fawkes_mulder

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama

Recommended Posts

Just now, tsh00k said:

 

 

Looks like you signed up a bum for a manager.  I don't know the entirety of the situation, which could change my position, but your hands are tied at this point.  You allowed a player with inadequate fantasy knowledge to manage a team and are now paying for it.  

 

At the same time, Kluber has been absolute garbage & Gio has been a stud.  They are the same age, and their career numbers aren't astronomically different.  Further, Gregory Polanco is among the most overrated players in the MLB.  Look at his numbers and tell me anything exceptional about him other than hype.  Career 250/320/400 guy?  That's pretty foul for nearly 3 full MLB seasons. Plus, you mention that he doesn't have enough pitchers, yet he is gaining one with this trade.  Sounds to me like he's trying to improve a roster weakness.  

 

The whole collusion / trade veto conversation drives me ******** bonkers, ESPECIALLY in the keeper/dynasty world.  Just because you think the trade is way off, doesn't mean it's collusion.  I stay as far away from vetoing as possible, I think it can lead to cancer & a stagnant league.  Besides, it's a 3 keeper league, the impact from a few weak trades isn't going to completely screw the league.  Trades with him should be fair game.

 

And to the moratorium guy - c'mon man, how un-American are you? 

 

FREEDOM!

 

For background, I have comished at least 1 baseball & football league yearly for the past 7-8 years including a massive dynasty baseball league with 30+ yearly trades and 50+ MLB & MiLB roster spots per team.  

 

Just clarifying as you requested input from "experienced LMs"

 

Cheers! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, handyandy86 said:

Looking for help from other more experienced LM's out there - how do you know if you have a case of collusion on your hands?  

 

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

 

 

Why wouldn't you just boot the guy?  No showed for the draft, doesn't set his lineup, makes crappy trades.  Just replace him with a better owner.  It's not the guy's constitutional right to be in YOUR fantasy baseball league.  I'd just shoot him an email saying he hasn't been active with his team, so you're replacing him with someone who will keep up.

 

As for the trade, that's pretty bad.  Wouldn't blame you for vetoing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, handyandy86 said:

Looking for help from other more experienced LM's out there - how do you know if you have a case of collusion on your hands?  

 

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

 

Me personally do not think this is a case of collusion. To me the manager is clueless. plain n simple. 

Everybody has different ideas who is a good/bad leaguemate. If you think he is alousy owner you should have already found somebody new.

 

He missed the draft so I would have put him on the watchlist of owners who I need to keep eye on.... reading what happen so far with his trades you should have stepped up a while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice guys. Re: stepping up and booting him, I have been keeping a close eye on him, but it's also only a month and a half into the season, and he paid the league fee. Is it ethical to boot a paid member because you don't like how they're running their team? 

 

After he missed the draft I was ready to boot him but he replied very quickly with an apology and explained he'd work hard to keep the team competitive. Well so far he's worked on accepting questionable trade offers, but that's it. He's averaging about 1 add (7 max) per week. 

 

To be clear, the trade hasn't gone fully through yet because I have sole veto power on trades. Because of that I don't take it lightly to do. I've asked him for an explanation of why he thinks it's a good move for him, so I'll see how or if he replies to that. 

 

I don't want to have to micromanage others teams, but it's also a relatively competitive league and this guy seemed to be knowledgable at first. Like I said, it all seems a bit fishy to me, and I'm not sure where to draw the line on other owners ravaging his team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for advice on ways to handle this situation. So I've been a co-commish in this keep up to 12 league for a few years now. Late last night I received an email from a long term owner who has been there from the beginning, and he is accusing that two of the teams in the league are actually owned by one person, meaning that the one owner has a separate account on ESPN and owns 2 teams, one on each account. If this was the case, it would be blatant cheating imo. His evidence is he that received a few offers from the one team and replied to it saying that "I don't do a 2 for 1 where I get the 2. I value quality over quantity." Then yesterday afternoon he received an email from the other team that he suspects is the same person, directly referencing that quote and saying "If you won't do 2 for 1 or respond to trades enjoy being in last place."

Hopefully anyone reading this understands the story of events. It's not a lot of evidence imo but it is curious and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how to properly handle the situation. Note that the two teams in question, one has been in the league since the beginning and the other team was taken over by a new owner 2 years ago now. I'm yet to hear back from my other co-commish yet which is why I am seeking advice on here which I can then bring to him in our discussions. Any thoughts?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, garlando said:

Looking for advice on ways to handle this situation. So I've been a co-commish in this keep up to 12 league for a few years now. Late last night I received an email from a long term owner who has been there from the beginning, and he is accusing that two of the teams in the league are actually owned by one person, meaning that the one owner has a separate account on ESPN and owns 2 teams, one on each account. If this was the case, it would be blatant cheating imo. His evidence is he that received a few offers from the one team and replied to it saying that "I don't do a 2 for 1 where I get the 2. I value quality over quantity." Then yesterday afternoon he received an email from the other team that he suspects is the same person, directly referencing that quote and saying "If you won't do 2 for 1 or respond to trades enjoy being in last place."

