Multiplayer trades that make you cringe.

[stevew]

Some new member of our league just traded the #2 overall pick in the draft for marginal, at best, WR and C, and a late late second round selection. What do you do? Im tempted to just quit, cut my losses and my time involvement. If someone is gonna act this stupid, whats the point of continuing. At what point can the members of the league just say, "this trade isnt fair, and shouldnt be processed." Especially since the Commish got the windfall. Any other leagues have openings?

[stevew]

Someone's gonna make a parody thread "Multiplayer trades you make with Cringer"

[Joe]

hasnt this happened with wig getting the windfall a few times before?

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I think every league should be able to void a trade that is egregious. I'm curious about this "marginal" WR and C. What are their current/future ratings? How many years of experience do they have?

It might also be worthwhile to find out the cap situation of the team trading away the #2.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by big dogg

I think there are 30 other teams that would have given a better deal than that.

BTW, I can't wait to see Steve's reaction to this.

LOL

[Eaglesfan27]

I think every league should be able to void a trade that is egregious. I'm curious about this "marginal" WR and C. What are their current/future ratings? How many years of experience do they have?

[sovereignstar]

http://www.desktopdynasties.com/foru...?TOPIC_ID=1082

[Fonzie]

Damn post-order bug.

This type of situation is where the league's constitution becomes critical. It needs to provide for an impartial trade-fairness judging mechanism, and one that circumvents the commisioner when he is one of the principals in a trade someone objects to. If the constitution doesn't provide for that, then it needs to be amended pronto.

Me? I'd bail if those provisions weren't there/can't be added.

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting thread. 13 million cap space isn't so bad that I wouldn't try to get a much better trade package for that 2nd pick if I was going trade it(assuming the WR and C really are bad.) I'm really curious as to their ratings.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Interesting thread. 13 million cap space isn't so bad that I wouldn't try to get a much better trade package for that 2nd pick if I was going trade it(assuming the WR and C really are bad.) I'm really curious as to their ratings.

WR 38/44, 4th year, going into 5th
C 45/45 going into 10th year.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by stevew

WR 38/44, 4th year, going into 5th
C 45/45 going into 10th year.

That WR isn't that bad. Are he, that C, and the 2nd round pick worth the #2 overall pick? Certainly not, but that isn't as horrendous of a trade as I was imagining when you said they were both marginal.

Edited to add: It also be interesting to know their contract situations considering the owner's concerns about the cap.

That being said, I'm sure he could have received a better trade if he worked the other owners for that #2 pick.

[Maple Leafs]

I think multi-player leagues need to treat trades the same way as fantasy leagues do.

- If it's collusion (i.e. there's som sort of side deal) or a case where an owner is intentionally tanking prior to leaving the league, then you void the trade and remove both owners immediately.

- If it's just a bad trade, you have to let it stand. You can rip the owners who made the deal, you can explain why it's a dumb move, you can even (in extreme cases) give them a chance to back out of the deal to save face. But if they want to do the deal and there's no collusion, let it stand.

My personal experience is that leagues that allow other owners to veto good-faith trades end up causing far more problems than they solve.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I think multi-player leagues need to treat trades the same way as fantasy leagues do.

- If it's collusion (i.e. there's som sort of side deal) or a case where an owner is intentionally tanking prior to leaving the league, then you void the trade and remove both owners immediately.

- If it's just a bad trade, you have to let it stand. You can rip the owners who made the deal, you can explain why it's a dumb move, you can even (in extreme cases) give them a chance to back out of the deal to save face. But if they want to do the deal and there's no collusion, let it stand.

My personal experience is that leagues that allow other owners to veto good-faith trades end up causing far more problems than they solve.

Yeah, i agree with you probably 95%. At some point tho, when its a newbie coming in and making his first trade, especially one that is essentially stupid like this, something needs to happen.

