Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal? (Dynasty League)

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

    • Yes, He Should Have Nixed.
    • No, He Should Not Have Nixed.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

In my dynasty fantasy football league, someone made a trade for Julio Jones in 2015. Here's how the deal looked back then. We use PPR scoring, but TEs get a premium of 1.5 per catch. 

Team A Receives:
Allen Hurns (64 receptions, 1031 yards + 10 TD season)
First Round Pick (turned out to be Carson Wentz, but Hunter Henry was still on the board)
Second Round Pick (turned out to be Keanu Neal, but Deion Jones was also on the board)

Team B Receives:
Julio Jones (136 receptions, 1871 Yards, 9 TDs (8 Receiving TDs, 1 fumble return TD))

However, prior to the beginning of the season, Team A told many owners that this was his last year. Team A traded rookie Todd Gurley to the commish for Reuben Randle (coming off a 71 catch, 3 TD, 900+ yard season) and a First Round Pick (Commish finished in the top 6 of the league that year, so it was at best the 11th overall pick in the draft). At a point prior to this deal processing, Team A had told Team B that this would be Team A's last year in the league. It is possible that the commish did not know that Team A was going to leave until after he made the trade for Gurley.

Team A told Team B that if Team B beat him in their matchup, then he would trade Julio to Team B. Team B did in fact win, and this win eliminated Team A from playoff contention. The commish likely did not know of this. However, Team B was unsure if Team A was serious, and nothing was offered to cement such a statement. Team A had said things the previous year that the previous year would be his last, but it wasn't. Team B still offered a deal to Team A after he won, which was rejected by Team A. TBH, Team A and Team B had been in trade talks for Julio for quite a while. Team B was trying to deal away Danny Amendola instead of Allen Hurns, and was trying to get Greg Hardy included in the deal. Obviously, neither of these happened. Team B was not trying to include both a first and second round either. Team B's initial offers were rejected by Team A, until Team A finally offered the deal above. The final deal actually involved negotiating and bargaining.

However, prior to the deal, Team A told the commissioner's brother (Team C) that Team A was going to trade Julio to Team B to make the competition tougher for Team C. The commish did know about this, but Team B did not. 

There was no agreement between Team A and Team B that if Team B won, then he'd split his earnings with Team A. There was no collusion. 

The commissioner has to process all trades though to make them final. Prior to processing, the commissioner asked for the remainder of Team B's dues (dues are $120, so the league runs on a two-installment plan, where you pay the first $60 prior to the year, and then the final $60 at a date tba later). Team B paid this remainder at this time and not later because he and Team A had just reached a deal for Julio. Team B also thought that if he didn't pay dues at this time, then the deal for Julio definitely would not go through.

Finally, the league does not vote on trades. In fact, I'm not even sure if the rules expressly allow for the commish to nix a deal. The commissioner has never nixed a deal before (if he has, then it's not well known at all). However, he still nixed this one, which was a first in the league.

Since Team A is leaving, the commissioner was concerned with recruiting a new owner. He thought that a team with Julio would be more attractive than a team with Hurns, Wentz, and Neal.

Considering all of this, should the commissioner have nixed the deal that Team B made for Julio Jones? Why or Why not?

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr - looks fair for back in the day so no. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Def. said:

tl;dr - looks fair for back in the day so no. 

 

Yeah, I wanted to make it short, but in the effort of making it as objective, neutral, and fair, I had to write it all out.

My apologies for the length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I little hard to follow.

 

If no dues paid for next season prior to trade since future picks involved, then commish should not have allowed the trade.

 

Other leagues that I know and mine install this to prevent such events.

 

As far as Team A and Team B, always get something in writing, at the very least you have proof on intent and integrity.  Not to say Team A could renege on the agreement, but if that is the case I would find another league to play in.

 

Hopefully I did not misunderstand your questions/intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, XFlash said:

I little hard to follow.

 

If no dues paid for next season prior to trade since future picks involved, then commish should not have allowed the trade.

 

Other leagues that I know and mine install this to prevent such events.

 

As far as Team A and Team B, always get something in writing, at the very least you have proof on intent and integrity.  Not to say Team A could renege on the agreement, but if that is the case I would find another league to play in.

 

Hopefully I did not misunderstand your questions/intent. 

Good analysis, I like it. Thank You.

 

I like the idea of paying dues for next season, and I like getting things in writing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a fair trade at the time, and it was so far back it's really hard to judge anyway. 

 

Too much of a headache to veto at this point. Time to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 8rattoon said:

It seems like a fair trade at the time, and it was so far back it's really hard to judge anyway. 

 

Too much of a headache to veto at this point. Time to move on.

That's a good assessment. Thanks for letting me know.

 

I'm not talking about vetoing right now though, just whether it should have been vetoed at the time. But you answered that already, so thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread convinced me that I made the right decision to quit playing keeper leagues. That being said, I don't like veto's but this scenario is convoluted making it difficult to care, and as has been said before....2015, Good Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/07/2018 at 2:14 AM, the lone star said:

So from what I've noticed, most people vote that it should not have been vetoed, but a lot of people voice their support for the veto.

Just trying to figure out why this is.

I absolutely hate having to veto a deal it would have to be egregiously unfair or blatant collusion. But I sorta understand the Commish's rationale. Team A, knowing that he was leaving the league, should not have traded proven commodities (Julio) or players with high upside (Gurley) for what amounted to fantasy filler.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 4:07 PM, buckemdown said:

I absolutely hate having to veto a deal it would have to be egregiously unfair or blatant collusion. But I sorta understand the Commish's rationale. Team A, knowing that he was leaving the league, should not have traded proven commodities (Julio) or players with high upside (Gurley) for what amounted to fantasy filler.   

 

Well remember, the commish is the one who received Gurley. So does that change anything for you? Like, if you allow that deal, then do you allow this one as well?

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delete messages all you want, but was still in 2015.  Move on.  :smash:

 

You've posted about this across multiple boards.  Your question has been answered already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Def. said:

Delete messages all you want, but was still in 2015.  Move on.  :smash:

 

You've posted about this across multiple boards.  Your question has been answered already. 

 

Was looking to reduce the clutter tbh and wanted more votes, lol. Oh well. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advise/trade belongs in Fantasy Football Advise forum.  Please stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Def. said:

Advise/trade belongs in Fantasy Football Advise forum.  Please stop.

 

My bad. You a mod/admin? If so, then just be sure to move all other trade advice threads here too. I think I've seen some in the other forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.