Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

League commisioner making BOGUS trade


firstandgoal
 Share

Recommended Posts

He traded Hines Ward for Javon Walker this AM and and tried to trade Walker to me, on whidh I declined. THEN after I read the Walker surgery news, I noticed Walker was not on his team anymore and his trade had Ward back.

 

Here's his LAME ASS RESPONSE: "If you check page 34 line 56 column 7 section B of our deal it stated that if one our injured knee boys was worse off then reported then the major players (Ward/Walker) would swap back for a week. I suppose I should have held off on reporting that part of the deal until game time. However, I wanted to move Walker as I thougt he could bring in more than Ward. And since they reported Walker was fine Thurday morning but all of a sudden needs knee surgery in the afternoon. So the other guys are traded I get Ward this week and I get Walker next week. I am screwed. Any interest in Walker?"

 

I am shocked "I get Ward this week and I get Walker next"

 

this league has been going for 10 years with the same commisioner, and never have I seen anything lke this.

 

SUGGESTIONS PLEASE on how I should proceed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Walker owner is cool with this then theres not much you can do. Are they friends? Would he have any reason to help the commish win this week? The only thing that could stop this trade would be collusion IMO. Any owner can trade any player at any time in my book, barring collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He traded Hines Ward for Javon Walker this AM and and tried to trade Walker to me, on whidh I declined. THEN after I read the Walker surgery news, I noticed Walker was not on his team anymore and his trade had Ward back.

 

Here's his LAME ASS RESPONSE: "If you check page 34 line 56 column 7 section B of our deal it stated that if one our injured knee boys was worse off then reported then the major players (Ward/Walker) would swap back for a week. I suppose I should have held off on reporting that part of the deal until game time. However, I wanted to move Walker as I thougt he could bring in more than Ward. And since they reported Walker was fine Thurday morning but all of a sudden needs knee surgery in the afternoon. So the other guys are traded I get Ward this week and I get Walker next week. I am screwed. Any interest in Walker?"

 

:D What the hell is that??

Edited by SF409ers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want to know what to do before or after you put the 2x4 upside his head ?

 

I get the rest of the league together and call bullSega! if its my league,a trade is a trade once its announced.

Tell him to hike up his skirt ,send back Ward and eat his mistake,there are no mulligans.

 

Thats the nicest I would be :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want to know what to do before or after you put the 2x4 upside his head ?

 

I get the rest of the league together and call bullSega! if its my league,a trade is a trade once its announced.

Tell him to hike up his skirt ,send back Ward and eat his mistake,there are no mulligans.

 

Thats the nicest I would be :D

 

 

If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week.

 

But does it make sense for the Walker owner to trade him away and then trade him back(after the news of surgery) assuming there are transaction fees?He has nothing to gain by having Walker back and making the same trade next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week.

 

 

I don't agree DemonKnight!! A trade is a trade. There is no shuch thing as I get him this week, you get him next week in FF!!! This is the F'ing Commisioner!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But does it make sense for the Walker owner to trade him away and then trade him back(after the news of surgery) assuming there are transaction fees?He has nothing to gain by having Walker back and making the same trade next week.

 

Like I said, you have to prove collusion. Does the Walker owner have a better option that Ward this week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. If both owners agree to trade back and thiers no rules against it and no reason to suspect collusion then the trade stands. Cant penalize stupidity. Make sure you are the benefactor next time.

 

They didnt trade back,the trade was only valid if ones knee wasnt worse than the others as reported by the papers,in which case the trade will actually be official the following week instead of this week.

The only one who gains anything at all out of this is the commisioner.

For his next trade it will only be valid if the player he recieved outscores the player he traded away ,which will be according to the rule on page 68 section b line 3.

Edited by xtra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a conditional trade which should only be allowed by rule. If "this" then "that". But I question his line about the injury conditions voiding the trade because he then offered you Walker, which he had no right to do if there were conditions possibly requiring a swap back of players.