And maybe the players he's getting arent that bad, but because of the non-increasing cap, tons of players better are available each offseason for often bargain prices, its not like anyone he got in the trade was above replacement level.

[Icy]

Unless the guy wanted to ruin his team and leave the league, he has all the rights to be as stupid as he want, that is the fun about playing with real owners, that we are humans and not always do the expected. Also i don't think anybody should judge how stupids are the others, unless you can read his mind, you don't know why he did it, and even if he was ripped, he will learn from it, not everybody knows all about football or thinks the same about what is fair or not.

[Maple Leafs]

If the owner is new to the league and decides, on reflection, that he wants a do-over I would consider giving him one. However if he gets hammered by the other GMs and still wants to make the deal then there's not much you can do.

I will say that I'd be a little concerned if this sort of thing was a pattern with the commish. I've never commished an online league, but I've run all sorts of fantasy pools and I always make it a rule to never, ever rip off a newbie. If other owners want to play that way then fine, but the commish really needs to hold himself to a higher standard for the long-term good of the league.

[Flasch186]

not true. As a comissioner it is your Fiduciary duty to watch out for the betterment and solidity of the league and therefore you MUSt weigh on the side of conservatisim when trading and never even come close to "ripping someone off" or have evena controversial trade. shit, I vetoed one of my own this season

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

not true. As a comissioner it is your Fiduciary duty to watch out for the betterment and solidity of the league and therefore you MUSt weigh on the side of conservatisim when trading and never even come close to "ripping someone off" or have evena controversial trade. shit, I vetoed one of my own this season

Isn't that the same thing I said?

[Joe]

yep, pretty much

[BigJohn&TheLions]

What team is this guy running? The Cardinals???

[Yossarian]

Mr Miagi say:

I really like this deal. I have only 30 players under contract next year and $13.5M to spend. Chicago's #2 this year cost over $2.5M. That would leave me about $11M to sign as many players as possible.

This gives me 2 players that will start for about a $1 and I only drop 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 rounds while retaining my total number of picks.

GM Baltimore Ravens

[KWhit]

That sucks. It's even worse that the commish is the one doing the fleecing.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Isn't that the same thing I said?

sorry, i didnt use a quote, it wasnt directed towards you it was to the ones above saying, if its not too bad it should be let through.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Loki

Exactly how does being the commish give someone an advantage in trading?

Can't the other owner just hold out for better offers?

Ideally, the commish should be looking out for the good of the league. I believe many multiplayer leagues have a rule in place where all trades have to be approved by the commissioner (or some other group of owners) for fairness.

More often than not, this is done to try to prevent collusion, but can also be used to reverse obviosly one-sided trades like this one appears to be. Especially since the other guy was brand new to the league and can potentially be taken advantage of.

[yabanci]

I think the frustration is not just the bad trade, but seeing that the person could have acquired so much more for the pick. It doesn't sound like this guy posted on the trade block that the pick was available to the highest bidder. People need to learn that if they are offering up something very valuable (e.g., a top 5 pick), then they need to shop it around before making a final decision.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I think the frustration is not just the bad trade, but seeing that the person could have acquired so much more for the pick. It doesn't sound like this guy posted on the trade block that the pick was available to the highest bidder. People need to learn that if they are offering up something very valuable (e.g., a top 5 pick), then they need to shop it around before making a final decision.

Ideally the commissioner would be the one offering that advice to a newbie. Alas.

[jamesUMD]

I'm the Redskins in this league and while I think it was a stupid trade, I think people are more upset that they did not get that deal. The baltimore GM already cut a franchise QB in like week 12 of the season who was in his 5th or 6th year. I have no problems when 2 humans make a deal like this. The trade was clearly 1 sided, but it's not like the commish said, "if you don't do this trade I'm kicking you out of the league!"

[Joe]

who cuts a franchise player in the middle of the season?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I think multi-player leagues need to treat trades the same way as fantasy leagues do.

