Jump to content



Photo

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

Dynasty

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

Poll: Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal? (21 member(s) have cast votes)

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

  1. Yes (2 votes [9.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.52%

  2. No (19 votes [90.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 90.48%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 August 2018 - 01:46 AM

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))

Prior to the beginning of the season, Team A told many owners that this was his last year playing in the league. However, it is possible that the Commish did not know Team A was leaving at the end of the year. Anyway, 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 (around pick #14 overall). Regardless, the fact remains that 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. 

 

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?



#2 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 August 2018 - 04:47 PM

3-0 in favor of No. Thanks!



#3 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 August 2018 - 04:49 PM

So back in 2015, do you think this trade was unbalanced? Because it was along the lines of many of the other trades made in the league at that time.



#4 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 04 August 2018 - 09:34 PM

I will say this, I am expecting some decent things from Hurns this year.



#5 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,349 posts

Posted 05 August 2018 - 01:04 AM

TL DR 

 

no


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#6 Squintz82

Squintz82

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:48 PM

Didn't read it and voted no. If you have to ask, then generally it's a no.



#7 Flgatorguy87

Flgatorguy87

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,323 posts

Posted 10 August 2018 - 03:24 PM

I can't read that many words. I'll say no. These are always a No.

#8 redsrback

redsrback

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,151 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 02:51 AM

Team D says league should collect all dues before the season and trades made should be finalized afterwards. But not sure if A will go along with this, depending on if B gets fair value, then C your not sure how he is benefitting, E, F, G, H,I, J.K.anf L well they should get involved to.



#9 TheErosion

TheErosion

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 05:51 AM

Seems like a ###### move especially considering the Commish got Gurley on a similar trade.
Who Dat! Well, pretty much everyone this year...

#10 wild_and_crazy_guy

wild_and_crazy_guy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 714 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 12:44 PM

I voted no.  Based on your description, there was collusion back in 2015, when Team A promised to trade Team B J.Jones if Team B won.  This is 2018.   If Team A and Team B are both making trades that (they believe) are benefiting their own teams, then there is no collusion in 2018.



#11 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:39 PM

I voted no.  Based on your description, there was collusion back in 2015, when Team A promised to trade Team B J.Jones if Team B won.  This is 2018.   If Team A and Team B are both making trades that (they believe) are benefiting their own teams, then there is no collusion in 2018.

 

I was asking if it should have been nixed in 2015.

 

It's also hard to prove collusion. Like sure, stuff was said, but does that actually make it true? What if someone changed their mind? Looks like bargaining and consideration occurred too. And hey, what if the leaving owner changed his mind and decided to come back.

 

Regardless, dues were paid and no replacements had been made. Personally, when stuff like that happens, I think you should let the owners run their teams how they want.



#12 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:40 PM

Team D says league should collect all dues before the season and trades made should be finalized afterwards. But not sure if A will go along with this, depending on if B gets fair value, then C your not sure how he is benefitting, E, F, G, H,I, J.K.anf L well they should get involved to.

 

Mind = Blown.



#13 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:40 PM

I can't read that many words. I'll say no. These are always a No.

 

Why are they always a no?



#14 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:41 PM

Didn't read it and voted no. If you have to ask, then generally it's a no.

 

Why is that? Could you please explain your rationale?



#15 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:41 PM

TL DR 

 

no

 

So why do you default to no?



#16 Donkey

Donkey

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 05:37 AM

So is A, B or C the lucky pierre?



#17 Flgatorguy87

Flgatorguy87

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,323 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 10:42 AM

 
Why are they always a no?


You are new here. These are always a no around here. Unless your real estate agent staged a house showing to steal your cheat sheet... that's the only exception.

#18 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 18 August 2018 - 08:07 PM

So is A, B or C the lucky pierre?

 

eh?



#19 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 18 August 2018 - 08:09 PM

You are new here. These are always a no around here. Unless your real estate agent staged a house showing to steal your cheat sheet... that's the only exception.

 

I see. 

 

What if the commissioner sent out individual text messages to everyone in the league telling them to increase the bid on a free agent? Is that kosher around here?



#20 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 19,811 posts

Posted 18 August 2018 - 10:57 PM

That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing.

Sangre Por Sangre


#21 Frozenbeernuts

Frozenbeernuts

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,336 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 06:18 AM

When in doubt, any sliver of a doubt, veto the trade

#22 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 19,811 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 09:23 AM

When in doubt, any sliver of a doubt, veto the trade


:thumbsup:

Just the fact that someone would post a "VETO" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it.

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to complain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.

Sangre Por Sangre


#23 Frozenbeernuts

Frozenbeernuts

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,336 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 04:42 PM

:thumbsup:

Just the fact that someone would post a "VETO" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it.

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to complain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.

