Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rdrs4life

Commish has an issue with this trade

  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Should trade be allowed?



Recommended Posts

Team A adds Martellus Bennett to the roster Thursday and starts him vs the Panthers, dropping his kicker.

 

Team A wants to open up a roster spot for a new kicker for Sunday, but has no players he wants to drop (besides Bennett)

 

Bennett of course cannot be dropped since he already played.

 

Player A posts a message to the league, stating he will accept any trade for Bennett as long as it is done today. Explaining that he wants to receive a player back that is dropable, so he may start a kicker this week, all of this of course benefits team A's team.

 

Player B proposes a trade for who he deems his least valuable player for Bennett, team A accepts. Are there any problems with this?

 

It is not collusion, both teams are making a trade trying their best to improve their teams chance of winning.

 

Real life NFL, NBA teams etc, do this all the time where they trade for a player then release him. No where does it state this is against the rules.

 

Just want some neutral opinions on the matter. Let me know if you have any more questions about the details of the scenario.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team A adds Martellus Bennett to the roster Thursday and starts him vs the Panthers, dropping his kicker.

 

Team A wants to open up a roster spot for a new kicker for Sunday, but has no players he wants to drop (besides Bennett)

 

Bennett of course cannot be dropped since he already played.

 

Player A posts a message to the league, stating he will accept any trade for Bennett as long as it is done today. Explaining that he wants to receive a player back that is dropable, so he may start a kicker this week, all of this of course benefits team A's team.

 

Player B proposes a trade for who he deems his least valuable player for Bennett, team A accepts. Are there any problems with this?

 

It is not collusion, both teams are making a trade trying their best to improve their teams chance of winning.

 

Real life NFL, NBA teams etc, do this all the time where they trade for a player then release him. No where does it state this is against the rules.

 

Just want some neutral opinions on the matter. Let me know if you have any more questions about the details of the scenario.

 

Thank you.

The trade is fine, however, because Bennett has already played, if player A has started Bennett and has received points as a result of Bennett, that trade cannot go through until the end of the week. (in my opinion) Because then he is effectively gaining an extra roster spot which is wrong.

 

I would even suggest that the fact Bennett has already played (and was available to play if player A desired) the player he acquires should not be eligible to start this week.

 

That is how I see it. Otherwise, I see no reason why the trade shouldnt go through. My issue is with the timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trade is fine, however, because Bennett has already played, if player A has started Bennett and has received points as a result of Bennett, that trade cannot go through until the end of the week. (in my opinion) Because then he is effectively gaining an extra roster spot which is wrong.

 

 

 

I would not be opposed to this rule for next season, it does seem fair. However, there is no rule for this currently, and we have never enforced any other trades in this way. I am sure we have traded players before that have already played during the week (or made trades on Sunday), and the trade was not held until end of the night Monday. So I don't see how it is fair to only enforce it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you let this trade/roster angle shooting go thru...that league is a joke.

 

Can you give reasons as to why you feel this way, or why any of my reasons are wrong? What rule is being broken? Does it not happen in real life all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a real fantasy football league, no players can be dropped from a team until that week is over. That prevents the exact scenario that we are discussing. This guy gets a HUGE advantage by picking up Bennett without dropping a good player. Then he is going to just trade Bennett who is on fire right now to a team for a player that he is going to drop? That trade should automatically be vetoed because it isn't a real trade. One guy is basically giving Bennett to another team without him clearing waivers first.

 

 

There is a reason that big sites like ESPN and NFL.com don't allow trash like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BLT (love you with avocado, btw).

 

Even if you can trade players who already played, I think this trade is collusion, because team A isn't trying to improve their team, via the trade. He's trading with the soul intention of dropping that player he receives. If he was trading for a kicker, that would be another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a real fantasy football league, no players can be dropped from a team until that week is over. That prevents the exact scenario that we are discussing. This guy gets a HUGE advantage by picking up Bennett without dropping a good player. Then he is going to just trade Bennett who is on fire right now to a team for a player that he is going to drop? That trade should automatically be vetoed because it isn't a real trade. One guy is basically giving Bennett to another team without him clearing waivers first.

 

 

There is a reason that big sites like ESPN and NFL.com don't allow trash like this.

 

I'm not dropping him, I'm trading him. So are you saying no player should be able to be traded that has already played that week? Because that is not a rule that exists in our league. If I don't trade Bennett I am just going to drop him Tuesday, as he is the low man on my roster. He was a FA 2 days ago for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BLT (love you with avocado, btw).

