Jump to content
Rotoworld.com Forums

Veto Trade/Kick Out Owner??? (WHIR 100%)


Recommended Posts

Arighty.. so after about 100 messages last night in our 6 year college keeper league, I told them I was going to seek out some unbiased opinions to weigh in. That is where my admiration for the Roto forum people comes into play. There are some very insightful people on here, so I hope to get some of your thoughts. I apologize for what is going to be a novel, I just obviously think it is helpful/important to have all the factors. Thank you guys in advance, I reallly appreciate it! 

This is a 12 team, similar scoring to .5 PPR and we use 5 keepers. We have a $200 auction budget and the prices listed below are the prices you can keep a player for. We have a lot of really cheap teams so the elite guys that are even a little bit more pricey are still very very very valuable because of how inflated they would actually be if they hit the market. For example, Barkley went for $116 last season. 

 

Team #1 (2018 Season Champ)

QB- Goff $3

RB- Conner $1

RB- Damien Williams $5

WR - JuJu $5

WR - Hilton $13

WR - Lockett $7

TE - Kelce $1

FLEX - Carson $18 

 

I think the obviously keepers (5) on this team right now would be Conner $1, Juju $5, Kelce $1, Williams $5 and Hilton $13. Very elite and stupid cheap. 

 

Team #2 (Last place finisher from 2018.. and most other years) 

QB - Jimmy G $10

RB - Christian McCaffery $58 

RB - Rashaad Penny $5

WR - Allen Robinson $5

WR - Cooper Kupp $16

WR - Robby Anderson $7

TE - Hunter Henry $1 

 

I think the most likely keepers (5) are McCaffery $58, Penny $5, Arob $5, Kupp $16, and Henry $1. Really not that bad, one of the top 3 players, two top 20 Wrs, top 5 TE and a young/cheap RB. 

 

The trade:

Team #1 gives Carson $18, Lockett $7 and Hilton $13

Team #2 give Christian McCaffery $58 

 

Besides McCaffery Team #2 had plenty of cap to spend in the draft.. like over $120 so I do not think money was an issue. Th way we have all talked about it so far is that Team #1 obviously already had the cheapest team and just got thrown maybe the #1 player for at least two other guys that he was obviously not keeping, while Team #2 really didn't make himself any better and we really think much worse. He already didn't have a terrible 5 to keep so now he is just giving away not only his best player, but one of the best in the league and adding some weird combination of 3 to add to his 5 keepers. If he really wanted those guys he could have just drafted them when they were thrown back. 

The worst part about it is the guy has said nothing in the group chat about making the deal and he was offered two others previous.. one team offered Phillip Lindsay $1, Julio $40, Mike Williams $21 and the other was Leveon $37 and Luck $15. Which I am obviously fine that he didn't accept either of those, but just some more context. 

 

 

I have been playing fantasy for 12+ years and have never vetoed a trade in my time as commish... but this one is difficult. I do not think the trade helped crappy #2 at all and I have a hard time thinking he he thought it through before doing it and really shifting a lot of the league in the other teams favor before the year even starts. Please let me know what you think... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LarryDavid said:

Arighty.. so after about 100 messages last night in our 6 year college keeper league, I told them I was going to seek out some unbiased opinions to weigh in. That is where my admiration for the Roto forum people comes into play. There are some very insightful people on here, so I hope to get some of your thoughts. I apologize for what is going to be a novel, I just obviously think it is helpful/important to have all the factors. Thank you guys in advance, I reallly appreciate it! 

This is a 12 team, similar scoring to .5 PPR and we use 5 keepers. We have a $200 auction budget and the prices listed below are the prices you can keep a player for. We have a lot of really cheap teams so the elite guys that are even a little bit more pricey are still very very very valuable because of how inflated they would actually be if they hit the market. For example, Barkley went for $116 last season. 

 

Team #1 (2018 Season Champ)

QB- Goff $3

RB- Conner $1

RB- Damien Williams $5

WR - JuJu $5

WR - Hilton $13

WR - Lockett $7

TE - Kelce $1

FLEX - Carson $18 

 

I think the obviously keepers (5) on this team right now would be Conner $1, Juju $5, Kelce $1, Williams $5 and Hilton $13. Very elite and stupid cheap. 

