lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I would like to get some opinions on this. I was offered a trade by another owner. we had been negotiating for a couple of days and he finally sent me a deal I could live with. I was giving up to much, but I had serious depth and wanted Rodgers. I was giving up Romo, SJax, Marshall and Starks for Rodgers, Beanie, DThomas and Heyward Bey. I accepted the deal and it was awaiiting commish approval. Our trade deadline is tonight at midnight. i got an email from the other owner saying he requested the deal be vetoed by the commish because SJax showed up on the injury report. Commish vetoed the deal and I was sent a generic email from the website. No call. No response from commsh. Isn't a deal a deal after it is agreed to by both parties? i have never heard of an owner asking for his own trade to be vetoed. This is a decent size $$$ league and I am in first place. the commish is in second place and I play him this weekend. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Play in a league without vetos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Bad mojo ... once he agrees to the deal the commissioner approval is only a formality ... not a chance for a do-over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I guess if the rules require commish approval, it's not a done deal until then. I agree with Blitz, it's bad mojo, but given your description of your rules, it does not sound like a valid trade takes place until after it has been approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyDumps Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Sounds to me like the other owner and commisioner abused veto power. It's there to prevent unfair trades, not allow an owner with buyer's remorse to change his mind after the fact. If the other owner was worried about injuries, he could have easily waited until tonight to offer. Lame move on the commish's part, as well, not telling the other owner "tough." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I would like to get some opinions on this. I was offered a trade by another owner. we had been negotiating for a couple of days and he finally sent me a deal I could live with. I was giving up to much, but I had serious depth and wanted Rodgers. I was giving up Romo, SJax, Marshall and Starks for Rodgers, Beanie, DThomas and Heyward Bey. I accepted the deal and it was awaiiting commish approval. Our trade deadline is tonight at midnight. i got an email from the other owner saying he requested the deal be vetoed by the commish because SJax showed up on the injury report. Commish vetoed the deal and I was sent a generic email from the website. No call. No response from commsh. Isn't a deal a deal after it is agreed to by both parties? i have never heard of an owner asking for his own trade to be vetoed. This is a decent size $$$ league and I am in first place. the commish is in second place and I play him this weekend. Thoughts? You can thank the Libs for this. Political correctness seems more important these days then fair play. Personally I would have approved this. Not only does Obama disapprove of this trade, but he is imposing a new $50 tax on you for questioning the system. And if you are in possesiion of a Christmas tree, that requires the automatic imposition of the triple tax for two violations in the same week. Demand a reversal, or drop the league next year. Short of that, write a new rule and have it inserted into the league constitution, after a league wide vote of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I guess if the rules require commish approval, it's not a done deal until then. I agree with Blitz, it's bad mojo, but given your description of your rules, it does not sound like a valid trade takes place until after it has been approved. No, Grits and CurlyDumpts responses are more accurate. Our league requires commissioner approval and that is only a formality. Once you accept a trade, you cannot go back on it. If I were commish and somebody tried this, I would say "nope too bad." Now if both owners contacted the commish before accepting and said "don't approve that trade, we've changed our minds (and possibly even have a different trade)" then I wouldn't approve it because its a mutual decision. Also, I'd never trade with that owner again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You can thank the Libs for this. Political correctness seems more important these days then fair play. Personally I would have approved this. Not only does Obama disapprove of this trade, but he is imposing a new $50 tax on you for questioning the system. And if you are in possesiion of a Christmas tree, that requires the automatic imposition of the triple tax for two violations in the same week. Demand a reversal, or drop the league next year. Short of that, write a new rule and have it inserted into the league constitution, after a league wide vote of course. don't be a enchilada. let's stick to fantasy football in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 No, Grits and CurlyDumpts responses are more accurate. Our league requires commissioner approval and that is only a formality. Once you accept a trade, you cannot go back on it. If I were commish and somebody tried this, I would say "nope too bad." Now if both owners contacted the commish before accepting and said "don't approve that trade, we've changed our minds (and possibly even have a different trade)" then I wouldn't approve it because its a mutual decision. Also, I'd never trade with that owner again. If the owner would have called me and said he was worried about SJax, I would probably have called the commish myself, but it all happened behind the scenes and I was not informed of the veto until 3 hours before our trade deadline. No time to try to make another deal with a different owner to upgrade my QB position. I am rolling with Romo and Cutler.... As a commish, if an owner called me asking me to veto his own trade, I would laugh at him and tell him no. I may tell him the only way I would cancel the deal is if both owners agreed to the cancellation. I will never trade with that owner again and will probably not play in the league next year. And I plan on kicking all their asses just for spite! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 You can thank the Libs for this. Political correctness seems more important these days then fair play. Personally I would have approved this. Not only does Obama disapprove of this trade, but he is imposing a new $50 tax on you for questioning the system. And if you are in possesiion of a Christmas tree, that requires the automatic imposition of the triple tax for two violations in the same week. Demand a reversal, or drop the league next year. Short of that, write a new rule and have it inserted into the league constitution, after a league wide vote of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) i got an email from the other owner saying he requested the deal be vetoed by the commish because SJax showed up on the injury report. Commish vetoed the deal and I was sent a generic email from the website. No call. No response from commsh. Isn't a deal a deal after it is agreed to by both parties? i have never heard of an owner asking for his own trade to be vetoed. This is a decent size $$$ league and I am in first place. the commish is in second place and I play him this weekend. Thoughts? SJax showed up as Probable on the injury report. That means he's playing, unless there's a serious downturn between now and then. You just got hosed. I'm guessing that the other owner either got another offer or got raked over the coals by at least one other owner. The commish is WAY out of line - the deal was offered by the other owner and accepted by you. That the commish has a stake in the deal because he plays against you and has no interest in seeing you make your team better, and that you are in 1st and he's in 2nd, makes it smell all that much worse. If this other owner starts SJax this week, I'd really be furious if I were you and would try to force the commish to enforce the trade, even after the deadline, and then adjust scores based upon players received in the trade. I'd take this to the rest of the league and see if you can't get any satisfaction through a vote of league owners. Then as soon as the season is over and you collect any winnings due, I'd quit if I were you. If you think this is the last times shenanigans is going to be played in this league, now that it has happened, I'd guess that you are wrong. Edited November 10, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Political correctness seems more important these days then fair play. Wat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Laughable. The guy got cold feet AFTER he agreed to the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 SJax showed up as Probable on the injury report. That means he's playing, unless there's a serious downturn between now and then. You just got hosed. I'm guessing that the other owner either got another offer or got raked over the coals by at least one other owner. The commish is WAY out of line - the deal was offered by the other owner and accepted by you. That the commish has a stake in the deal because he plays against you and has no interest in seeing you make your team better, and that you are in 1st and he's in 2nd, makes it smell all that much worse. If this other owner starts SJax this week, I'd really be furious if I were you and would try to force the commish to enforce the trade, even after the deadline, and then adjust scores based upon players received in the trade. I'd take this to the rest of the league and see if you can't get any satisfaction through a vote of league owners. Then as soon as the season is over and you collect any winnings due, I'd quit if I were you. If you think this is the last times shenanigans is going to be played in this league, now that it has happened, I'd guess that you are wrong. I was giving up SJax so the other owner was nervous about him showing up on the injury report at all. I agree I got hosed. I did make the situation known to the entire league. I pushed for this league to get rid of trade voting before the season started, so I will not call for a league vote. It would be hypocritical. The rest of the league has no desire to see my team get any better. I have moved on. Just another example of why having a commish who also has a team in the league is a recipe for shennanigans. Everyone has an agenda and can rationalize any behavior. I appreciate the feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Laughable. The guy got cold feet AFTER he agreed to the deal. Sometimes you just have to laugh........and remember this is just a fun game played with other people. And other people can sometimes be idiots. Edited November 10, 2011 by lkirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boilerduff Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 That's actually why we have two player commishes. We both have to agree on the course of action. If either of us are involved with the trade / issue, it is the sole discrection of the other commish to rule. Works well for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 That's actually why we have two player commishes. We both have to agree on the course of action. If either of us are involved with the trade / issue, it is the sole discrection of the other commish to rule. Works well for us. Not a bad idea. I have one league where our commish doesn't have a team. I fill the same role for one of his leagues. It works great and makes decisions crystal clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 That's actually why we have two player commishes. We both have to agree on the course of action. If either of us are involved with the trade / issue, it is the sole discrection of the other commish to rule. Works well for us. Same here and we make every effort to be fair and do what is best for the league, not our team, not one owner we like more than the others. I'm not sure how you get sombody to be commissioner for a league they are not in, I'm sure it happens but would think it is rare, or at least well below 25%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 No, Grits and CurlyDumpts responses are more accurate. Our league requires commissioner approval