 

I think this trade is collusion, because team A isn't trying to improve their team, via the trade. He's trading with the soul intention of dropping that player he receives. If he was trading for a kicker, that would be another story.

 

This trade absolutely is what allows me to improve my team. Without this trade I will not have a kicker and be out 6-8 points this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give reasons as to why you feel this way, or why any of my reasons are wrong? What rule is being broken? Does it not happen in real life all the time?

The issue is with the fact that Bennett already played. That means his roster spot is accounted for for this week already. Trading and dropping isn't an issue of collusion or trade shenanigans. It's an issue of roster size manipulation. I'm sure your league has rules about how many players can be carried on the roster, and it's this rule that's in danger of being violated. The owner will, in effect, have used a single roster spot for two starting players the same week.

 

Tell the Bennett owner to drop somebody else if he wants a kicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not dropping him, I'm trading him. So are you saying no player should be able to be traded that has already played that week? Because that is not a rule that exists in our league. If I don't trade Bennett I am just going to drop him Tuesday, as he is the low man on my roster. He was a FA 2 days ago for a reason.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. NO trades can go thru until Tuesday. Also, you just admitted that you basically just want to drop him, which means that everyone in the league should get a chance to pick him up first based on waivers. A lot of people would want Bennett right now. The guy has looked great. So team B is giving up a scrub player that they don't even want for Bennett and then you are gonna drop that scrub player and pick up a kicker.

 

Definitely without a doubt 100% collusion. I can't believe we are even talking about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This trade absolutely is what allows me to improve my team. Without this trade I will not have a kicker and be out 6-8 points this week.

 

No, because you dropping the player to pick up a kicker after the trade is a completely unrelated transaction to the actual trade.

 

Try to keep up wih me here. If you are not trying to improve your own team via the actual TRADE, you are acting in a collusive nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This trade absolutely is what allows me to improve my team. Without this trade I will not have a kicker and be out 6-8 points this week.

 

 

EXACTLY..!!!!!

 

 

You should have to drop a player to pick up a kicker. And that player that you want to drop/trade cannot have already played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is with the fact that Bennett already played. That means his roster spot is accounted for for this week already. Trading and dropping isn't an issue of collusion or trade shenanigans. It's an issue of roster size manipulation. I'm sure your league has rules about how many players can be carried on the roster, and it's this rule that's in danger of being violated. The owner will, in effect, have used a single roster spot for two starting players the same week.

 

Tell the Bennett owner to drop somebody else if he wants a kicker.

 

^^^this right here is 100% correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because you dropping the player to pick up a kicker after the trade is a completely unrelated transaction to the actual trade.

 

Try to keep up wih me here. If you are not trying to improve your own team via the actual TRADE, you are acting in a collusive nature.

 

 

true story...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because you dropping the player to pick up a kicker after the trade is a completely unrelated transaction to the actual trade.

 

Try to keep up wih me here. If you are not trying to improve your own team via the actual TRADE, you are acting in a collusive nature.

 

 

col·lu·sion

   [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

 

 

Nothing secret going on here bro. I suggest you learn what collusion actually means. Try to keep up with me here, lots of people like to throw this term around loosely for everything FF related when it actually relates to a very small number of scenarios.

 

I thank everyone else for their contributions to this thread, some very good points are being raised and it's very useful. You though, are perhaps the worst poster on this site. Every post I have seen of yours lately in every thread I have come across has been a complete waste of everyone's time. Congrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please disregard my "no" vote.

 

What I should have voted was "yes." As in, yes, the trade should be allowed, because it does not in itself violate any rules of any sort. (At least, not any logical ones you'd find in any league elsewhere.)

 

But the roster spot which had previously been taken by Bennett, who already started this week, should be locked until the completion of all the week's games. So that if you want to drop anyone for a kicker, it would have to be someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please disregard my "no" vote.

 

What I should have voted was "yes." As in, yes, the trade should be allowed, because it does not in itself violate any rules of any sort. (At least, not any logical ones you'd find in any league elsewhere.)

 

But the roster spot which had previously been taken by Bennett, who already started this week, should be locked until the completion of all the week's games. So that if you want to drop anyone for a kicker, it would have to be someone else.

