No trade clause

[jr49erfan1]

I havnt really read anything similar to this, and as we are all FFL enthusiests here, though that Id try and hit you guys up for some objective opinions.

 

Im Owner A, and Im also the League Manager, in a league where trades get approved/disapproved by LM only, no league vote.

 

Owner A trades 3 people (Best/Vick/T.O.) to Owner B for 3 people (Rodgers/Crabtree/Crosby), between weeks 2 and 3. Prior to the trade, Owner A stipulates that he will only trade 1 of the particular players (Best), if Owner B takes him on with a no trade clause. Owner B agrees to the no trade clause and the trade is made.

 

Fast forward a couple weeks, LM (me) gets a trade offer to approve/disapprove a trade between Owner B and Owner C, with Best packaged in the trade. There is no contention between myself and B that there was a no trade on Best, C knew about the no trade the day A & B's trade went down, and now C is pissed cause Im vetoing the trade???

 

C's is pissed, and his contention is that I should be mad at B for breaking our agreement, but that I should put this through.

 

My contention is, that while I am the LM and do have the only veto right, I am also a team owner, and that it isnt unreasonable for me to expect the LM to uphold the no trade stipulation that both parties (A & had agreed to..

 

And the reason for the no trade clause, was that B is in a different division and I didnt want Best to come back and haunt me. Also my thought was IF I was going to trade Best, I wanted to control where he was and under what circumstances he was there.

 

1) What are your thoughts on stipulations being put on trades?

and

2) Can this trade be vetoed or should it have been put through?

[Jackass]

once B makes the agreement, that's a deal. he can't go back on it.

[M33ZY]

I think that the if the no trade clause rule was established in your league, and you and owner B agreed to this rule as part of the trade, then Best cannot be traded, only dropped.

[jr49erfan1]

M33zy, I had considered bringing that idea up, and letting B drop Best and see what happens, it would be like a feeding frenzy!!!

 

Jackass, as a man I agree about upholding your agreements. Apparently though with enough coercion and badgering by C, or with B getting frustrated about his lineup, B finally relented and decided to try and package Best up against our agreement.

 

Again C's contention is that because I have the only vote as LM, that its somehow not objective of me to not pass this trade and for me to just be mad at B for going against his word.

 

And then apparently, according to C, while A and B were in their trade talks, B and C were talking too, and C was telling B what not to trade (Rodgers), and apparently they were going to trade pieces I was giving to B (Best), and that by me putting a no trade on Best, B was somehow going back on his word to C, and now where is his protection??? Sounds like a very convoluted and extemely weak argument from C, but as the LM I just would like a bunch of opinions from the outside. I'll probably end up linking this thread to the existing sh!tstorm of a thread on our fantasy site.

 

And because there is so much talk about this collusion thing, I thought Id look it up.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

COLLUSION: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.

Edited October 8, 2010 by jr49erfan1

[jr49erfan1]

ttt

[kevinkris]

This isn't collusion, just if team B agreed to the no trade clause, he can't be traded end of story. It doesn't matter if team C did have a deal involving best, team B should of said no to the no trade clause then.

 

If my league manager didn't veto this trade I would be pissed.

[jr49erfan1]

Kevin, thanks for the reply. I agree, trade agreements between B and C are just hyotheticals to me, until A & B get their trade done. And if Best is stuck with a no trade clause, THAT B AGREED TO, then it doesnt really matter what B & C thought they were going to do.

 

Any dissenting positions here, or other aspects I should be thinking about?

[delusions of grandeur]

Yes, the guy who didn't honor the agreement is a making a douchy move, but there are alot of things working against them here:

 

1) There is probably no rule in place that suggests that you are allowed to put in a "no trade clause". So pretty much the owners are expecting you to enforce a fictional rule that they kept secret, and never documented or told you about until there was a problem. That won't fly.

 

2) The fact that they kept the agreement secret shows that they knew that what they were doing would not be acceptable for the rest of the league to find out. Only when the guy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar are they willing to admit it that they made the agreement.

 

3) It is not collusion, but you are dancing all over the line when you make "secret agreements".

 

The ONLY example I can think of for Proveable collusion, is where one person pays the other, or rewards them in some way, to stack better players on the more competitive team. Pretty much anything else is just owners being apathetic or trying to be sheisty, the latter of which your rules do not allow for in the case, particularly when it hasn't been documented or discussed. It's as simple as that.

 

Tell your leaguemates, that it's seller beware. If you trade a guy, then you don't have a choice where a guy will end up, other than he won't be on your team. The goal of trades is to improve your team, not limit competition. If you really want to ensure that a player stays on a team, then keep him on yours.

Edited October 8, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[Big Country]

I'm going on the assumption that the "No Trade Clause" was expressly publicized to the entire league at the time the trade went down.

 

Assuming the above is true, then Team B is bound by the conditions of their agreement and should not be allowed to trade Best. End of Story.

 

 

 

In general, I am not a fan of allowing "conditional" trades as it just muddies up the waters. For example, say you trade a player for a conditional pick based on future performance of the player given up, and that pick can be anywhere from a 3rd to a 1st round pick. In theory, the owner who received the player has locked up all 3 of those picks and can;t move any of them during the season. In my opinion, and take it as just that, an opinion, but all trades should be "completed' at the time they are executed.

 

In this instance, a "No Trade Clause" allows the deal to be completed at the time it is executed, so it should be enforced.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, as usual, BC is right on the money.

 

Not sure how I got the idea that the agreement was secret or not a sanctioned rule of your league (though if any of the statements I said above are true, then I stand by my opinion), but assuming that the deal was transparent and allowed, then this becomes a non-issue.

 

As commissioner, your primary job is to enforce the rules, and there is no need to look at it from an owner's standpoint until the off-season, when you can discuss rule changes... If the agreement was kosher, then you uphold their deal, and reverse any subsequent deal for Best.

[jr49erfan1]

Thanks you guys, and yes the trade clause was made known at the time the trade went down. The fires have cooled a bit with C, and I have indeed upheld the veto due to JBest's no trade clause. B is apolgetic for not keeping his word, ughhh.

 

And thanks BC for answering both of my questions, perhaps off season we'll discuss trade stipulations and whether we should have them or not.

Edited October 8, 2010 by jr49erfan1