Shady Dealings

[Balzac]

Buddy of mine had the following happen to him last week:

 

1. He offers Ward & Barlow for Julius Jones;

 

2. offer is accepted, so the trade must go through 3 day waiting period, as per league rules;

 

3. the waiting period happens to include Thanksgiving, a day on which JJ is playing;

 

4. Yahoo's bunk rules (which neither party knew about) state that a trade cannot be processed if, at the time of processing, any of the players involved have already played and are in a team's lineup;

 

5. fool that he traded with left JJ in his lineup for Thursday, thereby violating said rule and voiding the trade;

 

6. JJ has a ridiculous game, Barlow and Ward continue to suck;

 

7. My buddy re-offers trade after it is discovered that it unexpectedly did not go through the first time for the above reason - trade is summarily rejected.

 

If you were commish, would you hold both parties to the trade? Way I see it, a trade is binding once both teams hit accept. One party got a free pass in this case because he messed up and violated an an odd league rule that nobody even knew about. Let me know what you think, but I think my buddy got royally hosed here.

[pzarvell]

Those are two questions. Yes I think he got hosed and yes it wasn't in the rules to stop him from getting hosed. Unfortunately, not knowing the rules isn't a reason. Why is there a three day waiting period? So an owner can change his mind? If that's the case then it worked out OK.

 

I hate Yahoo leagues and don't partake in them anymore.

[Balzac]

Those are two questions.  Yes I think he got hosed and yes it wasn't in the rules to stop him from getting hosed.  Unfortunately, not knowing the rules isn't a reason.  Why is there a three day waiting period?  So an owner can change his mind?  If that's the case then it worked out OK.

 

I hate Yahoo leagues and don't partake in them anymore.

 

586624[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

waiting period is so other league members can object, as you can't expect everyone to check the site every day.

 

I think you might be missing the point a bit - the dude who got out of the trade only got out of it b/c he stupidly violated this rule (i.e. if he had simply left JJ out of his lineup, the trade would've gone through). I think it's the commissioner's role to ensure fairness in the league. With yahoo, I think we can all agree that the rules are sometimes quite dumb and ths unfair. The rule at issue makes little sense to begin with and clearly gives people the unilateral right to void a trade if they feel like it. A fair commissioner, in my view, would hold the parties to the trade.

 

I could see sticking with the rule in this case if everyone was aware of it - if that were the case, that everyone's bad. However, not a single person knew about the rule here. Everyone thought and intended that the trade would be processed but Friday rolled around, yahoo nixed the trade and the dude with JJ realized "crap - JJ is *** good - what do I need Barlow/Ward for?" He got an "out of bad trade" card for free.

 

I'm ranting, aren't I?

[Grits and Shins]

No whining.

 

Ignorance of the rules is NOT an excuse. Your rules clearly say that a player that has been started can not be traded. Your rules also are clear that there is a 3 day waiting/clearing period.

 

Because JJones was in one of the owner's starting lineups the trade was never valid in the first place.

 

You should know the rules in your own league so this kind of thing does not happen to you (or your friend in this case).

 

In addition you get what you pay for on Yahoo.

 

I guarantee had Ward and Barlow gone off and JJ had re-injured himself the Ward / Barlow owner would not re-up the trade either.

[Wolverines Fan]

No whining.

 

Ignorance of the rules is NOT an excuse.  Your rules clearly say that a player that has been started can not be traded.  Your rules also are clear that there is a 3 day waiting/clearing period.

 

Because JJones was in one of the owner's starting lineups the trade was never valid in the first place.

 

You should know the rules in your own league so this kind of thing does not happen to you (or your friend in this case). 

 

In addition you get what you pay for on Yahoo.

 

I guarantee had Ward and Barlow gone off and JJ had re-injured himself the Ward / Barlow owner would not re-up the trade either.

 

586663[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well said.

[pzarvell]

waiting period is so other league members can object, as you can't expect everyone to check the site every day. 

 

I think you might be missing the point a bit - the dude who got out of the trade only got out of it b/c he stupidly violated this rule (i.e. if he had simply left JJ out of his lineup, the trade would've gone through).  I think it's the commissioner's role to ensure fairness in the league.  With yahoo, I think we can all agree that the rules are sometimes quite dumb and ths unfair.  The rule at issue makes little sense to begin with and clearly gives people the unilateral right to void a trade if they feel like it.  A fair commissioner, in my view, would hold the parties to the trade.

 

I could see sticking with the rule in this case if everyone was aware of it - if that were the case, that everyone's bad.  However, not a single person knew about the rule here.  Everyone thought and intended that the trade would be processed but Friday rolled around, yahoo nixed the trade and the dude with JJ realized "crap - JJ is *** good - what do I need Barlow/Ward for?"  He got an "out of bad trade" card for free. 

