Azazello1313 Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 Why is this such a crime? If it went the other way and McNabb was put on the IR, does it change the outcome? Should it have been reversed? Sometimes people are so quick to judge. A man used to be held by his word... it meant something. Why is it so hard to believe this the right outcome when it's based on what should have happened? that is pure bullchit, greg. "a man used to be held by his word" who i WOULD have started is irrelevant. the trade hadn't gone through so i started thomas jones. period. mcgahee DID outperform brown, but i'm not trying to switch those two out after the fact. the main point here is that all weekend i was assuming thomas jones and ronnie brown were my starting RBs. i assumed the trade would be processed sometime early this week and i'd start looking at mcgahee next week. at no point during the games yesterday did i assume mcgahee was on my team, let alone IN my starting lineup. i was a little annoyed that it takes a week to get a trade approved in a $100 buy-in league, but i was living with it. if i was starting ron dayne instead of thomas jones, i probably would have been a little more pissed, and would have made it crystal clear before the games started that there was no excuse for the trade not to have been processed and that i wanted to have mcgahee in my lineup yesterday. but i felt pretty good about TJ, so i just let it go and went with the best lineup i had on saturday night. and now this chit. actually, i ALMOST put mcnabb back in ahead of palmer sunday morning, but i started worrying about the trade getting processed testerday or today, mcnabb being gone, and getting stuck with a zero at QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Problem solved yes, but they now need to include something in the rules about processing trades and submitting lineups with newley aquired players... and what occurs when a/the commish is not available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhoops Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 i don't see anything worng with the trade. owners would need to specifiy who of the new players they would start (via email, message board, voicemail, whatever) Neither do I....but it seems like Az went into the games under the assumption that the trade didn't go through by game time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Your commissioner was wrong to leave himself as the only authority able to process trades if he was going to be without computer accesss for a few days, and he was definitely wrong to change your lineup retroactively. I would definitely make a fuss dude, he's bending you over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhoops Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 No oh poopy. As a commish, there is no way I touch an owner's lineup unless specifically asked to before the week's games start - and never retroactively unless I have a time stamped item specifying changing out a player before games start that I can forward the rest of the league, and then I make sure the rest of the league knows what I am doing (for instance this week, when an owner's computer crashed & I entered his lineup for him, after posting at the message board what my actions were going to be). I have to give your commish this - he has wrecking ball sized cajones to pull something like this. Now, does the rest of the league have the balls to oust him immediately? If not, it's time to find a new league - and yes, I mean leaving the league hanging with an ownerless team in mid-season. I understand what you are saying about a man going by his word. and that is a cool thing. but if you don't get any answers by a certain date about a trade and a guy thinks he has 1 person playing and is sitting there rooting on him all day. how can you take that guy out of the lineup after the fact. the commish made a mistake and if he(the commish) left he should of had someone else take over for him during the week. people are paying good money to be in a league like that and that needs to be considered even in the friendliest of leagues. Both of these sum it up pretty well. Thews, must be tough when the commish is a buddy but he was in the wrong....just caught up and glad the situation has been corrected and I agree with others that the rules now need to be clarified regarding this situation. Good Luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 there sure are a lot of f'd up leages and f'd up commishes out there. wow. after reading thews responses, I stand by the above statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Neither do I....but it seems like Az went into the games under the assumption that the trade didn't go through by game time. yes... he had to because there was no word one way or another from the commish. to me this doesn't mean the trade shouldn't go through. it was agreed upon by both parties. az is no rookie. he knows that if he wanted to start mcgahee he could have submitted somthing to the commish. bigger mess could easily have occurred if az was forced to hit the fa market to fill a roster spot. as he said, he would have raised a fuss if more was on the line and he needed to have willis in there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhoops Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 yes... he had to because there was no word one way or another from the commish. to me this doesn't mean the trade shouldn't go through. it was agreed upon by both parties. az is no rookie. he knows that if he wanted to start mcgahee he could have submitted somthing to the commish. bigger mess could easily have occurred if az was forced to hit the fa market to fill a roster spot. as he said, he would have raised a fuss if more was on the line and he needed to have willis in there agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 yes, but they now need to include something in the rules about processing trades and submitting lineups with newley aquired players... and what occurs when a/the commish is not available. Co-commishes are a beautiful thing. Sounds like things are smoothed out now. Az... thews... hug it out. Move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 wow. after reading thews responses, I stand by the above statement. eh, i don't think the guy is a jerk, or intentionally trying to f*ck me or anything like that. just a little misguided in how he was trying to handle the fact that he was derelect last week. i mean, i wouldn't be too upset if he let the other guy play mcnabb tonight over carr (he played carr over brunell ), since mcnabb hasn't played yet. but technically, even that should be a no-go. it's bad enough he missed the trade until after most of the games were in the books, but trying too hard to "fix" that mistake after the fact made things that much worse. but it's an honest mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 If i were commish i would have just vetoed the trade and there'd be nothing to discuss here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 eh, i don't think the guy is a jerk, or intentionally trying to f*ck me or anything like that. just a little misguided in how he was trying to handle the fact that he was derelect last week. i mean, i wouldn't be too upset if he let the other guy play mcnabb tonight over carr (he played carr over brunell ), since mcnabb hasn't played yet. but technically, even that should be a no-go. it's bad enough he missed the trade until after most of the games were in the books, but trying too hard to "fix" that mistake after the fact made things that much worse. but it's an honest mistake. I agree with you after reading your posts. But that's not the issue for me - it's the unilateral authority the commish has, the way he uses it, and then leaving the league hanging with no recourse because he's off playing that made for my comments. Sure, it's "only" a $100/team league, but that's a lot of offseason beers that are up grabs here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 it seems like everyone else here agrees with me. Well yeah, what he did was F'D up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 eh, i don't think the guy is a jerk, or intentionally trying to f*ck me or anything like that. just a little misguided in how he was trying to handle the fact that he was derelect last week. i mean, i wouldn't be too upset if he let the other guy play mcnabb tonight over carr (he played carr over brunell ), since mcnabb hasn't played yet. but technically, even that should be a no-go. it's bad enough he missed the trade until after most of the games were in the books, but trying too hard to "fix" that mistake after the fact made things that much worse. but it's an honest mistake. Az, I'm not pissed about this at all. I got the e-mail from you, Joe and I were gone since Thursday (I'm the BU commish BTW), so I just sent it to him and figured he'd ask you what you would have done. We switched to CBS (big mistake this year), and this whole trade thing was probably a switch that wasn't set right. If Thomas Jones laid an egg and McGahee scored 4 TDs, and McNabb went on IR, how would feel about it? The same? Should the trade go through? It's all good in the end, and I understand the reasoning behind not changing a line up once it's in, but you guys come off like there's huge collusion going on. I know there isn't, and the fact some people have lives and a mistake is made once is a while is not the end of the friggin' world. This is a bunch of friends that have been in it for 10 years. The world doesn't end because of FF, all people aren't liars and can't be trusted, and all he was trying to do was make it right and take you for your word. Sad that it isn't even an option. In theory I could understand the "what if" scenarion, but in this group, if I had a win reversed because of it, it really wouldn't phase me. It's all good... whatever. I've lost a friend over FF, and it really sucks. Maybe I'm a little biased, but a friend is worth more than a win. I understand rules are rules, but if a trade that would have gone through with so-so players makes it harder, this is pretty simple to see who would have started if it would have happened. I'm done... it all turned out ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Well, Az's e-mail wasn't really his "word," since he had no idea the commish was even considering changing it. It's this simple: essentially, Az would NOT have started McGahee over T. Jones. If he REALLY wanted to start McGahee, he would have done so -- via a timestamped message on the league board. He CHOSE not to do that because he felt good about Jones. Basically, Az started who he wanted, so the result should stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Az, I'm not pissed about this at all. I got the e-mail from you, Joe and I were gone since Thursday (I'm the BU commish BTW), so I just sent it to him and figured he'd ask you what you would have done. We switched to CBS (big mistake this year), and this whole trade thing was probably a switch that wasn't set right. If Thomas Jones laid an egg and McGahee scored 4 TDs, and McNabb went on IR, how would feel about it? The same? Should the trade go through? It's all good in the end, and I understand the reasoning behind not changing a line up once it's in, but you guys come off like there's huge collusion going on. I know there isn't, and the fact some people have lives and a mistake is made once is a while is not the end of the friggin' world. This is a bunch of friends that have been in it for 10 years. The world doesn't end because of FF, all people aren't liars and can't be trusted, and all he was trying to do was make it right and take you for your word. Sad that it isn't even an option. In theory I could understand the "what if" scenarion, but in this group, if I had a win reversed because of it, it really wouldn't phase me. It's all good... whatever. I've lost a friend over FF, and it really sucks. Maybe I'm a little biased, but a friend is worth more than a win. I understand rules are rules, but if a trade that would have gone through with so-so players makes it harder, this is pretty simple to see who would have started if it would have happened. I'm done... it all turned out ok I left a note in yer locker. BFF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What kind of league is this anyway? Every team makes the playoffs? What is the regular season for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What kind of league is this anyway? Every team makes the playoffs? What is the regular season for? It's for friendship, dummy. Can't you read? "A friendship is more important than a win." This is what the commish was thinking when he changed Az's lineup, reducing his point total. He was thinking, "Well, I'm an honest man, so the fact that this utterly bizarre use of commissioner power benefits me because I play Az this week ... Well, I'm just glad it's only the friendship that matters. Otherwise, he may think I'm being a completely opportunistic tool. I'll get my bud and co-commish Thews to make the case of how morally superior we all are, because our motives are always oh so