 

Team #2 (Last place finisher from 2018.. and most other years) 

QB - Jimmy G $10

RB - Christian McCaffery $58 

RB - Rashaad Penny $5

WR - Allen Robinson $5

WR - Cooper Kupp $16

WR - Robby Anderson $7

TE - Hunter Henry $1 

 

I think the most likely keepers (5) are McCaffery $58, Penny $5, Arob $5, Kupp $16, and Henry $1. Really not that bad, one of the top 3 players, two top 20 Wrs, top 5 TE and a young/cheap RB. 

 

The trade:

Team #1 gives Carson $18, Lockett $7 and Hilton $13

Team #2 give Christian McCaffery $58 

 

Besides McCaffery Team #2 had plenty of cap to spend in the draft.. like over $120 so I do not think money was an issue. Th way we have all talked about it so far is that Team #1 obviously already had the cheapest team and just got thrown maybe the #1 player for at least two other guys that he was obviously not keeping, while Team #2 really didn't make himself any better and we really think much worse. He already didn't have a terrible 5 to keep so now he is just giving away not only his best player, but one of the best in the league and adding some weird combination of 3 to add to his 5 keepers. If he really wanted those guys he could have just drafted them when they were thrown back. 

The worst part about it is the guy has said nothing in the group chat about making the deal and he was offered two others previous.. one team offered Phillip Lindsay $1, Julio $40, Mike Williams $21 and the other was Leveon $37 and Luck $15. Which I am obviously fine that he didn't accept either of those, but just some more context. 

 

 

I have been playing fantasy for 12+ years and have never vetoed a trade in my time as commish... but this one is difficult. I do not think the trade helped crappy #2 at all and I have a hard time thinking he he thought it through before doing it and really shifting a lot of the league in the other teams favor before the year even starts. Please let me know what you think... 

 

P.S. you would think because Team #2 has Penny.. and then for some reason trades his best player for two more Hawks - Lockett and Carson, that he would be a Hawks fan... Nope! He is actually a 49ers fan. Makes sense right?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know man.  He's getting the Seahawks #1RB and already has his backup.  And he's getting a WR1ish with Hilton and possibly another starter in Lockett. 

I don't think you can veto this.

It's a terrible trade but I think he could justify it (in his mind).

Edited by K197040
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LarryDavid said:

I do not think the trade helped crappy #2 at all and I have a hard time thinking he he thought it through before doing it and really shifting a lot of the league in the other teams favor before the year even starts. Please let me know what you think... 

It's clear team #2 has no clue what they're doing, but the rules generally don't exclude that. 

The deal is stupid, but it doesn't look like collusion. Collusion you can veto, stupidity you cannot.

However, I understand that this is now an issue in your league, and I assume this is going to split the league. Worse, it's probably now going to split whatever decision you take.

I see three options:

- allow the trade, but kick out team stupid. They may be your brother in law or whatever, but this just screws the league.

- cancel the trade, and have a very strong talk with team stupid.

- allow the trade, but price CMC at a more fair value. I hate this option too.

All in all, I think you need make it publicly known that you consider all of them adults, and they need to be responsible for their own behavior, but also for keeping the league competitive. If they can't do that, they need to forfeit their place.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a team that you said finished last place last year and finishes in last place most years. Now he’s trying to make a change and you all  want to veto his trade / kick him out? He didn’t do well with that team last year. Why force the guy to have to keep those players again? He gets a good RB in Carson who has number 1 potential and then a back end number 1 in Hilton (he doesn’t have a 1 right now) and a good player in Lockett. I don’t see a huge issue. Could he maybe try for more? Sure. But value is in the eye of the beholder. Would I personally do it? Nope. I would let it go though. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of why ownership is so important for league growth/success....Don't believe a veto is in order here, as mentioned above, as no collusion exists, however it just shows what happens when some owners are sharks and others are fish swimming in the same pond.  

