satelliteoflovegm Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I am the commissioner...I have been offered a very minor trade kicker for kicker with no bye week issues. (He likes the Steelers he said) Jeff Reed for Shayne Graham a fair deal but to me unnessasary. The trade fee is small, $2, I said I don't need a different kicker and don't want to pay $2 which adds up over the season. He said he'd pay my $2. We obviously aren't engineering some great scam on the league. But where is the line, slippery slope and all that. My gut says it is wrong in principle. If $2 is okay is $10 okay to sway a guy to make a still fair deal? I don't think it is and I need to be above reproach as a long time commish. Am I being to picky in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher73 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Go with Graham, he is consistent~9 to 10 points per game. Reed is up and down, high teens to low single digits. Not going to make or break you and it's at no cost to you. The way Cinncy has been playing the end zone isn't in their sites and there are more FGs, Pitt has found their offense, so there will be more XPs instead of FGs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Thanks for the response but it really wasn't the question...I have Phil Dawson and generally start him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher73 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Gotcha, if he's a buddy, don't do it, screw him...that's the point of playing with your pals, to relish in their anguish!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I feel for you on this one..Although its minor sometimes as commish you over analyze things and feel guilty if something is the slightest bit off color and you are involved in it..I would either make the trade and pay the 2 bucks if I were you or dont make it at all..Dont let him pay it..Its minor but it will grate on you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I feel for you on this one..Although its minor sometimes as commish you over analyze things and feel guilty if something is the slightest bit off color and you are involved in it..I would either make the trade and pay the 2 bucks if I were you or dont make it at all..Dont let him pay it..Its minor but it will grate on you.. +1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Pilgrim Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 No doubt in my mind that this is as slippery a slope as I can conceive. Money will clearly be involved, commish is involved. Oh yeah, but it's only two bucks............The amount doesn't matter. Might as well be $20 or $50. Can't do it, if you want to maintain the integrity of the league. I think the fact that you asked this question reveals what you think you should do too. The Grey Pilgrim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 yeah I will pay my own way if I do it. Thanks for confirming what I guess I knew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I am the commissioner...I have been offered a very minor trade kicker for kicker with no bye week issues. (He likes the Steelers he said) Jeff Reed for Shayne Graham a fair deal but to me unnessasary. The trade fee is small, $2, I said I don't need a different kicker and don't want to pay $2 which adds up over the season. He said he'd pay my $2. We obviously aren't engineering some great scam on the league. But where is the line, slippery slope and all that. My gut says it is wrong in principle. If $2 is okay is $10 okay to sway a guy to make a still fair deal? I don't think it is and I need to be above reproach as a long time commish. Am I being to picky in this case? It's $2!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 It's $2!! I think the amount is irrelavent...it is the principle. What if it was 3, 5, 10 $100? Where is the line? I included the amount to show it wasn't a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I call bullsh-it on the slippery slope. The real question is if it's a fair trade. If it is and he wants to pay, then let him. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. If there's even the hint that it may not be fair, that's a different question entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I call bullsh-it on the slippery slope. The real question is if it's a fair trade. If it is and he wants to pay, then let him. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. If there's even the hint that it may not be fair, that's a different question entirely. Setting a precedent is dangerous though... This innocent kicker-for-kicker trade might seem harmless, but there is way too much subjectivity involved with deciding what constitutes a fair trade. I don't think you open the door for this sort of option at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I see no harm in one owner paying the associated transaction fees to make a trade happen. Many owners won't make a move if they have to pay for it ... offering to cover the transaction fee is a way to remove that road block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Setting a precedent is dangerous though... This innocent kicker-for-kicker trade might seem harmless, but there is way too much subjectivity involved with deciding what constitutes a fair trade. I don't think you open the door for this sort of option at all. I hear you, but as a commish myself, I know what in my mind is a fair trade, and in my mind, if it's fair, that's all I need to know. If the yay-hoo wants to pay whatever fee there may be, go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) I hear you, but as a commish myself, I know what in my mind is a fair trade, and in my mind, if