Role of Commissioner?

There has been a disagreement in one of my fantasy football leagues, revolving around the role/power of the commissioner.
Here is the situation:

After a first week win, Team A deciedes to offer a trade to Team B, who has said he is looking for WR depth.
On the Thursday before week 2, Team A offers Braylon Edwards (comming off a 3 catch 49 yard preformance) and Tony Gonzeles (comming off a 5 catch 28 yard preformance) for Jason Witten (comming off a 6 catch 116 yards and 1 td game).
After the games on Sunday (where Edwards had a huge game), Team B agrees to the trade.
After a couple of days, the trades is vetoed.
The commissioner posts a message saying that he recieved a few emails explaining how the trade is unfair.
Team B posts a reply saying that both teams agreed to the trade and it shouldn't be the role of the commissioner to veteo trades that he felt were unfair.
So, did the commissioner make the right call and veteoing the trade?


I think this also brings up the idea of what is the role of the commissioner.
Should the commissioner veteo every trade that is slightly unfair because it hurts the entire league, or should he allow trades because both teams agreed to it and it should only matter to those two teams.

In my opinion trades should be vetoed only when one team is competely out of playoff contention and it is clear he/she is just giving away all his good players.
I don't think it is the right of the commissioner (or any othe team) to have the right to stop a trade between two competitive, consenting teams.

It's a pretty tough situation, and something that should be discussed beforehand.

Generally I think the rule is that trades go when both parts agree, unless the commissioner feels it will create competitive unbalance in the league.

I often like to set my leagues up with league votes as the measure for vetoing trades. Then it's up to each players judgment.

Both teams agreed to the trade.

At the time it was a fair trade for both parties.

Any trade has the possibility for it to turn out not as planned... in this case the one side of the trade got a sneak preview of how well it could turn out.


Commissioner shouldn't be able to veto that.

I hate leaving trades in the hands of the league to vote on.
Too many people view the trade on how it affects them and their team standing regardless of the merits of the trade itself.

As a commissioner of a few leagues i will only veto a trade if it is obviously trying to make one great team out of two.
otherwise every owner is an adult and should be able to run their franchise how they see fit.
Everyone evaluates talent differently so just because you might not have accepted the trade if it was your team doesn't make the trade unfair.

I hate the guy that vetoes a trade and says I don't like team A so i am voting no, or i am fighting for a playoff spot with team b and i don't want them to get better so i vote no even though the trade by itself is fair.


That's why if you have a commish that you can trust put it only in their hands and then they should only veto if the trade is making one great team out of two

Regardless whether anyone else in the league thinks it's unfair, if the two sides agree, it should be a done deal.

Obviously people are going to complain if they think a trade might lessen their chances to win.

I say tough shit. What part of fantasy football don't they understand?

The only role the commisioner should play is doing the administration change in the league site to swap the players.

"singersp" wrote:

Quote:

---

Regardless whether anyone else in the league thinks it's unfair, if the two sides agree, it should be a done deal.

Obviously people are going to complain if they think a trade might lessen their chances to win.

I say tough shit. What part of fantasy football don't they understand?

The only role the commisioner should play is doing the administration change in the league site to swap the players.

---

With all due respect, Singer, isn't this your first season in FF?

I've been a commish in leagues where I've had to veto trades that were wayyyy out-of-balance and only being done to enhance one team at the expense of the other.
It's not unusual.

In the case listed above, I would never have vetoed that trade.
I think the guy getting Edward and Gonzalez is getting the better deal, but the point of a Commish Veto is to stop collusion, not to stop people from being stupid.

=Z=

"Zeus" wrote:

Quote:

---

"singersp" wrote:

Quote:

---

Regardless whether anyone else in the league thinks it's unfair, if the two sides agree, it should be a done deal.

Obviously people are going to complain if they think a trade might lessen their chances to win.

I say tough shit. What part of fantasy football don't they understand?

The only role the commisioner should play is doing the administration change in the league site to swap the players.

---

With all due respect, Singer, isn't this your first season in FF?

I've been a commish in leagues where I've had to veto trades that were wayyyy out-of-balance and only being done to enhance one team at the expense of the other.
It's not unusual.

In the case listed above, I would never have vetoed that trade.
I think the guy getting Edward and Gonzalez is getting the better deal, but the point of a Commish Veto is to stop collusion, not to stop people from being stupid.

=Z=

---

True that. In one of my leagues this year someone tried to trade Ronnie Brown for DeShaun foster after week one. Albeit Brown has had a somewhat down year but seriously... that's not a fair trade at all. Almost everyone in the league vetoed it.

The veto tool is there so that someone with more knowledge can't fool someone with less knowledge into making a trade that will ruin their team. Even if one side wants to do it, they will thank the person that veto's it in the end.

Collusion should be the only reason for a veto...and you wont see that happen until late in the season normally.

Stupidity should not be checked by the commish.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I am in a cut throat league for pretty decent money, and we dont help anyone one.
If someone bids on a player that is hurt, we let them.

"NDVikingFan66" wrote:

Quote:

---

Collusion should be the only reason for a veto...and you wont see that happen until late in the season normally.

Stupidity should not be checked by the commish.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I am in a cut throat league for pretty decent money, and we dont help anyone one.
If someone bids on a player that is hurt, we let them.

---

That's a different scenario though. Why would you want another team to get better? Wouldn't that mean more competition for you? Trades are supposed to be equal...

"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:

Quote:

---

"NDVikingFan66" wrote:

Quote:

---

Collusion should be the only reason for a veto...and you wont see that happen until late in the season normally.

Stupidity should not be checked by the commish.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I am in a cut throat league for pretty decent money, and we dont help anyone one.
If someone bids on a player that is hurt, we let them.

---

That's a different scenario though. Why would you want another team to get better? Wouldn't that mean more competition for you? Trades are supposed to be equal...

---

Everyone thinks they get the better end of a trade...thats why u make them......

As commish, I dont question the reason for trades....if someone wants to make it, I approve it, unless there is collusion.