 

A veto due to an owners unawareness to market value, doesn't really solve the core problem (or make that owner comprehend values), which ultimately is "bad" owner.  Basically your  just prolonging the time until they may make another poor decision.  

 

If your objective is to have a competitive environment, the solution seem to be to simply remove that owner who is over their head for someone who is more knowledgeable 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, K197040 said:

I don't know man.  He's getting the Seahawks #1RB and already has his backup.  And he's getting a WR1ish with Hilton and possibly another starter in Lockett. 

I don't think you can veto this.

It's a terrible trade but I think he could justify it (in his mind).

 

Sorry i might have misssed a GIANT point... we haven't even selected keepers or drafted for this next season. This is current teams trading before the keeper deadline. Which I actually think the backup (Penny) part makes it worse. You can only keep 5.. so how does trading for his backup help, is he keeping both?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

It's clear team #2 has no clue what they're doing, but the rules generally don't exclude that. 

The deal is stupid, but it doesn't look like collusion. Collusion you can veto, stupidity you cannot.

However, I understand that this is now an issue in your league, and I assume this is going to split the league. Worse, it's probably now going to split whatever decision you take.

I see three options:

- allow the trade, but kick out team stupid. They may be your brother in law or whatever, but this just screws the league.

- cancel the trade, and have a very strong talk with team stupid.

- allow the trade, but price CMC at a more fair value. I hate this option too.

All in all, I think you need make it publicly known that you consider all of them adults, and they need to be responsible for their own behavior, but also for keeping the league competitive. If they can't do that, they need to forfeit their place.

 

This is great insight, very much appreciated. I missed a giant point too and I don't know if this would change anything for you.. but this is before have selected keepers or drafted. These are current teams trading before the keeper deadline comes up two weeks from now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, F@ndemonium said:

This is an example of why ownership is so important for league growth/success....Don't believe a veto is in order here, as mentioned above, as no collusion exists, however it just shows what happens when some owners are sharks and others are fish swimming in the same pond.  

 

A veto due to an owners unawareness to market value, doesn't really solve the core problem (or make that owner comprehend values), which ultimately is "bad" owner.  Basically your  just prolonging the time until they may make another poor decision.  

 

If your objective is to have a competitive environment, the solution seem to be to simply remove that owner who is over their head for someone who is more knowledgeable 

 

 

 

This is great and I agree 100%. The difficult part is knowing we are booting a fish who very likely just gifted a shark another title before we even start a new season. I know the issue is the owner, but it sucks knowing that the shark is still given the free meal anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, GreatScott! said:

You have a team that you said finished last place last year and finishes in last place most years. Now he’s trying to make a change and you all  want to veto his trade / kick him out? He didn’t do well with that team last year. Why force the guy to have to keep those players again? He gets a good RB in Carson who has number 1 potential and then a back end number 1 in Hilton (he doesn’t have a 1 right now) and a good player in Lockett. I don’t see a huge issue. Could he maybe try for more? Sure. But value is in the eye of the beholder. Would I personally do it? Nope. I would let it go though. 

 

Well because he had actually already done what you just said. He traded away a lot of his crap team at the end of the season to trade for "keepers".. that is where Kupp, Henry and Penny all came from. I understand he would be trying to rid himself of the bottom, but this is going the opposite direction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LarryDavid said:

 

Sorry i might have misssed a GIANT point... we haven't even selected keepers or drafted for this next season. This is current teams trading before the keeper deadline. Which I actually think the backup (Penny) part makes it worse. You can only keep 5.. so how does trading for his backup help, is he keeping both?

If I'm playing devil's advocate I'd say that both Penny and Carson could be startable and if one goes down, the other is a strong #1.

You should also have a rule that players traded before the draft must be kept. 

Edited by K197040
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

I would rather have the TY side.

 

Why are you able to trade players that arent being kept? It is a league rule issue.