 

I'm ranting, aren't I?

 

586654[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No, I got the point. A fair commissioner will uphold the rules whether or not the owners are ignorant to them or otherwise.

[Balzac]

Interesting to hear that you guys would back a rule that not one person in the league (including the commissioner) knew about over a fair result. You may also find it interesting that 10 of the 16 people in the league (3 unheard from) have voted to push the trade through, but the commish still won't do it. I was fairly sure that people here would agree that the fairer result should win out. Oh well.

[satelliteoflovegm]

I agree with the "ignore guy" and the other one...

 

I would be very embarassed as commisioner not to know the rules. The trade should not go through.

 

I bet everyone has read every word in the rules now.

[Grits and Shins]

Interesting to hear that you guys would back a rule that not one person in the league (including the commissioner) knew about over a fair result.  You may also find it interesting that 10 of the 16 people in the league (3 unheard from) have voted to push the trade through, but the commish still won't do it.  I was fairly sure that people here would agree that the fairer result should win out.  Oh well.

 

586720[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Rules are rules ... ignorance is not an excuse. Guess maybe you should know your own rules. And here's a clue for you ... it's not a "fair result" if the rules are violated. When you go down the path of selective rule enforcement your league is on a path to destruction. You set a VERY bad precedent when you allow the commissioner to override the rules in place ... very bad.

 

I bet the team currently with JJ is in last place or out of the play offs?

[Mooker Man]

The guy accepted the trade because he was getting one more week out of JJ. Maybe he thought he was going to get Ward and Barlow for the weekend AND get to play JJ on Thursday. Based on the rules, the trade never happened. The ward/barlow owner got unluckly, the JJ owner got lucky. That's life.

 

Edit: I had a trade pending in Yahoo (I got TO for Rudi and D. Jackson), and played both on Sunday. The trade went through on Monday, to be relfected the next week.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Mooker Man

[Balzac]

Rules are rules ... ignorance is not an excuse.  Guess maybe you should know your own rules.  And here's a clue for you ... it's not a "fair result" if the rules are violated.  When you go down the path of selective rule enforcement your league is on a path to destruction.  You set a VERY bad precedent when you allow the commissioner to override the rules in place ... very bad. 

 

I bet the team currently with JJ is in last place or out of the play offs?

 

586851[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure about the team with JJ - I think he's out of the running but I never asked.

 

As far as your other point goes, I have to respectfully disagree. While I'm normally a stickler for the rules when they are clear as day and everyone knows them, I'm not a fan of supporting esoteric little rules that (a) make no sense, ( nobody knows about and © nobody agrees with when they do find out about them.

 

If this were my league and a trade wasn't processed by yahoo because they had some rule listed in the fine print that trades can't be processed on the 3rd Friday of November in any non-leap year, I'd override it. Yes - it's a rule, but it's a ridiculous rule that results in one owner getting unjustly hosed. I'd run it by the league first, of course - if I got no support, I guess the hosed owner would have to remain hosed.

[T_bone65]

Rules are Rules and everyone in your league should know them. If you are going through Yahoo or any other site you should know how your league rules work. Stupid rule or not, it is still a rule and it should be enforced as such.

[Grits and Shins]

Not sure about the team with JJ - I think he's out of the running but I never asked.

 

As far as your other point goes, I have to respectfully disagree.  While I'm normally a stickler for the rules when they are clear as day and everyone knows them, I'm not a fan of supporting esoteric little rules that (a) make no sense, ( nobody knows about and © nobody agrees with when they do find out about them. 

 

If this were my league and a trade wasn't processed by yahoo because they had some rule listed in the fine print that trades can't be processed on the 3rd Friday of November in any non-leap year, I'd override it.  Yes - it's a rule, but it's a ridiculous rule that results in one owner getting unjustly hosed.  I'd run it by the league first, of course - if I got no support, I guess the hosed owner would have to remain hosed.

 

587022[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So the commissioner gets to decide which rules get to be selectively enforced then, by the powers granted to him by the league? And you are okay with the thought that the commissioner can over ride any rule he deems to be unjust ... nevermind that it's a rule. Are you telling me that these particular rules aren't listed with the rest of the rules? By "fine print" you are implying that these rules aren't as accessible as the rest of the league's rules. I think these rules are "clear as day". What's not clear about a 3 day waiting period? What's not clear about a player in your starting lineup can't be traded? Those seem pretty straight forward to me. As to owners not knowing the rules ... that is never an excuse. That's like saying here are our rules ... but if you don't read them don't worry because we won't enforce any rule you aren't aware of. If free agency is frozen in week 9 and you have an owner in week 10 that wasn't aware that free agency would be frozen and doesn't have a kicker to cover his off week ... would you allow him to pick up a kicker?