and that is only a formality. Once you accept a trade, you cannot go back on it. If I were commish and somebody tried this, I would say "nope too bad." Now if both owners contacted the commish before accepting and said "don't approve that trade, we've changed our minds (and possibly even have a different trade)" then I wouldn't approve it because its a mutual decision. If commish approval is only a formality, why would the league rules require it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 If commish approval is only a formality, why would the league rules require it? This is the first year for this league and it has yet to evolve. It was hard enough to get them to not have trade votes. The commish approval is in place to prevent extreme cases of dumping or roster pooling. There were no trades vetoed prior to this one and the criteria for the commish was clearly spelled out. Dumping or collusion. Not cold feet prevention........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 Same here and we make every effort to be fair and do what is best for the league, not our team, not one owner we like more than the others. I'm not sure how you get sombody to be commissioner for a league they are not in, I'm sure it happens but would think it is rare, or at least well below 25%. I had actually never heard of it before, but a few years back a buddy of mine and I were talking about what a PITA it is to be a commish sometimes. How everyone has an agenda, having to be extra careful in dealings as a commish, blah,blah, blah..... I suggested that he commish my league and I commish his. We do not have a team in the leagues we serve as commish for. This was a tough sell to the league members, but I think all of them wouldn't hesitate to recommend this approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Sometimes you just have to laugh........and remember this is just a fun game played with other people. And other people can sometimes be idiots. Kudos to you for taking the high road here, but I wouldn't be nearly that civil about some BS like that... So you say it's spelled out in the rules... What is the verbiage? Not that it matters to me, because the commish is wrong either way; Just curious because it might help your cause, but if you say that it's in writing that he's only there to overturn trades involving collusion or dumping, then you already have an extremely strong leg to stand on. You mentioned that it would be "hypocritical" of you to ask the league to take a vote on your trade matter, because you'd been the voice asking to get rid of league votes on trades. Makes sense, but I think you're overlooking what you're really asking the league to vote on: It's not a matter of them voting on the trade, it should be a matter of them voting upon whether the commish should be allowed to circumvent the rules that only allow him to overturn collusive/dumping trades (and at a time when he conveniently happens to be playing you for 1st place).. The former may be grey for your league, but the latter should be black-and-white. The commish is supposed to enforce the will and rules of the league, not to decide if it's okay to give an injury re-do after the trade had been accepted, and merely needed to be approved (to ensure no shenanigans, not for a back-out period). You should not be penalized because you have a delayed system in place to prevent collusion... It's absolutely not hypocritical to bring it up to the league, and let them decide if it's an abuse of the commishes powers. It is everyone's league afterall, and I suspect most would agree it's a clear abuse of his powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 This is the first year for this league and it has yet to evolve. It was hard enough to get them to not have trade votes. The commish approval is in place to prevent extreme cases of dumping or roster pooling. There were no trades vetoed prior to this one and the criteria for the commish was clearly spelled out. Dumping or collusion. Not cold feet prevention........ Maybe the other owner felt an injured Jackson was being dumped on him, in which case the commish vetoing the trade might be legit. Either way, bad veto or good veto, if the purpose of the commish's veto power is to prevent dumping, pooling and collusion, commish approval seems to be more than a mere formality - that's important stuff. I'd write it off as this is the first year of the league and the rules aren't completely evolved yet. Then, I'd consider work on clarifying the commish's veto power before next season. Just my take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 Maybe the other owner felt an injured Jackson was being dumped on him, in which case the commish vetoing the trade might be legit. Either way, bad veto or good veto, if the purpose of the commish's veto power is to prevent dumping, pooling and collusion, commish approval seems to be more than a mere formality - that's important stuff. I'd write it off as this is the first year of the league and the rules aren't completely evolved yet. Then, I'd consider work on clarifying the commish's veto power before next season. Just my take. This is my approach. These guys came a long way when we talked about rules before the draft. It was going to be non-PPR. we got it switched. We got rid of trade votes. We were going to go straight head-to-head and ended up doing an all play system with the head-to-head matchup each week being worth 3 wins. It is a great format and we will continue to evolve in year 2. I just hope SJax goes OFF this week and he might given the matchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrobertz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 This is my approach. These guys came a long way when we talked about rules before the draft. It was going to be non-PPR. we got it switched. We got rid of trade votes. We were going to go straight head-to-head and ended up doing an all play system with the head-to-head matchup each week being worth 3 wins. It is a great format and we will continue to evolve in year 2. I just hope SJax goes OFF this week and he might given the matchup. 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.