it's fair, that's all I need to know. If the yay-hoo wants to pay whatever fee there may be, go for it. Some people may see the offer of payment as an incentive to making the trade..Thats where things can get hairy.. I realize its 2 bucks but its the principle Edited November 1, 2007 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) Some people may see the offer of payment as an incentive to making the trade..Thats where things can get hairy.. I realize its 2 bucks but its the principle As long as the financial aspect of the transaction does not exceed the transction fees I do not see the problem. What is the "principle" that is being violated. The transaction fee goes into the kitty and is paid out along with any other transaction fees. Edited November 1, 2007 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) I think the principle is that if there were two seperate but equal deals offered I would accept the one where the fees were covered. It seems an unfair advantage for one guy, who may be more well off financially, getting the guy. However in the same scenario without the money, I would trade with my friend verses an acquaintance. So things aren't always equal. I'm not going to do it... Someone who had to scrape together their entry fee should not be disadvantaged over a more well off guy. In this case the guy would owe $4 (his fee and mine). Many leagues I seen it could be $10 or even $20 with both fees. It could get pricey. If two guys agreed to it and I didn't know about it, fine. But the commissioner shouldn't be afforded that luxury right or wrong. A commish has other things that work in their favor and other things that don't. Edited November 1, 2007 by satelliteoflovegm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 As long as the financial aspect of the transaction does not exceed the transction fees I do not see the problem. What is the "principle" that is being violated. The transaction fee goes into the kitty and is paid out along with any other transaction fees. Today its 2 dollars for a meaningless kicker trade..Tomorrow its a trade that is borderline unfair and Ill pay your next 10 transactions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Today its 2 dollars for a meaningless kicker trade..Tomorrow its a trade that is borderline unfair and Ill pay your next 10 transactions +1 I would not do it either. You always have that one guy who will bring it to the next level and as commish you do not want to have to deal with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Today its 2 dollars for a meaningless kicker trade..Tomorrow its a trade that is borderline unfair and Ill pay your next 10 transactions No ... the deal was that one owner would pay the associated transaction fees for both owners for the trade on the table ... NOT additional payments. I see no "violation of principle" and no "slippery slope". A fair and equitable trade was agreed to and as part of the deal one owner is shouldering the entire financial burden of the transaction. No harm, no foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 This is so simple. As a commish, you accepted a different standard of conduct than anyone else in the league. Anything that you do has to be above reproach. You either make the trade & pay the $2 yourself, or you don't make the trade. You don't invite even the appearance of impropriety, even in a matter this insignificant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Some people may see the offer of payment as an incentive to making the trade..Thats where things can get hairy.. I realize its 2 bucks but its the principle Ok, ok, ya got me. Although... if the incentive to make a deal is that someone covered transaction fees, maybe someone else should offer me more, you know, as incentive. Just kidding, just kidding..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) No ... the deal was that one owner would pay the associated transaction fees for both owners for the trade on the table ... NOT additional payments. I see no "violation of principle" and no "slippery slope". A fair and equitable trade was agreed to and as part of the deal one owner is shouldering the entire financial burden of the transaction. No harm, no foul. Someone down the line may look to pay someone more then 2 dollars and if that causes a stink and goes to the commish and it was the commish that accepted the 2 dollar payment that got the ball rolling he wont have a leg to stand on in refusing to let another team do it.. Edited November 1, 2007 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Someone down the line may look to pay someone more then 2 dollars and if that causes a stink and goes to the commish and it was the commish that accepted the 2 dollar payment that got the ball rolling he wont have a leg to stand on in refusing to let another team do it.. He will most certainly have a leg to stand on. In the previous trade (where the precedent was set) one owner paid all the transaction fees associated with the trade. That is NOT the same as one owner paying another owner money over and above the transaction fees associated with a trade. There is no slippery slope here. Owner A and B agree to a trade Owner A owes $X for his part of the trade Owner B owes $Y for his part of the trade Owner A agrees to give up player C and pay both $X and $Y Owner B agrees to give up player D All the money goes into the kitty and Owner B does NOT recieve a financial payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 one of my old locals had $5/transaction fees so a trade resulted in a $10 fee....it was in our rules that one of the teams could pay the entire $10. 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.