[Balzac]

So the commissioner gets to decide which rules get to be selectively enforced then, by the powers granted to him by the league?  And you are okay with the thought that the commissioner can over ride any rule he deems to be unjust ... nevermind that it's a rule.  Are you telling me that these particular rules aren't listed with the rest of the rules?  By "fine print" you are implying that these rules aren't as accessible as the rest of the league's rules.  I think these rules are "clear as day".  What's not clear about a 3 day waiting period?  What's not clear about a player in your starting lineup can't be traded?  Those seem pretty straight forward to me.  As to owners not knowing the rules ... that is never an excuse.  That's like saying here are our rules ... but if you don't read them don't worry because we won't enforce any rule you aren't aware of.  If free agency is frozen in week 9 and you have an owner in week 10 that wasn't aware that free agency would be frozen and doesn't have a kicker to cover his off week ... would you allow him to pick up a kicker?

587042[/snapback]

 

 

"any" rule he deems unjust? no. as I said, if it were me, I'd put it to the league first - if they agree that the rule is ridiculous and should not be enforced in the interest of fairness to the league owners as a whole, then I think that it should be overruled. The commish, on his own, should not be able to just override any rule that he feels like - sorry if I was unclear on this point.

 

as far as the "fine print" goes - the rule is not currently stated on yahoo (or so I am told - nobody in the league was able to find it and I haven't look for myself b/c it's not my league) - the only way that anyone in the league was able to confirm what happened was by emailing yahoo directly and they provided an explanation. the waiting period wasn't the issue - it was the fact that the waiting period expired one day after someone had played, thereby nullifying the trade that is being called into question.

 

"That's like saying here are our rules ... but if you don't read them don't worry because we won't enforce any rule you aren't aware of" - not really, as it's the commissioner who enforces the rules and he had no knowledge of this rule. If he had known about it at all, it would be a completely different story in my eyes.

 

Free agency freezes and trade deadlines are clearly stated on the league homepages - apples and oranges.

 

I appreciate the input.

[pzarvell]

"any" rule he deems unjust?  no.  as I said, if it were me, I'd put it to the league first - if they agree that the rule is ridiculous and should not be enforced in the interest of fairness to the league owners as a whole, then I think that it should be overruled.  The commish, on his own, should not be able to just override any rule that he feels like - sorry if I was unclear on this point.

 

as far as the "fine print" goes - the rule is not currently stated on yahoo (or so I am told - nobody in the league was able to find it and I haven't look for myself b/c it's not my league) - the only way that anyone in the league was able to confirm what happened was by emailing yahoo directly and they provided an explanation.  the waiting period wasn't the issue - it was the fact that the waiting period expired one day after someone had played, thereby nullifying the trade that is being called into question.

 

"That's like saying here are our rules ... but if you don't read them don't worry because we won't enforce any rule you aren't aware of" - not really, as it's the commissioner who enforces the rules and he had no knowledge of this rule.  If he had known about it at all, it would be a completely different story in my eyes.

 

Free agency freezes and trade deadlines are clearly stated on the league homepages - apples and oranges.

 

I appreciate the input.

 

587095[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

In this case I woudn't have any problem putting it to a vote since it seems not a single person made this rule and it magically appeared. I would say that it should be unanimous to change it though. I'm not a fan of altering rules during the season.

[Balzac]

In this case I woudn't have any problem putting it to a vote since it seems not a single person made this rule and it magically appeared.  I would say that it should be unanimous to change it though.  I'm not a fan of altering rules during the season.

 

587169[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

that's the beauty of yahoo - it magically sucks.

[pzarvell]

that's the beauty of yahoo - it magically sucks.

 

587198[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Trust me. I understand about Yahoo.

[KevinL]

The rule that "nobody knew about" should be obvious.

 

You can't acquire players before their games and give up players after their games.

 

Let's say your roster (all 16 players) consisted entirely of Thanksgiving Day players. And you trade your entire roster for Sunday players. And the trade goes through on Friday or Saturday. In this case, you would have 32 eligible player-games for the week, and the guy you traded with would have none.

 

Trades pretty much HAVE to happen before or after the games, but not during them.

[Balzac]

Trust me.  I understand about Yahoo.

 

587216[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Which site do you use? I've only used 2 - cbssportsline (but that was 4 or 5 years ago when it was still commissioner.com) and yahoo. Yahoo is clearly lacking and I'd like to move my league(s) to another site - any suggestions?

[Balzac]

The rule that "nobody knew about" should be obvious.

 

You can't acquire players before their games and give up players after their games.