 

This rule makes sense, I think the best thing to do at this point is have a league vote on whether to implement this rule or not, that's really all it comes down to. The original reason the commish gave me for wanting to decline it was far different from this, which is why I reacted so negatively. I don't like feeling like I don't have control of my own team when I am only trying to improve my team. Been in leagues like that, and they suck. But this rule is legit, so we should vote on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

col·lu·sion

   [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

 

 

Nothing secret going on here bro. I suggest you learn what collusion actually means. Try to keep up with me here, lots of people like to throw this term around loosely for everything FF related when it actually relates to a very small number of scenarios.

 

I thank everyone else for their contributions to this thread, some very good points are being raised and it's very useful. You though, are perhaps the worst poster on this site. Every post I have seen of yours lately in every thread I have come across has been a complete waste of everyone's time. Congrats.

 

 

So technically it isn't collusion because it is out in the open. But it is still cheating. Like you have read above, you are gaining an extra roster spot this week.

 

You came on here and posted a question and you got your answer, but apparently you don't like what you found out.

 

Pretty obvious that the people in this league don't know what they are doing when it comes to fantasy football.

 

Like I said before, there is a reason that that legitimate online FF sites don't allow this stuff. It isn't right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This rule makes sense, I think the best thing to do at this point is have a league vote on whether to implement this rule or not, that's really all it comes down to. The original reason the commish gave me for wanting to decline it was far different from this, which is why I reacted so negatively. I don't like feeling like I don't have control of my own team when I am only trying to improve my team. Been in leagues like that, and they suck. But this rule is legit, so we should vote on it.

 

It shouldn't be voted on, it should just be implemented ASAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

col·lu·sion

   [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

 

 

Nothing secret going on here bro. I suggest you learn what collusion actually means. Try to keep up with me here, lots of people like to throw this term around loosely for everything FF related when it actually relates to a very small number of scenarios.

 

I thank everyone else for their contributions to this thread, some very good points are being raised and it's very useful. You though, are perhaps the worst poster on this site. Every post I have seen of yours lately in every thread I have come across has been a complete waste of everyone's time. Congrats.

 

Not exactly sure why you feel the need to personally attack me, after I spend my own time giving you an honest opinion, to your petty little league problem. If you're looking for some sort of validation, to remove that uncomfortable feeling you have by being a dooshbag, you're not going to find it here. It's pretty obvious that you're a meddling little tool, who's probably the biggest headache in the entire league. I don't allow little prick focks in my league. Your commish should consider the same rule. Good day to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly sure why you feel the need to personally attack me, after I spend my own time giving you an honest opinion, to your petty little league problem. If you're looking for some sort of validation, to remove that uncomfortable feeling you have by being a dooshbag, you're not going to find it here. It's pretty obvious that you're a meddling little tool, who's probably the biggest headache in the entire league. I don't allow little prick focks in my league. Your commish should consider the same rule. Good day to you.

Buddha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team A adds Martellus Bennett to the roster Thursday and starts him vs the Panthers, dropping his kicker.

 

Team A wants to open up a roster spot for a new kicker for Sunday, but has no players he wants to drop (besides Bennett)

 

Bennett of course cannot be dropped since he already played.

 

Player A posts a message to the league, stating he will accept any trade for Bennett as long as it is done today. Explaining that he wants to receive a player back that is dropable, so he may start a kicker this week, all of this of course benefits team A's team.

 

Player B proposes a trade for who he deems his least valuable player for Bennett, team A accepts. Are there any problems with this?

 

It is not collusion, both teams are making a trade trying their best to improve their teams chance of winning.

 

Real life NFL, NBA teams etc, do this all the time where they trade for a player then release him. No where does it state this is against the rules.

 

Just want some neutral opinions on the matter. Let me know if you have any more questions about the details of the scenario.

 

Thank you.

 

Bennett of course cannot be traded since he already played.

 

Clearly a way to bypass the roster limits - you already know this...

 

And this is collusion... two teams working together to bypass the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be voted on, it should just be implemented ASAP

 

All new rules should always be voted on by the league. This is a game, and it is meant to be played for fun. Each league has the right to determine what that is, and by not allowing the league as a whole to decide you risk the league deteriorating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All new rules should always be voted on by the league. This is a game, and it is meant to be played for fun. Each league has the right to determine what that is, and by not allowing the league as a whole to decide you risk the league deteriorating.

 

Ok, fair enough. But this is a very critical rule. It should be mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All new rules should always be voted on by the league. This is a game, and it is meant to be played for fun. Each league has the right to determine what that is, and by not allowing the league as a whole to decide you risk the league deteriorating.

