This is pretty much a first for me... seeing league voting and having members allowed to veto trades by DEFAULT.
For a site that prides itself on customization of rules, it's mind-boggling to think one of the most important transactions in fantasy football... THE TRADE... has one option and one option only... league voting for approval/disapproval.
While some may like this, there's plenty that don't.
Yes, yes, I know "the Commish can over-ride anything"... that's not the point.
You've got a default rule (members voting-down trades) and the Commish can only act after the fact... which can cause problems with owners (hey, we voted that trade down, why are you over-riding us!).
To avoid all of that, it would be really nice if the OPTION was there for Commish's who set-up a league to turn on "COMMISH APPROVED TRADES" right from the get-go... this would avoid problems during the season of people voting-down trades and the Commish having to go behind them and over-ride it.
Simply put, for a "fully customizeable" site to not offer anything but one option which is turned-on by default for league trades is quite surprising.
Please... for the love of all things Holy... allow/implement an option for Commish Approved Trades!
If a trade happen last year and the trade went through after deadline, then the commish void it,can he un void it the following year.the point of the trade was to use that player that year not the next year and since it void it , it's up to the party to try again next year. Need help
My take is that all trades be held for a review period ... 24 or 48 hours. Any team owner can flag the trade if they do not like it. Then then the commish can step in with a ruling. If the review period expires without a commish ruling the trade is good.
What if the commish is the only one that does not like the trade? Then the commish can flag the item but at least one other member must step in and agree with the commish (flag the trade also). If no one steps up within the review period then the trade is good.
I know that the commish runs the league but the members need to have a say in the trade issues.
The commish can always take the a stance and force an adjustment of the rosters but that would probably pull everyone's chain.
I believe that leagues that allow other owners to veto trades are ridiculous.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest in such leagues. Presumably, every good trade benefits both sides to the trade, by which I mean it makes both teams stronger. As an owner of a fantasy team, it is my duty to compete to the fullest. I must always try to gain every advantage for my own team, and do whatever I can to disadvantage all of the other teams. So, it's to my advantage to veto every good trade.
Now, it may be to my advantage to also veto certain bad trades in which one side gains a lot and the other side loses, such as if the gaining side is ahead of me or slightly behind me in the standings. That's besides the point. What I'm saying is that it ALWAYS benefits me to vote to veto every good trade, i.e. every trade in which both sides benefit.
Yet the point of allowing owner vetoes is presumably so that they will vote to veto only very bad trades.
So, as an owner in a league allowing owner vetoes, whenever a good trade is made, I am always in a position where I am either undermining the point of the rule allowing owner vetoes by voting to veto the good trade, or violating my own duty to compete to the fullest by not voting to veto the good trade.
The Commissioner is charged with looking out for the best interests of the league, and it is the Commissioner's duty, alone, to ensure that trades meet the League's standards, whatever they may be. The owners are in charge of trying to win the championship, and making any legal maneuvers they can that will help them to do so.
It is stupid to allow owners to veto trades. But it is truly ridiculous for there to not even be an option of not allowing the other owners to veto trades.
FFCSR_Doug, what you described is EXECUTE TRADE IMMEDIATELY... this is not a Commish-approved trade, this is approve all trades... you seem to be going out of your way to skirt the issue of Commish approved trades here... editing rosters is not the same as a commish approved trade system, nor should it be considered a satisfactory solution to the problem.
I feel like not only is this issue, which many want being brushed aside, but it's even being answered half-hazardly with half-solutions... there's a huge difference between commish approved trades and "INSTANT TRADES" or "COMMISH ALTERS ROSTERS AFTER THE FACT"... that's NOT a Commish-Approved trade system, nor an adequate solution either.
I do exactly what you said in my league, Doug. But that is a second-best alternative. It would be better if there were no kind of indication from Flea Flicker that owners are allowed to veto trades.
I have an official Rulebook in my league, published on the web, that lets all the owners know that they have no veto power, but a lot of other leagues really don't have anything like an always-accessible Rulebook, and in such leagues, commissioners who follow your advice might seem like they are kind of making up the rules as they go along, even if at the beginning of the season maybe they announced one time on the league Message Board that no vetoes are allowed.
It'd be better, in some leagues, if there were an option at Flea Flicker that a Commissioner could utilize that prevented the owners from ever beginning to think they have any veto power. I thought there was last year, actually.
And, really, Commish-only-approved trades should be the default rule. Having owners veto the trades of people they are supposed to be competing against creates a clear conflict of interest.
