Commissioner ? - Opinions please

[Big Country]

As for the no trade back rule so teams do not lend players for a week, if that is not what happened this time why would you use the rule. To me it just sounds like people wanting to be hardnosed about things.

 

This is the dilemma - many times, if you give an inch, they try to take a mile.

 

If you do not put in place such a rule, then you have owners that will say, hey, it's not forbidden in the rules, so ethics be damned, we'll loan each other players.

 

If you have it in the rules, you get the rare situation where there is a legitmate series of trades that involve the same players going between the same teams.

 

But, once you bend the rules, if one is in place, for one person, you then have to bend them for everyone and the purpose of the rule is moot.

 

The problem is managing the fine line between the letter of the law and the intent of the law.

[Judge Smales]

My point is that a commissioner should not intervene in trade decisions unless the best interests of the league are somehow involved.

 

As I understand the issue, all of the written rules are being followed by allowing both trades. The first trade follows the SOL rule, and the second does not violate any rule at all if there is no collusion or if the competitive balance of the league is not changed.

 

The "SOL rule" is league policy and that is why the first trade should not be over turned on grounds of mistake, etc. However, the two owners may agree that they wish to "correct" what occurred, that is their business and the league should not intervene in the second trade unless the the "best interests of the league" are somehow involved.

 

As a side note, the definition of "collusion" requires an agreement to limit competition for the purpose of obtaining an unfair gain. Posters to this thread continue to cite collusion as a reason for reversing the second trade, but I do not see any evidence of either "intent to limit competition" or either owner receiving an "unfair gain" in the transaction.

 

 

Ghost, I think we can agree to disagree here, but your comment here is exactly my point. They are "correcting" a mistake which is in effect going around the "SOL rule" which is in place. They are trying to get around a rule that is in place.

Not trying to be hard nosed or an a$$ about it, but that rule was put in place for a reason. As BC stated above as well, allow it this time and how do you handle the next time it happens?

 

I agree it's a no win situation, but you have to follow the rules whether you agree with them or not. You can always put a change in for next year, but you cannot change the rules mid-season IMO.

[stuck804]

I don't see the full write up of the explanation of the SOL rule. I get the impression the rule means that if you traded away a player, then there is no way to reverse it.

 

I think of this rule as a document that both players sign and agree to. Once the signature of both owners are written, then the trade is final. If you didn't like the trade after your signature has been signed - tough luck.

 

SOL is simply the signature.

 

So...unless your SOL is documented as such, make a new rule because the way I see it - the SOL rule is in place to prevent people from complaining when they see the player they recently received, break his legs....

[chester]

Had the LJ owner made the trade after the whole twitter episode without realizing it, I'd say let the tradeback go. Simple mistake. He made it thinking everything was good with LJ. His friend is trying to do him a favor. This violates the rules.

[Scooby]

The original trade should have gone through, which it did. Not sure why you even voted on it. The swap back trade is actually collusion and should be rejected or reversed immediately with a very stern warning to the owners. I understand that they think they are doing the right thing, but it still amounts to cheating and can't be allowed.

+ another commish... collusion cannot be tolerated and the league must have integrity

[flemingd]

I despise that rule. Maybe OK with a really deep bench. I can understand why it's in place, but just because I drop someone like Felix Jones when he gets injured early on shouldn't mean I can never get him back later.

 

To the OP, the second trade is a form of collusion even if the guy trading Hester back is trying to do the right thing. It should be rejected.

The rule as stated is only if you trade the player away, not if you drop him.

 

Our league is similar - if you trade a player away, you cannot get him back via trade for a minimum of 3 weeks. It's stern enough that owners can't flip-flop trades to cover byes only but loose enough that if Steve SmithCAR is traded away as a filer, then dropped cause he still sucks, original can get him back via pickup if he wishes.

 

And yes I agree this is collusion, but it's collusion for the right intent - the old LJ owner doesn't want to feel like he's taking advanage of something. It should be blocked of course because this is just one of those things that happens in FF but don't give the guy too much chii, he's doing a pretty standup thing by being willing to relinquish the freebie he got for the sake of sportsmanship.