Entries from October 2007 ↓

Q:  We have a fantasy league with 11 teams.  One of the teams managers has dropped out.  What do we do with the players on his team?

A:  It’s shame that you are down to 11 teams as wins are hard to come by and this will unevenly distribute forfeit victories across your league.  Because of this, the best solution is to find a replacement owner to get back to an even 12.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with this.  One, its not easy to find a replacement owner at this time in the season, and two, taking over ownership would require the new owner to have access to the the old owner’s Yahoo profile which probably won’t happen (unless you can work some magic on the league setup page).

There is a silver lining here.  It is almost always impossible to get your league to vote objectively on a rule change during the season because each owner usually has some vested interest in the issue that will affect his vote.  In this case, however, everyone is on the same playing field.  So bring this question to a league vote.  First, vote on whether or not the players should be added back into the pool at all - or frozen.  Majority wins, heck this is perfect you even have an odd number of voting teams, ensuring there won’t be a tie.  Assuming no one wants to freeze the absentee roster, you should then throw all 11 teams in a hat and pick the draft order.  Then start drafting, using the snake style (A,B,B,A).

Couple comments on this.  The fairest way to handle this issue is to freeze the lineup, simply because with 11 teams picking from one roster, the first few draft picks will clearly benefit more from the process.  Of course, its much more fun to do another mini draft.

Also, if you decide to draft the players, you absolutely shouldn’t base the draft order off current records.  What a team has done to this point in the season should have no bearing on if and how these additional players are distributed.  All teams should have an equal chance to improve their team as a result of this issue.

Q:  The following trade was made on 10/20.

Team A traded Donovan McNabb, Phi QB to Team B
Team B traded Laveranues Coles, NYJ WR to Team A
Team B traded Chester Taylor, Min RB to Team A

Team  B QB  was on a bye week and he needed one.  Team A did not need any of these players and McNabb was his best QB (he has Garrard as well).  The trade was approved by our commissioner after several protests.  He stated the trade was equitable.  Team B played McNabb and Team A did not play any of the above players.

Now on 10/23 the following trade has been accepted.

Team A trades Laveranues Coles, NYJ WR to Team B
Team B trades Desmond Clark, Chi TE to Team A
Team B  trades Donovan McNabb, Phi QB to Team A

Now my  question to you is this a fair trade?  Can you allow other teams to borrow players for bye weeks if the trade is equitable?

A:  Hi Harry.  Thanks for your inquiry.  In this case, we don’t think it matters whether or not the trade is “equitable”.  What matters is that this is a clear case of collusion which is simply not acceptable.  Two teams cannot be allowed to conspire together during the season as it completely disrupts the balance of power in the league.

There is really not much difference between two teams borrowing players during bye weeks as in your case, and two teams simply combining all their top players onto one “all-star” team - which of course would be met with outrage among your fellow owners.

Now, you can’t do anything about the first trade since its been a game since it went through.  But you can do something about the follow up that was accepted on 10/23.  Again, this is clearly collusion and this trade should be vetoed.  Sure, AZ will be stuck with McNabb on his squad but these two teams should be content that they both benefited from the 10/20 trade and shouldn’t need this second trade on 10/23 to even it out - if they are on the up and up.

Q:  Here’s my situation: another player agreed to give up Drew Brees and an injured Sammy Morris in order to get Cleo Lemon and Chris Chambers from my team. Admittedly, this wasn’t the smartest trade on his part, and he’d previously made a dumb trade that gave me Rudi Johnson. But he thinks Cleo Lemon is a sleeper, and he agreed to the trade.

But after we both accepted the trade, people started making fun of him for it and he got buyer’s remorse. Then he convinced the league commissioner — who happened to be drunk at the time — to veto the trade, and he did. The reason he gave me is that my team is already too good (I drafted LT, Tom Brady and Ronnie Brown), and that trade would make me even better.

One note here: he’s a fantasy football novice in his first year in a league, but so am I. Of course, we’ve both watched football all our lives, so we’re really equal when it comes to experience.

