BY ADAM RONIS
I was the host of the fantasy baseball roundtable this week. The question is: What is the best way to handle trades? Should all trades be approved? A league vote? If you're running a league, what's the ideal way to approve trades without too much controversy?
Andrew Cleary http://www.fantasybaseballgenerals.com:
Ideally, I think trades would be automatically approved, and only subject to the commissioner's veto. Even though the best trades add to each team's strength, it's always possible that one team comes out better than the other (in fact, we all tend to try for this anyway). This is not an abomination. It is not unfair. It is an outcome to be expected in any game that features real human people playing against other human people (see also Major League Baseball). The flipside of this, of course, is that people get greedy, and trades that smack of collusion should be subject to veto, at the commissioner's discretion. Being the commissioner of a league takes responsibility and fairness, and it's appropriate that they should have the final say.
That said, however, I think such an ideal system is more suited to older leagues where the players have known each other for some time, and especially in keeper leagues--there's less of an incentive to pull off a stinker of a trade if you know it can affect next year's team, and your relationship with the managers next year. If you're playing in a league with a lot of people you don't know, and it's a non-keeper league, there's a higher chance someone abandons their non-contending team at the end of the year, and approves any trades that come their way, no matter how lopsided. I think it's better in this kind of league to have some sort of league veto, requiring half of the other managers to vote against a trade for it to be vetoed.
Tim Dierkes http://www.rotoauthority.com
I find it ridiculous that owners voting on each other's trades has become the accepted practice in fantasy leagues. Commissioners who run teams in the league having sole approval is also a terrible idea.
Why should trades be voted on? Most people will tell you it's to prevent unfair deals from being made. Are trades really supposed to be fair? I never give thought to fairness. I just try to help my own team. One apparent reason for vetoes is to prevent dumb owners from being ripped off. Making it a money league with decent stakes takes care of this problem, though. Otherwise, if you don't want a novice in your league, don't let that person in. Part of having a novice in the league is that people will try to take advantage of him. Let's be honest - you're only vetoing that rip-off trade because you didn't think to make the offer.
The one reason I find vetoes acceptable is to prevent collusion. If you have two brothers in a non-keeper league and the last place brother dumps off all his best players to the first place brother, that's collusion.
Say, for the sake of argument, trades need to be fair and veto power is necessary. How does it make sense that the other ten teams, with an obvious vested interest, are the arbiters? That'd be like Omar Minaya and Pat Gillick voting down the Braves' Rafael Soriano-Horacio Ramirez swap. At the very least, appoint someone outside of the league.
By the way, why are the players in the league authorities on trade equity? Can they predict the future? I have seen way too many trades vetoed because 10 amateurs took a quick glance and saw a "name" player swapped for a less famous guy. Last year I caused an uproar by trading Jeremy Accardo for Joe Mauer, even though the Accardo side ended up winning the deal.
Zach Piso http://www.mlbfrontoffice.com
I think this is pretty much status quo, but I am opposed to any sort of "League Vetoing". On paper, every trade is going to have a winner and a loser, but I've seen some pretty obviously slanted trades end up favoring the apparent loser. It is a strategic move available to everyone, so their is nothing "unfair" about an unbalanced deal. The obvious exception is collusion of any kind-and I think responsible league commissioners should invest more time recruiting sportsmanlike owners rather than worrying about how to handle trades. If collusion does happen, just veto it as the commissioner. The rest of the league should recognize the act as justified, as well as the owners involved.
Brett Greenfield http://www.fantasyphenoms.com
All trades should be automatically put through. If you find that certain owners are making lopsided trades that upset the league balance, use the offseason to replace them.
Commish http://www.fantasybaseballgeeks.com
Every league should have well defined rules in place that will determine the steps to take if a trade is deemed to be collusive in nature. All trades should be initialed automatically approved and then if an owner finds a deal to be too lopsided they should be able to request a league wide vote to determine if action needs to be taken. For the most part if you are in a league with dedicated owners that want to win then this type of behavior should happen quite infrequently. If this comes up a lot you should either consider joining another league or losing the owner that is causing all the fuss. In a moment of glaring self-promotion, our site offers a trade review
submittal for free in which our Geeks will vote on and provide feedback for questionable trades. This is not a computer generated piece of boilerplate output, but instead subjective feedback from the 12 Angry Geeks.
Michael Muschiano http://pojofantasybaseball.blogspot.com/
Having used both options before, commissioner review and league votes both have
their flaws and can easily stir up some drama. Commish review gives too much
power to one manager, almost like a dictatorship. League votes is a more
democratic way about things, but can get out of hand in a hurry. Managers can
hide behind their computers and vote against a trade with just one click and no
justification. That's why the ideal way to handle trades is a combination of
league votes and commissioner review (assuming this is a private league and a
not public one with strangers). Managers can send in their "votes against" in
the form of e-mail with a reason for why they wish the trade should be vetoed.
After X amount of votes against have been received with some reasoning to the
commissioner, the commish should veto the deal. However, it is at the
commissioner's discretion as to whether the votes are good reason.
Adam Ronis: I don't think a veto system is appropriate. I see too many people veto trades just because the team in front of them is getting better. Leaving the vote solely to the commisssioner doesn't work either because if the commissioner is involved in the trade, it's a conflict of interest. The only reason a trade should be vetoed is because of collusion. A lot of trades will appear like one team has an advantage, but as long as the league members are legit and it's a money league, a trade shouldn't be vetoed.