 

Let's say your roster (all 16 players) consisted entirely of Thanksgiving Day players.  And you trade your entire roster for Sunday players.  And the trade goes through on Friday or Saturday.  In this case, you would have 32 eligible player-games for the week, and the guy you traded with would have none.

 

Trades pretty much HAVE to happen before or after the games, but not during them.

 

587226[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I would assume that anyone willing to trade away their entire team, leaving them with nobody to play on Sunday, would have to be certifiably retarded and/or braindead. This example is a bit extreme.

 

In this case, both owners KNEW that the trade would not go through until Friday (i.e. knew that one of them would be w/o a RB on Sunday) but decided to go through with it anyway. If one team wants to deprive himself of a viable RB for a week in order to get a trade that he wants, that should be his choice. But now we're getting into what the rules should/should not be - no reason to open that can of worms.

[Grits and Shins]

Didn't take me long to find the rules around trading players.

 

It says "During the review period, trades are marked as pending. Once the trade has been accepted and the waiting period has finished, the trade will be processed (this can take up to 24 hours) and its results reflected on each team's roster and shown in the transaction log. In order for a trade to be valid, all players involved must still be on the same team they were when the deal was accepted. If they are not, the trade will automatically be rejected. In order to prevent players involved in pending trades from being dropped or waived, managers will not be allowed to make any such transactions involving any players involved a trade once it has been accepted. "

 

Then here they talk about transaction deadlines ... defining a transaction as trades, waiver claims, and free agent claims. Where it says

 

"However, you will only be able to add players to your active roster for the current week if the transaction is completed no later than five minutes before the start of the player's game. In other words, none of the active players on your team (players in a starting roster spot) involved in a move can have played or be within five minutes of their game's start time, or the transaction will not be allowed. So, for example, transactions for all active players who play at 10:00 am PT must be completed by 9:55 am PT. "

 

There is nothing hidden there ... it is crystal clear.

1) There is a waiting period on any trade ... during this period the trade is "pending" and not final and they even discuss rejection of trades.

2) The second rule states clearly that a transaction involving any "active" player (ie in your starting lineup) has to be finalized 5 minutes before that player's game has begun.

 

This is NOT "fine print" and is crystal clear. The owner wanting Julius Jones should have specifically required that the other owner not include Julis in his starting lineup.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Grits and Shins]

In this case, both owners KNEW that the trade would not go through until Friday (i.e. knew that one of them would be w/o a RB on Sunday) but decided to go through with it anyway.  If one team wants to deprive himself of a viable RB for a week in order to get a trade that he wants, that should be his choice.  But now we're getting into what the rules should/should not be - no reason to open that can of worms.

 

587237[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This makes my case STRONGER! If both owners knew the trade wouldn't be finalized until after JJ's game then when the original JJ owner inserted JJ into his lineup he invalidated the trade at that time.

 

You can't trade players you have started in the current week before the current week is over. You can't have your cake and eat it too ... you can't start JJ in week 12 for his points and trade him in the same week.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[Balzac]

"However, you will only be able to add players to your active roster for the current week if the transaction is completed no later than five minutes before the start of the player's game. In other words, none of the active players on your team (players in a starting roster spot) involved in a move can have played or be within five minutes of their game's start time, or the transaction will not be allowed. So, for example, transactions for all active players who play at 10:00 am PT must be completed by 9:55 am PT. "

 

 

587243[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I guess my buddy (and all those in his league) didn't look too hard for the rule on this. It doesn't change the fact that nobody (including the commish) knew about the rule, but I guess they're all idiots for not knowing - it looks pretty clear to me from this. Thanks.

[Grits and Shins]

I guess my buddy (and all those in his league) didn't look too hard for the rule on this.  It doesn't change the fact that nobody (including the commish) knew about the rule, but I guess they're all idiots for not knowing - it looks pretty clear to me from this.  Thanks.

 

587255[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Glad we cleared that up.

 

Not fine print at all ... just ignorance or loop hole hunting.

[Balzac]

This makes my case STRONGER!  If both owners knew the trade wouldn't be finalized until after JJ's game then when the original JJ owner inserted JJ into his lineup he invalidated the trade at that time.

 

You can't trade players you have started in the current week before the current week is over.  You can't have your cake and eat it too ... you can't start JJ in week 12 for his points and trade him in the same week.

 

587247[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That was my point from the beginning - he invalidated the trade by playing JJ.

 

Bottom line - the rule clearly backs what you're saying, but that doesn't make it a good rule. In my opinion, if somebody wants to allow another team the benefit of having JJ's points AND trading him mid-week (i.e. to have their cake and eat it too), that should be their stupid choice to make. Now, if everyone knew about the rule against this going in - the point is moot. No trade. This is a very special circumstance where nobody knew about the rule beforehand (reasonably or not).

 

We've reached the spinning wheels point - thansks for your input on this.