Hopefully anyone reading this understands the story of events. It's not a lot of evidence imo but it is curious and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how to properly handle the situation. Note that the two teams in question, one has been in the league since the beginning and the other team was taken over by a new owner 2 years ago now. I'm yet to hear back from my other co-commish yet which is why I am seeking advice on here which I can then bring to him in our discussions. Any thoughts?
 

Is this a league of friend, or just random folks? Who referred the new person that took over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kwelch said:

Is this a league of friend, or just random folks? Who referred the new person that took over?

It's random people but we've been playing together long enough together that we all know each other and have friendly rivalries in chat. And I believe the new person that took over was found through the rotoworld league finder forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a fantasy catfish?  Interesting.

 

It could be the two owners communicate and discussed the third owner's feelings about 2 for 1's.  Or the 3rd owner could be the one who is confused, and doesn't remember which conversations he's had with whom.

 

As commish, I would sort of embrace the challenge of trying to get to the bottom of this, and potentially catching the "catfish".  Setting a trap, if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopChuckie said:

So a fantasy catfish?  Interesting.

 

It could be the two owners communicate and discussed the third owner's feelings about 2 for 1's.  Or the 3rd owner could be the one who is confused, and doesn't remember which conversations he's had with whom.

 

As commish, I would sort of embrace the challenge of trying to get to the bottom of this, and potentially catching the "catfish".  Setting a trap, if you will.

 

Agreed.  I would probably just naturally assume owner 1 & owner 2 were talking and owner 1 mentioned owner 3 declined his trade offer, or something.

 

At least, that's the assumption I would make if team 1 & 2 hadn't made any questionable trades up till that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garlando said:

It's random people but we've been playing together long enough together that we all know each other and have friendly rivalries in chat. And I believe the new person that took over was found through the rotoworld league finder forums. 

Have there been any trades between the two teams in question?  Any other suspicious moves?

Is this a money league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garlando said:

Looking for advice on ways to handle this situation. So I've been a co-commish in this keep up to 12 league for a few years now. Late last night I received an email from a long term owner who has been there from the beginning, and he is accusing that two of the teams in the league are actually owned by one person, meaning that the one owner has a separate account on ESPN and owns 2 teams, one on each account. If this was the case, it would be blatant cheating imo. His evidence is he that received a few offers from the one team and replied to it saying that "I don't do a 2 for 1 where I get the 2. I value quality over quantity." Then yesterday afternoon he received an email from the other team that he suspects is the same person, directly referencing that quote and saying "If you won't do 2 for 1 or respond to trades enjoy being in last place."

Hopefully anyone reading this understands the story of events. It's not a lot of evidence imo but it is curious and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how to properly handle the situation. Note that the two teams in question, one has been in the league since the beginning and the other team was taken over by a new owner 2 years ago now. I'm yet to hear back from my other co-commish yet which is why I am seeking advice on here which I can then bring to him in our discussions. Any thoughts?
 

Since this might be the first incident (you didn't mention anything else about these two questionable owners) 

I wouldn't do a damn thing ... also I think your owner who brought this to your attention (might could) be one of these so-called whiny owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shakestreet said:

Since this might be the first incident (you didn't mention anything else about these two questionable owners) 

I wouldn't do a damn thing ... also I think your owner who brought this to your attention (might could) be one of these so-called whiny owners.

 

Yeah, that he has a blanket policy, "I don't do 2 for 1 where I get the 2." makes him seem like he could be a bit of a closed-minded jerk.  There can be scenarios where getting 2 for 1 is advantageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopChuckie said:

 

Yeah, that he has a blanket policy, "I don't do 2 for 1 where I get the 2." makes him seem like he could be a bit of a closed-minded jerk.  There can be scenarios where getting 2 for 1 is advantageous.

 

So, have the 2 owners in question (or the 1 guy who allegedly owns 2 teams) made any questionable moves together?  Seems like it would be fairly obvious.  Why would someone own 2 teams, unless to collude with one another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 7:24 PM, fawkes_mulder said:

Correct. Commissioner is trying to say for MI elig, he needs to get 5 at SS or 5 at 2b. That adding it up is against the league rules, which take precedent over site rules. NL only league has been in existence since 1995, so they don't really care what CBS is doing. That's what is causing all this stir.

 

But the league rules are still ambiguous on the issue.