WolfshanzeThu 8/21/08 12:01 PM
For a site that prides itself on customization of rules, it's mind-boggling to think one of the most important transactions in fantasy football... THE TRADE... has one option and one option only... league voting for approval/disapproval.
While some may like this, there's plenty that don't.
Yes, yes, I know "the Commish can over-ride anything"... that's not the point.
You've got a default rule (members voting-down trades) and the Commish can only act after the fact... which can cause problems with owners (hey, we voted that trade down, why are you over-riding us!).
To avoid all of that, it would be really nice if the OPTION was there for Commish's who set-up a league to turn on "COMMISH APPROVED TRADES" right from the get-go... this would avoid problems during the season of people voting-down trades and the Commish having to go behind them and over-ride it.
Simply put, for a "fully customizeable" site to not offer anything but one option which is turned-on by default for league trades is quite surprising.
Please... for the love of all things Holy... allow/implement an option for Commish Approved Trades!
Tony_WilsonWed 3/25/20 4:24 AM
If a trade happen last year and the trade went through after deadline, then the commish void it,can he un void it the following year.the point of the trade was to use that player that year not the next year and since it void it , it's up to the party to try again next year. Need help
PovertyBayOrcaFri 8/29/08 4:50 PM
What if the commish is the only one that does not like the trade? Then the commish can flag the item but at least one other member must step in and agree with the commish (flag the trade also). If no one steps up within the review period then the trade is good.
I know that the commish runs the league but the members need to have a say in the trade issues.
The commish can always take the a stance and force an adjustment of the rosters but that would probably pull everyone's chain.
HiredGoonThu 8/28/08 8:31 PM
CortanaThu 8/28/08 12:25 PM
RobertKellyMon 8/25/08 5:21 AM
There is a fundamental conflict of interest in such leagues. Presumably, every good trade benefits both sides to the trade, by which I mean it makes both teams stronger. As an owner of a fantasy team, it is my duty to compete to the fullest. I must always try to gain every advantage for my own team, and do whatever I can to disadvantage all of the other teams. So, it's to my advantage to veto every good trade.
Now, it may be to my advantage to also veto certain bad trades in which one side gains a lot and the other side loses, such as if the gaining side is ahead of me or slightly behind me in the standings. That's besides the point. What I'm saying is that it ALWAYS benefits me to vote to veto every good trade, i.e. every trade in which both sides benefit.
Yet the point of allowing owner vetoes is presumably so that they will vote to veto only very bad trades.
So, as an owner in a league allowing owner vetoes, whenever a good trade is made, I am always in a position where I am either undermining the point of the rule allowing owner vetoes by voting to veto the good trade, or violating my own duty to compete to the fullest by not voting to veto the good trade.
The Commissioner is charged with looking out for the best interests of the league, and it is the Commissioner's duty, alone, to ensure that trades meet the League's standards, whatever they may be. The owners are in charge of trying to win the championship, and making any legal maneuvers they can that will help them to do so.
It is stupid to allow owners to veto trades. But it is truly ridiculous for there to not even be an option of not allowing the other owners to veto trades.
Thanks,
OOFFL Commissioner
philip4115Sat 8/23/08 8:44 PM
Wesley_CThu 8/21/08 12:21 PM
FFCSR_DougFri 8/29/08 7:35 AM
WolfshanzeSun 8/31/08 10:28 PM
I feel like not only is this issue, which many want being brushed aside, but it's even being answered half-hazardly with half-solutions... there's a huge difference between commish approved trades and "INSTANT TRADES" or "COMMISH ALTERS ROSTERS AFTER THE FACT"... that's NOT a Commish-Approved trade system, nor an adequate solution either.
RobertKellyTue 9/2/08 1:49 AM
I have an official Rulebook in my league, published on the web, that lets all the owners know that they have no veto power, but a lot of other leagues really don't have anything like an always-accessible Rulebook, and in such leagues, commissioners who follow your advice might seem like they are kind of making up the rules as they go along, even if at the beginning of the season maybe they announced one time on the league Message Board that no vetoes are allowed.
It'd be better, in some leagues, if there were an option at Flea Flicker that a Commissioner could utilize that prevented the owners from ever beginning to think they have any veto power. I thought there was last year, actually.
And, really, Commish-only-approved trades should be the default rule. Having owners veto the trades of people they are supposed to be competing against creates a clear conflict of interest.
Thanks,
OOFFL Commissioner