I’m of the opinion that it’s only the commissioner’s role to veto trades when there is collusion between the trading players to boost one team and hurt another. I think players should decide for themselves whether they want to do a trade, and the commish doesn’t need to be league mommy.

What do you guys think should be the standard for a vetoed trade: collusion or lopsidedness, and what do you think of this situation?|

A:  Hi George.  Let’s address the general standards of a vetoed trade first.  We believe that a trade can and should be vetoed if a) there is collusion or b) the trade is one-sided to the point that it affects the balance of power in your league.  While we agree that your commissioner shouldn’t play league mommy, we also believe there are instances when the commissioner needs to step in and veto a trade simply because it is unfair.

Now to your specific situation. First there are three points that should have NO bearing on the decision. One - “the commissioner was drinking at the time” - that’s part of the job description.  Two - your “team is already too good” - while it is important to consider the needs of each team involved in a trade, by and large your current roster has no bearing on the fairness of a trade. Three - “he’d previously made a dumb trade” - an owner’s past actions should have no affect on one’s opinion of the trade in question - unless of course you are suspected of collusion.  This dispute sounds more like one owner is being accused of taking advantage of another, not working in cahoots, however.

That said, we don’t think this trade is lopsided to the point that it should be vetoed.  Your league starts 20 QBs each week.  Which greatly increases the value of Cleo Lemon (yes I just said that).  At least for the time being, he has job security.  There’s simply not a lot of talent to go around at the QB position when you need to start 2 per week and account for bye weeks.  Chambers, who has shown flashes of brilliance in the past, could flourish in San Diego.  Now the Brees/Morris side of the trade sounds like the better deal but be careful your judgements aren’t based on past experience or short-sightedness.  Brees, though he’s improved the last couple weeks, has struggled in 2007 and has yet to solidify his position amoung the QB elite.  Morris admittedly has torn up defenses recently, but a) he’s hurt, and b) he’s not even the starter.

We’d take the Brees/Morris side but this trade doesn’t deserve a veto.  We’d also recommend you put veto powers in the hands of the majority via league wide voting on disputes as opposed to letting the commish make all the decisions.  That might be something you need to wait until next season to sort out, however.

Q: The situation: Team One and Team Two attempted to trade the following last week - Team One would send Ronnie Brown (before he was injured) to Team Two in exchange for Team Two’s 1st round pick (we keep two players, so essentially a 3rd round pick) and 5th round pick (essentially 7th round pick) in next year’s draft.

The league does not have a constitution and thus no written rule regarding trading players for draft picks.  However, last year a trade involving these same two teams took place.  Team One sent Joey Galloway to Team Two for a 4th round pick (essentially a 6th round pick).  That trade was approved by the league.

This is what the commissioner had to say about this trade, “I don’t think I can agree with this trade. In order to maintain the “competitive balance” of the league I don’t think I can agree to Team Two getting to essentially stack his team this year so that Team One could stack his next year. I veto.  A good trade will equally improve BOTH teams chances of winning that same year. I don’t think you guys are intentionally trying to “screw the league” the league. I understand what you are trying to do, I just think you’ve overlooked the impact this could have on the league as a whole.”

Here was the response: “This is not a lop-sided trade. Do you really feel that Ronnie Brown is worth that much more than a 3rd and 7th round pick? I think the trade, in and of itself, is fair and balanced.

The question seems to be, is trading a current player for draft picks next year unfair to the league? Once again, we set the precedent last year by allowing the Joey Galloway trade. How can we come back this year (not having discussed and decided not to permit these types of trades) and then say, no, we can’t do this because now you’re trading a great player instead of a good one? If we can trade players for picks (which we established last year), the question then becomes, is this a fair and balanced trade? As I discussed above, I believe it is and that there is not a good reason to veto.”

So, that’s the situation.  The question is, should this trade have been allowed?