 

What do you mean rule issue? We all have our teams from last season currently rolled over, you have from when we open the league (a few months ago) until the keeper deadline to make moves and trade with other teams all the current players you have on your roster.. and then we have the keeper deadline one week prior to the draft where you select your best 5. I am not sure what the issue is, he traded for 3 guys he is obviously planning on keeping now and the other guy is obviously keeping CMAC. I just meant this wasn't a after the draft trade because I thought it might be confusing how I listed out teams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

I would rather have the TY side.

 

Why are you able to trade players that arent being kept? It is a league rule issue.

 

Yeah...I agree with this.   The 3 guys being traded should be counted as 3 of Team 1's keepers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LarryDavid said:

 

What do you mean rule issue? We all have our teams from last season currently rolled over, you have from when we open the league (a few months ago) until the keeper deadline to make moves and trade with other teams all the current players you have on your roster.. and then we have the keeper deadline one week prior to the draft where you select your best 5. I am not sure what the issue is, he traded for 3 guys he is obviously planning on keeping now and the other guy is obviously keeping CMAC. I just meant this wasn't a after the draft trade because I thought it might be confusing how I listed out teams. 

 

The 3 should count as keepers for the guy trading them. This is how all my keeper leagues have always worked. Thought it was pretty standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

The 3 should count as keepers for the guy trading them. This is how all my keeper leagues have always worked. Thought it was pretty standard.

 

Trading them or trading for them? The team that is trading for them will be using them as 3 of their 5 keepers when they select. I have played in a ton of keeper/dynasty league and I have never been in a league where the team that traded away players needed to count them as keepers. 

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

 

Trading them or trading for them? The team that is trading for them will be using them as 3 of their 5 keepers when they select. I have played in a ton of keeper/dynasty league and I have never been in a league where the team that traded away players needed to count them as keepers. 

 

Weird. One team is essentially keeping 7 players. I would change that rule to avoid this happening again. Trade seems fine based on current rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only solution I see long term is replacing the dude for someone better. (Easier said than done) As for the veto part, I don't see collusion, just a horrible trade. The reason I think you have to replace this owner is, even if you manage to veto this one, it'll just keep happening because he clearly doesn't know as much as the current league. If you choose to keep the owner, I think you gotta let the trade through. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

Weird. One team is essentially keeping 7 players. I would change that rule to avoid this happening again. Trade seems fine based on current rules.

 

Sorry but I really want to understand what you are saying.. Team #1 traded away Lockett, TY, Carson to get CMAC. Team #1 will now most likely select Conner, CMAC, Williams, Juju and Kelce as his 5 when the keeper deadline comes and the rest of his team is back to the draft. Team #2 will now most likely select the 3 he traded for TY, Carson, Lockett and two of the others current on his team like Hunter Henry and Arob for his 5. The rest of his team is back to the draft. 

 

They both keep the salary amount of the 5 selected and minus that from the $200 overall budget to see what draft capital they have. I am lost on how one team would essentially have 7. 

Edited by LarryDavid
Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon. You don't veto a trade just because you think it's a bad trade. Let the owners manage their teams how they like unless you can prove cheating. If you strongly suspect cheating but can't prove it, phase that owner out of the league. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SenatorSpaceman said:

C'mon. You don't veto a trade just because you think it's a bad trade. Let the owners manage their teams how they like unless you can prove cheating. If you strongly suspect cheating but can't prove it, phase that owner out of the league. 

 

Wasn't really ever planning on veto. I just wanted to add that in case anyone would think so, I have never vetoed a trade ever. I also just knew titling the question that way might spice up my answers/insight here, which is obviously what I looking for. 
 

Also, I do not want to get into the history. But this isn't simply a one time deal for the stupid team, that is what is causing such the issue. I know the main and only way is to boot the owner.. but teams are still going to be pissed that the guy got CMAC out of the deal even with stupid getting the boot. That is why I was looking for insight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Team 2 didn't have any keepers outside mccaffrey and Robinson now he does and money to spend..I actually think its not that bad of a trade, he probably could of got more, but with a good draft he could make it work ...also the goal is to win money you want all the stupid people you can get

Edited by Coprolagnia
  • Haha 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...