- If it's collusion (i.e. there's som sort of side deal) or a case where an owner is intentionally tanking prior to leaving the league, then you void the trade and remove both owners immediately.

- If it's just a bad trade, you have to let it stand. You can rip the owners who made the deal, you can explain why it's a dumb move, you can even (in extreme cases) give them a chance to back out of the deal to save face. But if they want to do the deal and there's no collusion, let it stand.

My personal experience is that leagues that allow other owners to veto good-faith trades end up causing far more problems than they solve.

I'm with Leafs 100%. And it's also good to have a non-owner comissioner, to increase the objectivity of any rulings.

[Blackadar]

The problem is that this isn't the first time this has happened with the commish getting the (much) better end of the deal.

I have nothing more to say - I'm not part of the league anymore...but perhaps now people see why I left.

[sachmo71]

Having played in the WigFL, I feel I need to say something as far as Wig getting the better end of some deals.

Wig seems to love to trade. He is always willing to pull off a deal, and I believe that it's one of the funner aspects of online leagues for him.
His strategy is one that I believe many people employ: lowball to start.
A few times, people have taken the initial offer, and he gets the better end of the deal.

Is it frustrating that he's the commish and this happens? It can be.
Is it unfair? I really don't think so.
Is it honorable? Open for debate.

To be honest, when Wig would contact me for a trade, I was always on my guard. The end result of that would be that if I were to trade with him, he would probably have to pay me more than another owner would...only because he's shifty.

[kcchief19]

I think the fustrating thing about trades like this in a MP environment is that I've seen way too many newcomers come into a league and make deals without taking some time to see what the market conditions of the league are. I don't think newbies should be prohibited from trading, but I think a "cooling off" period for newbie trades is a good idea; say a newcomer to the league can veto a trade within 48 hours or other GMs can call for a commissioner's ruling.

To use Maple Leafs' comparison to fantasy leagues, in the league I used to run we would allow a petition to overrule a commissioner's rule -- 3/4 of the owners could overrule a commish ruling on a trade.

My experience is that newcomers into a league almost always make bad trades starting out because they don't understand the market conditions of the league. Some leagues are easier to trade in than others. Some leagues tend to value youth over experience. It's hard to tell.

[j51]

this'n

[KWhit]

When I saw that this thread had reappeared, I figured it was going to be a reference to that "trade".

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by j51

this'n

But the Bears are stepping up and adding value to make the league happy. Very nice move.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

But the Bears are stepping up and adding value to make the league happy. Very nice move.

Yeah, it's great that he wants to offer a reacharound after anally raping the guy

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Yeah, it's great that he wants to offer a reacharound after anally raping the guy

I don't know if I agree with your anal rape theory, especially since Seattle came up and asked him for it.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I don't know if I agree with your anal rape theory, especially since Seattle came up and asked him for it.

Doesn't change the fact that there's no way the trade should have been allowed.

[QuikSand]

Any multiplayer league of any sort is wise to set forth, right up front, the circumstances and authority to overturn a trade. As far as I'm concerned, any standard is fine (if you want to overturn anything that seems too imbalanced or anticompetitive, fine... if it's just the appearance of colunsion, also fine) but it's important to set that standard up front, when players are deciding to join the league.

The worst thing about these situations is when the rules are being written on the fly, in response to a specific circumstance. Someone objects to a specific trade, and suddenly starts arguing for vast override powers by the commissioner or whomever -- that's when things spiral out of control quickly.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As far as I'm concerned, any standard is fine (if you want to overturn anything that seems too imbalanced or anticompetitive, fine... if it's just the appearance of colunsion, also fine) but it's important to set that standard up front, when players are deciding to join the league.

That's exactly the problem. There was nothing set in stone, other than a typical 'all trades can be reviewed'. Now that circumstances arise that seem to say that the only thing they will be reviewed for is the appearance of collusion (rather than reviewing for balance), it's come as a shock to many of the owners of that league.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Doesn't change the fact that there's no way the trade should have been allowed.

