|
Post by shamrock84 on Apr 14, 2012 11:11:00 GMT -5
Wanted some opinions after my recent article on this topic. What is the Warehouse take on league voting on trades? Good, bad, ugly? What say ye?
|
|
|
Post by stuckinthemiddle on Apr 14, 2012 11:14:00 GMT -5
Never. Voting and vetoing is ridiculous. We are all big boys and girls. We can make our own decisions. Redraft, which I have never played, I guess I can see the argument for it when one team dumps all of their good players to their buddy once they are out of contention, but keeper and dynasty no way.
|
|
|
Post by gambler on Apr 14, 2012 11:26:51 GMT -5
Worst idea ever associated with fantasy football. Should NFL teams hold veto rights over other NFL teams trades? I can see it now...
Oh crap, Drew Brees just got traded into our division! Quick, veto that damned trade!!!
|
|
|
Post by burgandy on Apr 14, 2012 11:28:38 GMT -5
NO NO NO. We are all responsible for our own trades and decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Jaysports on Apr 14, 2012 11:54:51 GMT -5
Piling on here, no x 1 million.....everyone has their reasoning or justification for their trades. If they have a vision of what they are trying to do then that's their right.
|
|
|
Post by Jaysports on Apr 14, 2012 11:55:48 GMT -5
I played in a local redraft once where the commish required that both teams trade the same exact number of players on each side, no 2 for 1's or anything like that. But, he this wasn't know before the draft unfortunately and I had already paid. That was my first and last year in that league.
|
|
|
Post by stuckinthemiddle on Apr 14, 2012 12:31:49 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts on requiring owners to pay a portion of next years league fees before trading draft picks?
|
|
|
Post by Jaysports on Apr 14, 2012 12:44:33 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts on requiring owners to pay a portion of next years league fees before trading draft picks? That should be mandatory imo. Nothing worse than trying to replace an owner with a bad team and no picks. That deposit on the following season for trading a future pick can be used as discount to attract a new replacement owner.
|
|
|
Post by gambler on Apr 14, 2012 12:49:53 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts on requiring owners to pay a portion of next years league fees before trading draft picks? That should be mandatory imo. Nothing worse than trying to replace an owner with a bad team and no picks. That deposit on the following season for trading a future pick can be used as discount to attract a new replacement owner. agree
|
|
|
Post by burgandy on Apr 14, 2012 13:34:35 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts on requiring owners to pay a portion of next years league fees before trading draft picks? Fine with it. Seems fair and protects the league
|
|
|
Post by orangecrush on Apr 14, 2012 14:42:40 GMT -5
NEVER should any trade be voted on by the ownership for approval.
However, having said that, I don't think that it hurts to have the League Office (commissioner and any co-commissioners) look over trades before approving them. I am the commissioner of four leagues and this is how most of them are set up. I am very clear with the ownership that I am not in the business of evaluating trades. If two owners agree on value then so be it, regardless of who wins the trade. The only instance where I would veto a trade is if I see a suspicious trade, and in looking into it I can verify collusion.
Having trades looked at before approval protects the league from a disgruntled owner who wants to "stick it" to the league before exiting. As much as we would all like to think that this type of behavior doesn't, or won't happen, those of us who have been at this a long time know that this does happen, and when it does it's very destructive to the league.
|
|
|
Post by orangecrush on Apr 14, 2012 14:44:45 GMT -5
In terms of having both owners involved with trades that include future draft picks pay their next year league fee upfront is not only reasonable but necessary. All of my leagues are set up this way.
|
|