A:  Thanks for the inquiry - and we’ll disregard the recent injury for this response.  Let’s first take a look at the fairness of the trade.  Ronnie Brown is a solid running back.  He hit approximately 1,000 yards in each of his first two NFL seasons averaging around 4.3 ypc and adding about 250 receiving yards per year as well.  In 2007, he has broken out and positioned himself as a top level back - not yet on  LT’s tier - but an absolute RB1 and an all around great addition to any fantasy squad.  That said, as his recent injury attests to - depth is king in fantasy football and picking up and extra first and fifth round pick is huge.  So huge, that with the uncertainty surrounding the Dolphin’s future, we’d probably rather have the draft picks.  But not by much and either way, a legit argument could be made for both sides.  This trade is definitely fair.

With that established, are any league rules being broken by the trade?  A good case could be made that without previously established rules, you shouldn’t be allowed to trade draft picks.  But your league set that precedent last year when they allowed the Joey Galloway trade.

This trade needs to go through.  Competitive balance is upheld when a trade provides relatively equal value to both parties involved - and unless you’ve previously established so - it shouldn’t matter whether that value is realized this season or next.

Q: What are your thoughts on this trade? Derrick Anderson for Antwaan Randle El. Based on our league scoring (which includes 6 points per passing td and point per catch), Anderson is the #3 QB with 137 points and Randle El is the #37 WR with 56 points. Obviously, Anderson doesn ‘t have much of a track record to predict what his future performance may be, but at this point, there’s no reason to think he will falter too much. On the other hand, with Randle El, there’s no reason to think he will finish much better than he has every other year in his career, which is average at best. The owner giving up Anderson has Manning, so he said he was just helping out the other owner, who may be forced to play Pennington. It’s not collusion but the Anderson owner isn’t concerned with his QB position and didn’t worry about getting equal value for him. To me, this trade goes beyond uneven and tips the scales to the unfair side.

A: Actually, I would consider this collusion. There are many definitions on the web for collusion but based on this example, from wikipedia, I think it is applicable to this trade:

Collusion is a term to refer to acts of cooperation or collaboration among rival entities.

If you allow this trade, you are setting a precedent by which any owner in your league can perform unfair trades because they are “helping out the other owner”.

As you pointed out, based on your league scoring system the trade is not even remotely fair. I also agree with your assessment that there is no strong evidence as to why either of these players will stray much from their current paces of production. The trade should be rejected, but more importantly you should firmly establish that your league will not tolerate trades made out of charity as it severely disrupts the balance of the league.

Q: I am the commissioner of a 12 team league we have at work. This week, Team A, who is 0-5-1, attempted to trade Randy Moss to the 2nd place Team B for Ronald Curry. The entire league could not believe that anybody could possibly feel this trade is legit…but…my coworker that is suppose to get Randy Moss is extremely upset that his trade was vetoed by a majority vote and has threatened to quit the league. Some of Team B arguments for justifying the trade are as follows…

1. Moss only averages 12 more points a game than Curry(True).
2. Team B claims that his team is actually a poor team who has gotten very lucky to win as many games as he has (which has a bit of truth to it).

Are we, as the other managers in the league, completely off base for vetoeing this trade? Is there any relevance to how this trade is being justified by Team B?

Some guidance from a FF Disputes expert would be greatly appreciated. Please give us your insight on this.

We are in a points per reception league, a touchdown is worth 6 points, and you get a point per 10 yards receiving.

A: Thanks for the inquiry Aaron. Why do we, as fantasy football owners, make trades? The simple answer is to improve our teams and our chances at winning the championship. That said, there is absolutely no support to rationalize how Team A is improving their squad. The two two teams are making a 1 for 1 trade, exchanging players at the same position, and one player (Moss) is clearly better. The only reason for Team A to make this trade is if they don’t feel they have a chance to win this year based on their 0-5-1 start and are trying to help Team B win instead. That’s collusion and if that’s the case, both owners should be removed from your league next season. Curry and Moss have played 5 and 7 games respectively this season so lets look at their stats on a per game basis:

Moss: 6.28 receptions per game, 105 yds per game, 1.42 TDs per game
Curry: 4.4 receptions per game, 59.2 yds per game, 0.4 TDs per game.