 

ambiguity in the law/rules favors the defendant, not the plaintiff.  This is what is commonly referred to as a loophole.  You should be able to play Frazier at MI.  If the commish wants a change to the rules to close this loophole, then he should propose it during the off season.  Until then you are not breaking any rules.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

Trade should go through. This isn't that lopsided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

I would not be happy if this trade went through in any league I am part of....

My opinion -- one owner is trading off two primed players for two players who flame is flickering ... not to say Zimm & Conforto can't get it back but I really think the Seager side wins this by a mile... maybe Hanram & Seagar both go down to injuries this week then I am wrong

 

this is for the league to decide ..... good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Trade should go through. This isn't that lopsided.

Thank you, sir.

2 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

I would not be happy if this trade went through in any league I am part of....

My opinion -- one owner is trading off two primed players for two players who flame is flickering ... not to say Zimm & Conforto can't get it back but I really think the Seager side wins this by a mile... maybe Hanram & Seagar both go down to injuries this week then I am wrong

 

this is for the league to decide ..... good luck

Thanks for the reply. That's what the league is struggling with. Zimm, the case for regression is a good one. But can that just be assumed? But there's also Conforto, who is a young budding star. Without the injury, he's on pace for 40+ homers. Some think the trade is close enough because of these things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

I would not be happy if this trade went through in any league I am part of....

My opinion -- one owner is trading off two primed players for two players who flame is flickering ... not to say Zimm & Conforto can't get it back but I really think the Seager side wins this by a mile... maybe Hanram & Seagar both go down to injuries this week then I am wrong

 

this is for the league to decide ..... good luck

Every trade should go through unless there is clear collusion. Not every trade is going to be even. Anyone that vetoes just has sour grapes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

Thank you, sir.

Thanks for the reply. That's what the league is struggling with. Zimm, the case for regression is a good one. But can that just be assumed? But there's also Conforto, who is a young budding star. Without the injury, he's on pace for 40+ homers. Some think the trade is close enough because of these things. 

Nothing worse than managers who think they are the sole authority on trades like this. Conforto looks great, & RZimm still hits in a great lineup. I actually think there's a better than 50% chance that side wins. 

If they veto & Zimm & Conforto side actually outproduces the Seager side, what do the owners say? "Woops. Sorry. We thought we knew how to manage your team better than you. Still friends?" 

This trade isn't close to veto consideration, which might be those which artificially upset the balance of the league. This is "butt hurt because we think the first place team is getting better" veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Every trade should go through unless there is clear collusion. Not every trade is going to be even. Anyone that vetoes just has sour grapes. 

what is clear collusion? It just doesn't happen, or more like I have never heard where anybody can deem collusion was a reason why a trade was veto'd. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

Nothing worse than managers who think they are the sole authority on trades like this. Conforto looks great, & RZimm still hits in a great lineup. I actually think there's a better than 50% chance that side wins. 

If they veto & Zimm & Conforto side actually outproduces the Seager side, what do the owners say? "Woops. Sorry. We thought we knew how to manage your team better than you. Still friends?" 

This trade isn't close to veto consideration, which might be those which artificially upset the balance of the league. This is "butt hurt because we think the first place team is getting better" veto.

This is disgusting. Would hate to play in a league where this trade is considered for a veto. Vetoing is for whiny jealous crybabies who use it as a form of cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damn Yankee said:

 

ambiguity in the law/rules favors the defendant, not the plaintiff.  This is what is commonly referred to as a loophole.  You should be able to play Frazier at MI.  If the commish wants a change to the rules to close this loophole, then he should propose it during the off season.  Until then you are not breaking any rules.

 

 

 

This was like 3 months ago. We were able to play him at MI, but it was a hassle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

what is clear collusion? It just doesn't happen, or more like I have never heard where anybody can deem collusion was a reason why a trade was veto'd. 

 

 

Exactly my point, that's why 99% of trades should go through. If you can't trust your league mates to manage a team than they shouldn't be in the league. But if you want an example of clear collusion. A last place team with nothing to play for sends Max Scherzer, to a team vying for the money, for Zack Wheeler. I have been commish for about 20 years and have vetoed 1 or 2 trades(tough to recall) and one was because the guy was just being a d*ck and tried to trade Bonds for some scrub to piss off the league. Its even tougher in a keeper league when teams try and build for next season, but the commish is not there to tell people how to manage their teams, he/she is simply there to enforce the rules, keep the peace, and try and improve the league in hopes of making it highly competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trade is imbalanced, but not to the point of being vetoable. 

 

That said, I disagree with others that vetoing trades should turn on collusion (or a presumption thereof). Even if owners entered into a severely imbalanced trade in good faith, the league won't allow it if it would undermine the competitive balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.