I agree with this, but I also think the commish has to be given a certain amount of leeway to interpret rules that DO already exist so as to maintain the integrity of the league. After all, it's impossible to account for every nefarious possibility from the outset, and that's kind of the commish's job.

 

I think this pretty clearly falls under roster size and the limiting rules thereof. Even if not spelled out exactly, it's clearly a spirit of the rule sort of situation. Any commish who didn't put the kibosh to this should be ashamed and made to drink his own urine, forcibly if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not dropping him, I'm trading him. So are you saying no player should be able to be traded that has already played that week? Because that is not a rule that exists in our league. If I don't trade Bennett I am just going to drop him Tuesday, as he is the low man on my roster. He was a FA 2 days ago for a reason.

 

It is a rule. It's the same rule (and concept) that prevents you from dropping him. He has already been used this week and occupies a roster sport.

 

Noe of your logic is relevant (going to drop him anyway, he was a free agent for a reason) to the actual issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough. But this is a very critical rule. It should be mandatory.

 

It's been like 6 years and this is the first time it has come up. I wouldn't say it's that critical of a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a rule. It's the same rule (and concept) that prevents you from dropping him. He has already been used this week and occupies a roster sport.

 

Noe of your logic is relevant (going to drop him anyway, he was a free agent for a reason) to the actual issue.

 

As soon as someone gave me a legit rule that applies to this scenario I no longer had issue with blocking it, if that is what the league wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been like 6 years and this is the first time it has come up. I wouldn't say it's that critical of a rule.

It took millennia before mankind had rules against genocide, and we feel like that's pretty critical, comrade.

 

And this is exactly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been like 6 years and this is the first time it has come up. I wouldn't say it's that critical of a rule.

 

Like I said before, this league obviously isn't that serious of a league for you to not know about this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took millennia before mankind had rules against genocide, and we feel like that's pretty critical, comrade.

 

And this is exactly the same thing.

 

 

lol.....

 

this guy just wants to fight us no matter what...instead of just saying he was wrong and thanking us for the help...he continues to be a smartass....amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.....

 

this guy just wants to fight us no matter what...instead of just saying he was wrong and thanking us for the help...he continues to be a smartass....amazing

Actually I feel like he's been pretty congenial. I just like cracking wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I feel like he's been pretty congenial. I just like cracking wise.

 

yeah, he hasn't been "rude", but he didn't really want to accept the answer.....then, the "6 years" comment was basically another way of saying he thinks he is right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.....

 

this guy just wants to fight us no matter what...instead of just saying he was wrong and thanking us for the help...he continues to be a smartass....amazing

 

Exactly. And throwing out the whole collusion dictionary definition further proves that.

 

Even of you weren't going above the roster limit, you basically posted an advertisement for a free player. The first person to read the advert has an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Since you have absolutely ZERO intention if improving your team, via the trade Itself. It's wrong, no matter how you spin it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bennett can't be dropped but he can be traded? So the other owner is helping you turn Bennett into two starters for you?

 

Yikes.

 

It's a tough call, but if I was commish, I would let it go through. It's the commissioners job to ensure the competitive balance of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And throwing out the whole collusion dictionary definition further proves that.

 

Even of you weren't going above the roster limit, you basically posted an advertisement for a free player. The first person to read the advert has an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Since you have absolutely ZERO intention if improving your team, via the trade Itself. It's wrong, no matter how you spin it.

 

Yep, that is the other point of this story. Not only is he avoiding the roster rules, the trade itself is a joke and would be vetoed in any league.

 

Team A gives up Martellus Bennett (15 catches, 180 yards and 3 TD's so far)

 

Team B gives up Mewelde Moore (or any random scrub)

 

Seriously...get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bennett can't be dropped but he can be traded? So the other owner is helping you turn Bennett into two starters for you?

 

Yikes.

 

It's a tough call, but if I was commish, I would let it go through. It's the commissioners job to ensure the competitive balance of the league.

 

You mean you wouldn't let it go thru. Right?

 

You just said how the other owner is helping him turn Bennett into 2 starters, but you would let it go thru?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having played Bennett, can you now drop him and play another player, a kicker, this week?

Of course not!

 

So no, having played Bennett, you cannot now trade him and play another player, a kicker this week.

 

Pretty simple.

 

That someone looks for loopholes like this and then claims this is a game for fun makes me question what they think fun is and what their general ethics are, of which they lack.

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  

×