pure, so that all our stupid rationalizations about our failures in deed and thought, inside fantasy football and in the greater world, cannot be held in contempt with mere logic." Or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What kind of league is this anyway? Every team makes the playoffs? What is the regular season for? Every team plays against each other for weeks 1-11. Weeks 12 and 13 pit each team not in the top two (2 divisions of 6) against each other for two weeks (top two gets byes). Week 14 starts the real playoffs, and top two in points are paid out at the end of the year with the SB winner getting about 25%. Since every team makes the playoffs, wins aren't that big of a deal. No one throws in the towel, and no matter what you do you'll have two playoff games. Like I said, there was no collusion at all. If you wanna equate this to an a$$hat move, use the analogy of the tool that quits a league just before it starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It's not collusion because collusion requires a secret agreement between 2 or more owners ... typically to improve the performance of one team at the expense of another. It looks more like the commissioner making a stupid decision ... he may even be making it "for the right reasons" ... but none-the-less it is the wrong decision. Of course AZ should have nipped it in the bud by answering the original question "who would you have started" with "I submitted my starting lineup and that question is irrelevant" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Az, I'm not pissed about this at all. I got the e-mail from you, Joe and I were gone since Thursday (I'm the BU commish BTW), so I just sent it to him and figured he'd ask you what you would have done. We switched to CBS (big mistake this year), and this whole trade thing was probably a switch that wasn't set right. If Thomas Jones laid an egg and McGahee scored 4 TDs, and McNabb went on IR, how would feel about it? The same? Should the trade go through? It's all good in the end, and I understand the reasoning behind not changing a line up once it's in, but you guys come off like there's huge collusion going on. I know there isn't, and the fact some people have lives and a mistake is made once is a while is not the end of the friggin' world. This is a bunch of friends that have been in it for 10 years. The world doesn't end because of FF, all people aren't liars and can't be trusted, and all he was trying to do was make it right and take you for your word. Sad that it isn't even an option. In theory I could understand the "what if" scenarion, but in this group, if I had a win reversed because of it, it really wouldn't phase me. It's all good... whatever. I've lost a friend over FF, and it really sucks. Maybe I'm a little biased, but a friend is worth more than a win. I understand rules are rules, but if a trade that would have gone through with so-so players makes it harder, this is pretty simple to see who would have started if it would have happened. I'm done... it all turned out ok look, i don't for a second think it was collusion or anything of the sort. i just think it was the wrong move, for all the reasons clearly stated here, and that it needed to be reversed. that's all. trying to make this in any way whatsoever about me "going back on my word" is absolutely ridiculous and childish, and for god's sake i HOPE both you and joe can see that. the thing was reversed, so i'm fine. no hard feelings on my end, but you guys can think i'm a prick if you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It's not collusion because collusion requires a secret agreement between 2 or more owners ... typically to improve the performance of one team at the expense of another. It looks more like the commissioner making a stupid decision ... he may even be making it "for the right reasons" ... but none-the-less it is the wrong decision. Of course AZ should have nipped it in the bud by answering the original question "who would you have started" with "I submitted my starting lineup and that question is irrelevant" You're missing the point completely. The commish did change it back without really caring about it. He just asked what would have happened if the trade would have gone through. You guys keep hammering the semantics. In the real world, a trade was made, missed by the commish because we were all out getting hammered, playing poker and attempting to golf, and he just wanted to get it right. "What would you have done?" can only be answered by the people involved in the trade. McNabb is a no-brainer of sorts (the other guy had Bulger who scored big, but he didn't object), but all that's required is each person tell the truth. Why is it so hard to believe that guys can just tell the truth and not worry about the official outcome? It's really no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) look, i don't for a second think it was collusion or anything of the sort. i just think it was the wrong move, for all the reasons clearly stated here, and that it needed to be reversed. that's all. trying to make this in any way whatsoever about me "going back on my word" is absolutely ridiculous and childish, and for god's sake i HOPE both you and joe can see that. the thing was reversed, so i'm fine. no hard feelings on my end, but you guys can think i'm a prick if you want to. Az.. WTF (I hate the filters) Really, it's no big deal. Edited October 3, 2006 by Thews40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You're missing the point completely. The commish did change it back without really caring about it. He just asked what would have happened if the trade would have gone through. You guys keep hammering the semantics. In the real world, a trade was made, missed by the commish because we were all out getting hammered, playing poker and attempting to golf, and he just wanted to get it right. "What would you have done?" can only be answered by the people involved in the trade. McNabb is a no-brainer of sorts (the other guy had Bulger who scored big, but he didn't object), but all that's required is each person tell the truth. Why is it so hard to believe that guys can just tell the truth and not worry about the official outcome? It's really no big deal. Because the truth is unknown. He may or may not have started McGahee. He may have made a last minute change ... or not. We don't know because he determined McGahee was not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Looks like McNabb is gonna big big, so everyone wins. Really... no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.