initial reason given was he didn't think it was balanced. I was pretty pissed, so I went digging. Upon further review, he viewed my team as one of the few teams in the league that had a chance to beat his and didn't want to see me get any stronger. In other words, he used his position of power to cheat. After I found that out, I waived my entire team and quit. It's the only time I've done that (and I hated to do it), but the league was wrecked because he was cheating and I was going to be damned if he was going to get away with it.

Was his name Kyle?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Was his name Kyle?

I really couldn't remember...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Was his name Kyle?

Well played.

[TLK]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I was playing in a league a few years ago - started up here if I remember correctly - where one of my trades was vetoed by the commish. The initial reason given was he didn't think it was balanced. I was pretty pissed, so I went digging. Upon further review, he viewed my team as one of the few teams in the league that had a chance to beat his and didn't want to see me get any stronger. In other words, he used his position of power to cheat. After I found that out, I waived my entire team and quit. It's the only time I've done that (and I hated to do it), but the league was wrecked because he was cheating and I was going to be damned if he was going to get away with it.

I remember that..... I was on the other end of that trade..... that league didn't survive the rest of the season.....