I will take that a step further. If you were dumb enough to trade away $10 for $5, wouldn't you want someone to swoop in a stop the deal from happening?  That is the point of the veto, to protect owners from other dumb owners and themselves.



#24 Gladiators

Gladiators

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 05:52 PM

TL DR 
 
no


This

#25 Frozenbeernuts

Frozenbeernuts

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,336 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 05:56 PM

TL DR 

 

no

TL but Did Read

 

The deal should have been vetoed, and any deal that isn't 100% fair should be also. It surprises me that you can't see that.



#26 Gladiators

Gladiators

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 05:59 PM

:thumbsup:

Just the fact that someone would post a "VETO" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it.

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to complain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.


I didnt read it because the OP was too long, but based on this info, I have to agree. Good call guys. :cheers:

#27 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 07:33 PM

:thumbsup:

Just the fact that someone would post a "VETO" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it.

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to complain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.

 

Well, so what happened was that trade was vetoed, but then a year later the Commish got Julio for a cheaper price, albeit from the new replacement owner.



#28 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 07:34 PM

TL but Did Read

 

The deal should have been vetoed, and any deal that isn't 100% fair should be also. It surprises me that you can't see that.

 

How do you judge if something is 100% fair though?

 

Also, what if the precedent is that no trades are vetoed? And let's say for instance, more lopsided trades have been processed in the past.



#29 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 07:35 PM

Still a 13-1 Vote.



#30 Frozenbeernuts

Frozenbeernuts

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,336 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 07:46 PM

 
How do you judge if something is 100% fair though?
 
Also, what if the precedent is that no trades are vetoed? And let's say for instance, more lopsided trades have been processed in the past.


Well, in extreme cases a league can go back, reverse trades and vacate wins/championships. It's not likely to happen, but thats for more hard core leagues.

If a league isn't going to go back and right the wrongs that happened, then they can at least start by vetoing what's in front of them

#31 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 08:56 PM

Well, in extreme cases a league can go back, reverse trades and vacate wins/championships. It's not likely to happen, but thats for more hard core leagues.

If a league isn't going to go back and right the wrongs that happened, then they can at least start by vetoing what's in front of them

 

I see. I'm generally not a fan of retroactive rulings. Just not a good precedent. Can be a slippery slope.



#32 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 19,811 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 02:02 AM

I'm new around here, but I swear to christ if I hear on more person here say "no collusion, no veto" again, I'm gonna have a aneurysm. Lighten up folks, just because another league has different rules than yours doesn't mean they're wrong or bad or dumb. In my league, we are allowed to issue a veto for any reason whatsoever, including if we just aren't in the mood - if there are five vetoes, the trade is killed No trades have ever actually been successfully vetoed, but that's beside the point. I look forward to the slew of "can I join your league" emails.

Sangre Por Sangre


#33 Flgatorguy87

Flgatorguy87

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,323 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 12:11 PM

haha this was entertaining to go back and read.



#34 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 19,811 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 12:42 PM

 
How do you judge if something is 100% fair though?
 
Also, what if the precedent is that no trades are vetoed? And let's say for instance, more lopsided trades have been processed in the past.


A trade doesn't have to be $10 for $10. $10 for $8 is ok. Sometimes $40 for $32 is even ok. But $15 for $40 trades should always be vetoed.

Sangre Por Sangre


#35 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 09:35 PM

A trade doesn't have to be $10 for $10. $10 for $8 is ok. Sometimes $40 for $32 is even ok. But $15 for $40 trades should always be vetoed.

 

So do you use a trade calculator to help value things?



#36 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 19,811 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 11:16 PM

In my league, you can only trade players that were drafted within one round of each other. Regardless of how good or poorly they play. It's really the fairest way and the rest of the league loves it.

Sangre Por Sangre


#37 Frozenbeernuts

Frozenbeernuts

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,336 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 05:45 AM

In my league, you can only trade players that were drafted within one round of each other. Regardless of how good or poorly they play. It's really the fairest way and the rest of the league loves it.


That sounds really reasonable.

#38 jaxjag

jaxjag

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,166 posts

Posted 22 August 2018 - 08:48 PM

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. 

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?

 

 

Hasn't the statute of limitations run out on this topic?


I had $6 in my pocket and a ticket for a cross country bus from Washington State. So, I bought two 6-packs of Olympia Beer and got on the bus. If some guy hadn't given me a Snickers Bar in Chicago... I wouldn't have made it.


#39 Gladiators

Gladiators

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 24 August 2018 - 06:44 PM

Our league actually allows any trade to go through. At the end of the season, we adjust the scores so the trade ends up being equal. Works out great!

#40 the lone star

the lone star

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 02:40 AM

In my league, you can only trade players that were drafted within one round of each other. Regardless of how good or poorly they play. It's really the fairest way and the rest of the league loves it.

 

So how does that shake out over time in a dynasty league?