 

Also it was a poorly worded trade, (If their knees are worse off than thought) by whos standards? You gonna ask Hines and Javon personally.

 

You should be able to expect more from the commissioner. This whole thing is odd and makes me question the commish's judgement. He needs to step up and keep the original trade intact, for looks sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not clear on the rules of your league and how they apply!

 

In my league, not only is a trade a trade, but we have a rule that states that no two teams can trade the same player or players back and forth to each other, be it the same deal or partial deals in the same FF year.

 

This avaoids a lot of "collusion" talk and kills any potential for 'lending' players for a week.

 

Answering your questions, with or without a league vote, if your rules do not specifically disallow, then "creative" team management should be allowed to continue.

 

After all. it is easier to beg for forgiveness that ask for permission. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not clear on the rules of your league and how they apply!

 

In my league, not only is a trade a trade, but we have a rule that states that no two teams can trade the same player or players back and forth to each other, be it the same deal or partial deals in the same FF year.

 

This avaoids a lot of "collusion" talk and kills any potential for 'lending' players for a week.

 

Answering your questions, with or without a league vote, if your rules do not specifically disallow, then "creative" team management should be allowed to continue.

 

After all. it is easier to beg for forgiveness that ask for permission. :D

 

perfectly put

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week.

 

This is what is commonly known as pooling rosters - in other words, collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no problem with this trade, as long as the condition was agreed to by both owners, and put in place for everyone to see as part of the trade. If they are putting this condition in place after the fact, it reeks of collusion. The conditions of the trade should have been in place for everyone to see at the time the trade was announced, not disclosed afterwards.

 

The NFL has conditional trades all the time (i.e trade valid pending physical)...I see no reason not to allow it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denmark<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<something rotten in.

 

This trade reeks of collusion. First of all, announcing the trade without notifying the league of the conditional parameters, then voiding the trade based on information that came out after the trade was completed, then announcing that the trade would be put off a week based on the conditional parameters? It sounds like Ward is being sent to the team that he can do the most good on during the week. That is collusion. Bring it to a league vote and both owners should be given the boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what is commonly known as pooling rosters - in other words, collusion.

 

NO conditional trades ahould be allowed. Once a trade occurs it is final and the only way the player you traded away returns to your roster is via free agency.

 

Denmark<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<something rotten in.

 

This trade reeks of collusion. First of all, announcing the trade without notifying the league of the conditional parameters, then voiding the trade based on information that came out after the trade was completed, then announcing that the trade would be put off a week based on the conditional parameters? It sounds like Ward is being sent to the team that he can do the most good on during the week. That is collusion. Bring it to a league vote and both owners should be given the boot.

 

Agreed. Although if this is a long-standing league, then I would probably let the offending owners off with a very strong warning to never attempt anything even remotely close to this again. If they aren't remorseful about this, then you either have to get them kicked out or you need to leave that league, because they will continue to screw the rest of you going forward.

 

Better yet, if they simply won't budge on this, then expose the absurdity of their collusion by finding another owner to pool your roster with on a very large scale... keep "conditionally" trading your studs back and forth to each other especially when one of you plays either of those 2 owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree, if this isn't collusino than what the hell is? He made a trade than demanded the trade back for a week because it didn't work out in his favor? Major abuse of powers on this one.

 

Exactly...we have all discussed collusion for years now. Common thought being how hard it is to prove. Well, guess what? This IS collusion and the commish's email is the proof.

 

How can anyone think an "If/Then" trade is OK? Suppose I make this trade: Maroney for Housh...but only under the conditions that Maroney scores X points/game for the next few weeks, otherwise, we trade back? Or under the conditions that IF Henry is not suspended, then I return Maroney and get Housh back? If anyone thinks that is any different that what these two did then there's no helping you. That is COLLUSION and should NOT be allowed.

 

A trade is NOT a trade...at least when crap like this is made a condition of the trade.

Edited by The Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information