Its just not even close. Add into the mix that the Patriots have much more stability at QB and the trade becomes even more unfair. You and your fellow owners and in the right by vetoing this trade. Your decision should stand.

As a Dolphin fan and a Ronnie Brown owner in a couple of my leagues…. well this really sucks.   Here’s a link to the ESPN article.

Q: I recently had a trade turned down and was wondering what you thought of it.Team 1 gets Laveranues Coles and Edgerrin James

Team 2 gets Randy Moss and Ladell Betts

Normal scoring-1 point for 10 yds 6 pts for TD

A: Hi Matt. By and large, fantasy footballers are way too quick to click the ‘veto’ button when a trade is accepted. It is simply a flawed system. When the Patriots traded for Randy Moss, did they have to ask the Colts? Do you think the Colts would have been quick to try to block the trade simply for personal reasons or would they have been an objective third party? Exactly, and the same applies to fantasy football. I’ve mentioned this before in my posts but I will mention again and again until the point hits home. There is a difference between and uneven trade (which favors slightly one team over the other but should still be allowed) and an unfair trade (which should be overturned). The vast majority of trades are either fair or uneven and should be allowed. Very rarely is a trade so overwhelming unfair that it warrants a veto. Fantasy footballers need to remember that they are not voting to prevent all other teams from getting better. The veto rule is simply there to prevent collusion and ridiculously unfair trade made by stupid owners.

Sorry for the diatribe, but far too often I see a completely legitimate trade overturned not because it is unfair - but because the other owners who do the voting are scared the trade may hurt their team’s chance.

That said, your trade is absolutely fair. How can this be possibly be vetoed? Based on the scoring in one of my Sportsline leagues - which looks to be the same as scoring system - The Coles/James tandem has racked up 93.4 points so far this season which is slightly more than the Moss/Betts duo who have posted 88 points. That’s not a very wide margin. I’m not sure how much more fair a trade can be. Even if you don’t want to trust the stats since its still early in the season, team 1 is getting a very solid RB2 and a WR2, while team 2 is getting a top tier WR. Its a classic trade, give away a superstar at one position to obtain depth at multiple positions.

You got robbed my friend. I’d be making a stink as well (which is probably how you ended up on this site). My advice is pull the stats for 2007 and show the rest of your owners how close the trade really is. If that doesn’t work, I’d look for a new league next year where the owners have the common decency to allow a fair trade to go through even if they think it may hurt their chances of winning the championship.

Q: Here is the trade that we want you to decide on. Thanks.

Person 1 receives WR Chad Johnson, Ahman Green
Person 2 receives RB Frank Gore,  WR Donald Driver

League Notes:  Two Starting RB’s; 6 pts per passing TD; 6 pts per Rushing TD

A:  Hi Greg.  This trade is fair enough although I would definitely want to be getting Gore and Driver.  Both sides are clearly upgrading - Person 1 at WR and Person 2 at RB although the discrepancy between Gore and Green is more pronounced than that between Johnson and Driver.  Maybe not a perfectly even trade, but its not unfair and should absolutely be allowed.

Q: Here is the trade that I think is very one sided and taking advantage of a person who doesn’t know football very well.

Person 1 receives WR Chad Johnson
Person 2 receives RB Chester Taylor, QB Jay Cutler, WR Kevin Curtis

League Notes:

- Not a Keeper League
- Two Starting QB’s
- 6 pts per passing TD, 6 pts per Rushing TD
- Point per Reception League

A: Hi Paul. Thanks for the inquiry. Rarely do we say a trade should not be allowed, primarily because of the difference between an unfair trade and an uneven trade (see previous post in italics).

That said, this trade is unfair and should be vetoed. One could make an argument that person 2 is receiving sufficient depth to offset the fact that Ocho-Cinco is a top level WR, but it’s simply not enough to get in exchange for an elite receiver. Another important point is that this 3 for 1 trade will require person 1 (who receives Johnson) to pick up two additional players off the waiver wire. However barren your free agent pool is at this point in the season, person 1 will almost certainly be able to find some value with these two free pickups. When you factor in the value of those additions, the trade is even more unfair. Overturn this one immediately!