OK, so it's my turn to be Commish in a league I'm in with a lot of close friends every year. It's a 12 team league, and starting this year we finally convinced enough people to vote to make it a keeper league, so three players will be kept each season from here on out.
The trade is: Sam Bradford and Calvin Johnson for Josh Freeman, Steve Smith, and Asante Samuel (Yes, we use IDP).The trade review system we're using this year is my own creation:
Quote:
TRADING RULES:
*Trades will be Commissioner's Decision.
That does NOT mean I decide whether or not a trade goes through. We did this last year and it worked out without any verb-that-rhymes-with-witch-ing or problems, so it ought to work out this year too.
The way it works is simple:
When a trade is made, if you don't like it, post on the message board and say why you don't like it. If you think the trade is fine, post on the message board and say why you think it's fine.
If a few people have a problem with a trade and have very strong reasons why it's not good, it gets vetoed. If the vast majority of a league has a problem with a trade, and the people making it don't both have very strong reasons why it's fine, it gets vetoed. If one person has a problem with a trade and nobody else does, but the one person has very strong reasons why it should be vetoed and nobody really has any reason why it's OK, then it might get vetoed.
Basically, we all know each other. Lets just talk out trades and figure out if they're unfair together. The league vote thing has too many problems. Lets look at those problems:
1. It's anonymous. You can vote against a trade and not have to come clean about it. It's frustrating if you do a trade you think is fair and it gets vetoed and nobody wants to tell you why they vetoed it or that they vetoed it at all.
2. If people don't check to vote, terrible trades could get through. In football, of all sports, where you only really have to check once a week, this is a huge problem.
3. You don't have to explain WHY you veto. You could literally vote against every trade that doesn't benefit your team and don't need a reason. Maybe you're just bored and click veto. That's not fair.
So to fix those, we post on the boards and then the Commish vetoes it if the league feels it should be vetoed and passes it through if the league feels it should be passed through. That way if you have a problem with a trade, you actually have to say what the problem is, and at the same time, people doing the trade have a chance to explain themselves.
Three managers have protested this trade... A defense has been given, but it's by the guy getting Calvin, who has pretty much spoke for the other guy. Personally I feel like it's an unwise move for the guy losing Calvin Johnson, and I do feel like he's being taken advantage of by his older cousin, who convinced him in our baseball league to trade him Joey Votto for Jose Reyes right after Reyes went on the DL... Because of there being a history of the one guy getting a much better deal than the other guy in trades, I feel like this trade was destined to be opposed regardless of what it was.
But while I feel it's unwise, I don't actually see it as unfair. Steve Smith will almost certainly not be as good as Calvin over the entire season and Josh Freeman shouldn't be that much better than Bradford, but that's not what vetoing trades is about.
Do I placate the managers trying to stop this trade from going through, or go ahead and allow it tomorrow night when I have to make my decision?
