Jump to content

Visit Rotoworld.comRotoworld Forums  
Rotoworld: MLB | NFL | NBA | NHL | NASCAR | CFB
Sports Talk Blogs: PFT | HBT | PBT | CFT | PHT
  Visit NBCSports.com


League Manager trade review

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 Shortnphat



  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,812 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:25 PM

Do you prefer a league review and vote or a League Manager review only when it comes to trades during the season?

#2 WhatWouldDitkaDo



  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,387 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:31 PM

The LM should be fair but rule with an iron fist. He should have the only say, and he should only veto if there is clear collusion.

#3 bleedgreen



  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 11:13 PM

Do you prefer a league review and vote or a League Manager review only when it comes to trades during the season?

I like leauge vote especially if i dont know all the people involved in the league

#4 deuce4off


    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,758 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 04:42 AM

If you're in a league with people you know, then any trade accepted should go through, unless OBVIOUS collusion. If you don't know the people, definitely league vote.

Hey Ray. I never went down Ray. You never got me down Ray.

#5 GreatScott!


    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 07:10 AM

I've always like the League Manager to review and approve any trades. The problem with the league vote is you get some people who will vote against a trade because it makes his opponent or division rival "stronger" (thus, the point of a trade), so they don't want that. Or, you get the person who votes against it because he thought his trade was better than the one accepted. Sometimes you get someone who just thinks "you could have gotten more for that player" and vetoes the trade. I love that one best since it usually comes from someone who will never trade, yet somehow they know you could have "gotten more". I'm a believer that you don't veto a trade unless you see some sort of collusion. Usually the Commish is someone who understands that, or at least I would hope.

#6 chiefdog10



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:12 PM

As a commissioner in multiple leagues we only do LM vetoes. In both leagues we started out with league vote vetoes and in both we had basically the entire league using the veto strategically. Vetoes aren't strategic. Managers are free to do with their team what they wish but only their team. Unless their is collusion no team should be able to affect a trade they aren't directly involved with. So we went to LM veto

#7 Shake



  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:34 PM

Commissioner review is the way to go. As has been stated, a lot of people use the veto in their own self interests and not what it's designed for so you should have a trustworthy/non biased person to approve or deny trades.

With that said, I don't believe "ALL" trades should go through if you can't prove collusion. The reason for this is, unless the two people trading come out and admit it, you can't prove collusion anyways. Sure you can believe it but unless there's evidence or an acknowledgement of it then it's just that, a belief. That's why in the cases of really blatant lopsided trades, even if you can't prove that collusion exists I do believe the commissioner should have the right to veto it. However that really should only be used in cases that are blatantly obvious.

Edited by Shake, 23 February 2014 - 11:36 PM.

#8 Gains


    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,920 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 02:45 AM

A LOT of what great scott said is true. If I am the commissioner I am always the final say.

If you act as the commissioner be prepared for you league mates to whine more the starving child that you vetoed their trade and how you are jerk who ruins the league and that your're a joke and corrupt. (just insert more 4 letter words then I used)

I have seen vote leagues where between 2-3 guys colluding, 2-3 guys inactive, 2-3 against votes, and 2-3 active people that just don't vote, trades that are complete bs go down.

#9 Thad



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 02 March 2014 - 02:06 AM

I don't play in leagues anymore where:

1.) The LM doesn't have final say

2.) I don't trust the LM

Leagues where it goes to a vote are a mess because there are ALWAYS guys who try to collude with everyone else to veto the trade. Blockbuster trades are a very fun aspect for me even if I'm not involved. I love seeing things get shaken up. But I have seen a dozen blockbuster trades (completely fair and even, mind you) get rejected because other players don't want to go up against a guy like Jimmy Graham for a third time in a season, or they have crab mentality http://en.wikipedia..../Crab_mentality. If the trade is even and both players agree, the trade should go through.

#10 Gains


    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,920 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:29 AM

I liked the above post simply for teaching me what Crab Mentality was.

Bravo Sir.

#11 dmb3684


    All-Time Great

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,788 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 08:11 PM

League votes are for the birds.