I see your point.

[jeronemitchell]

There was an interesting difference in philosophy in SFL between the GMs back in the day. Some GMs (me) wanted a bit more GM power to prevent anal rape like these trades seemed to be. Other GMs thought that people need freedom to fail miserably. The compromise was as follows:

Whenever someone wants to make a trade, they list publicly that the players are "on the block". Other GMs have 48 hours to make any offers towards the player. This represents "shopping a player" in real life. After 48 hours, trades are posted, with the Commish having 24 hours to post any concerns (though 99% of the time none will be made at this point). This way, if a trade goes through that anal rapes someone, the rest of the league had their chance to make offers, and noone beat out the offer.

Now, admittedly, there are holes in the system.. but I think it's worked very well thus far. (Note - it wasn't MY system... it was Shawn Pierce's... don't want you guys to think I'm blowing my own horn... Shawn created a pretty sweet system).

Thoughts?

[gstelmack]

It's discussions like this that make me glad I'm in an office league with 7 or 8 other people that all know and like each other...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's discussions like this that make me glad I'm in an office league with 7 or 8 other people that all know and like each other...

[Joe]

Originally Posted by jeronemitchell

There was an interesting difference in philosophy in SFL between the GMs back in the day. Some GMs (me) wanted a bit more GM power to prevent anal rape like these trades seemed to be. Other GMs thought that people need freedom to fail miserably. The compromise was as follows:

Whenever someone wants to make a trade, they list publicly that the players are "on the block". Other GMs have 48 hours to make any offers towards the player. This represents "shopping a player" in real life. After 48 hours, trades are posted, with the Commish having 24 hours to post any concerns (though 99% of the time none will be made at this point). This way, if a trade goes through that anal rapes someone, the rest of the league had their chance to make offers, and noone beat out the offer.

Now, admittedly, there are holes in the system.. but I think it's worked very well thus far. (Note - it wasn't MY system... it was Shawn Pierce's... don't want you guys to think I'm blowing my own horn... Shawn created a pretty sweet system).

Thoughts?

So no trades can happen without shopping every player involved? That sounds like extreme overkill to me.

[Flasch186]

or you can enter the USFL where right up front I let you knwo its a dictatorship and I reserve the right to make any decisions that I feel are in the best interest of the future of the league including voiding trades. I do take input but I make it clear that it is input only and the final decision(s) rest on my shoulders...I guess you have to have a commish you can trust...ive seen episodes that lead one to believe that some commishe's may not be so.

[condors]

i think the point is no trades should be made without shopping around, otherwise you are only hurting yourself, if you don't see what a guy is worth to other teams your not doing a good job as a gm imho

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Hehe, I'll rephrase: I think people get way too uptight about these things. Trades, position switches, contracts ... the rules for some of these leagues are more than I want to deal with / try to remember when just trying to play the stinkin' game.

[Loki]

I think you guys make too big a deal out of this.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by condors

i think the point is no trades should be made without shopping around, otherwise you are only hurting yourself, if you don't see what a guy is worth to other teams your not doing a good job as a gm imho

We're kind of talking about this in the LEF right now. Here were my short thoughts.

This reminds me of something in Eastside Hockey Manager (and I'm sure it's in FM too). You have the option of making a trade proposal public. While it is almost always in the best interests for the shopper to make it publically known, the other party would rather it stay low-key key if at all possible.

I'll say this because I've seen it in other leagues. You can make a blockbuster trade on the 'down low', but it will upset some guys. When you deal with stars, guys get pretty sensitive because they never imagined that such a player was on the block.

So while I don't think that putting certain guys on the block should be mandatory, guys need to realize their role in the situation and determine what is in their best interests. They also need to consider how the league may react.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by Loki

It looks like a lot of leagues react like women.

Thoughtful post.