Rulings

[Strumey 0]

Ok, I cant even go trick or treating with my kids for an hour without everything going to hell in a handbasket.

 

As far as the "future considerations" trade, I am going to have to read everything before I make a ruling. I just sat down for a sec to see if I got outbid on Crupmler. I am still getting kids ready for bed. I will check it and make a ruling in a bit.

 

Please make your arguments and opinions known as replies to this thread so I can make my determination.

[Buda 0]

Martin,

 

We talked earlier yhis year and you agreed that cap money into the next year was frought with problems. What if the guy who gives up money drops out? More to this point is persons who trade with each other on a weekly basis to benifit each other to avoid bye weeks. Something should be in place to prevent collusion,so as not to screw others without an alliance.

 

What's fair?

[Strumey 0]

This situation has really put me in a tough spot to make a tough decision. I have read all the posts and can see both sides of the argument. Both sides have legitimate points. Before I make the ruling, I would like to say that although some of you do not know each other, I can say that everyone in this league is ethical and is someone I trust to do the right thing. That doesnt mean we wont have disagreements, but it does mean that people are in this league to collude to make sure they win money.

 

It is natural that the people who know each other better (like Andy and Terry) are going to have more discussions about the league in general, and thus more trade possibilities. I have seen many of you trade with peole that you dont know as well.

 

In a way, I am glad we have these problems because it shows that everyone is involved and active in this league. I am in some others where people quit after they are 0-3.

 

So, for my decision. Here is how the rule is currently stated:

"Owners may trade players, cap room, and draft order(if you really want to). There is a $5 transaction fee per roster spot affected per owner when trading with other team owners. There is no fee when picking up free agents, except for the cost of the winning bid."

 

The rule clearly states what may be traded, but not when it may be traded, or for what year it may be traded. I have to say that trading something for nothing, but something in the future is not fair.

 

 

I will finish this later today. I ahve to run out of the office, sorry guys.

[Superfreaks 0]

I realize you are not yet done deliberating, but could you clarify for me, how trading something for the future is not fair?

 

Also, I think we all want to resolve this, and still somehow, remain in the league, and even more apparent, remain friends.

 

If we are tweaking the rules, I would like to know ask that the time to nominate a free agent be extended to Thursday at 3PM. Many of the news conferences are scheduled on Monday and Tuesdays, and we find out the status of injuries, however, Teams have until Thursday to release any news they find on a medical exam.

 

I wanted to nominate S. Davis backup- but didn't find out the status until 10 PM WED night. Trust me, I was looking for it all day, I even caught the Redskins news conference on ESPNNEWS...

 

As for Martin's feeling rather good this happened, he does make a point, this is the most active league I am involved with, and would hate to lose it over a trade for some money, so I can start a backfield this weekend.

[Superfreaks 0]

Possible solution-

 

I am posting this for two reasons. I want to provide my true sentiments on this matter, and hate that I have put Martin is such a tough spot.

 

Disallow the trade between Andy and I. Not for reasons of possible collusion, but for reasons of causing unrest among current owners given their current position on the rules.

 

Give Beach Slappers the winning bid on R. Williams for $11.

 

Then amend the rules to say team owners and co-owners can trade, cap money for this year and next year, and future years (both teams must be in the league for future years. If either team is excluded from the league for any reason, the trade will still be upheld, and the new owner will be the benefactor.) (the ideology here is that if it is good enough to be accepted in the first place, the new owner should have no bearing on the trade previous to his ownership.)(If the new owner is the team taking the hit on his cap room, then the league will vote on whether or not to still allow the trade or rather return any players involved in the trade to the Free Agent pool and not take the cap money for the new team owner.) Team Owners and co-owners can trade players and contract players. Team Owners and co-owners can trade cap money for this year and next year in return for players and players on contract. Thus teams can trade money and players for this year and next year or even future years as long as the trade is fair and reasonable according to the commissioner of the league.

Reasonable can be interpreted as a team making their team better now or in the future by making a trade. I.E. and 0-7 team is not tanking for dealing it's best player for money in the future, instead it is improving it's chances to succeed in coming years. (I have no problem taking any decision Martin might offer and would expect the rest of you feel the same) {this is very rare, I have no other league, in which I truly respect the commissioner of that league and I would hate for us to lose this tremendous resource)

 

I suggest these be looked at and amended in the rules so that it is clearly legal to do what Andy and I tried do and be upheld in the future by us the governing body.

 

Rules are not perfect- nor is law, thus we constantly evolve it and tweak it so that we can exist more peacefully. I think the intent and result of what happened should be learned from and benefit us all in the future.

 

Scott, Scott, and Jacob and Jason- I hope we can all agree that even though we don't know each other that well yet, that over time in years to come, we will come to respect each other. I obviously, cannot exist thinking someone might percieve me to be a cheat. I hope you realize Martin, would never allow a cheat to be in his league.

[J-bob 0]

I'll just say for the record that I was never upset with anyone, save being annoyed with Andyfor bidding up a player he doesn't need just to try and keep us from having a QB this week, over any of this.

 

Also, while I was annoyed with Andy, I am not and was not accusing anyone of collusion. Andy did nothing that was against the rules, underhanded though it may be, in our case.

 

As far as the future considerations thing goes.......I can see both sides of the arguement. I can understand how it would look suspicious, especially when one guy has been posting a lot recently for himself and someone else and those 2 guys happen to be good friends. However, having talked to Terry quite a bit, including last night, it is my opinion that he wasn't trying to do anything underhanded. He was doing things according to the rules the way they were written. The rules, unfortunately in this case, aren't completely clear and can be interpreted differently. (Sorry Scott)

 

Bottom line, let's settle this so we can have fun the rest of this season and future seasons because this league is too fun to mess up.

[Buda 0]

I agree this is the best league I'm in. I've been in another for believe or not its 20th season this year and most of the guys there draft and then go away.

 

I agree that trading cap $ for the current year should stay. Unspecified future considerations and next years cap $ trades are what I disagee with.

 

My opinion only.

 

By the way it should be known I received a personal email from the Freak and he's an unquestionable gentleman and good person.

 

Thanks Freak

[Strumey 0]

Sorry this has taken so long to continue.

 

Anyway, based on all that has gone on, I am making a ruling based on what is best for the league, not because I disagree with the position I am ruling against. Both sides have valid points, but I have to make a decision one way or another. Due to the fact that Terry has volunteered to disallow the trade that caused the controversy, I am going to follow through with that. The result of that is Ricky Williams goes to the Beach Slappers. I will have to call him tomorrow to get the player he will be dropping as well as his lineup change because he is on vacation this weekend and does not have computer access. With this, I will be revising the rules this weekend to address this issue. Below I have outlined what I intend to put in the rules. I will hear any objections and consider them in the final rule changes.

 

Changes:

You may trade players, current cap room, cap room that will be realized later in the season, cap room for future seasons, or draft position. If you make a trade, you must state the entire terms of the trade at the time the trade is made. Those terms can include options, but each option must be clearly spelled out.

 

ie. Team A trades $4 of existing cap room to Team B for one of the following to be named later:

1. $6 of cap room in two weeks

2. $2 of cap room next season

3. $1 of cap room the next 2 seasons

 

The conditions must be specified along with a timeframe in which the decision must be made.

 

The trade must be posted by one team involved in the trade and confirmed as a reply to that trade by the other team. If posting is impossible for either party, the trade may be made and confirmed by contacting the commissioner. If the commissioner is unavailable, the trade can be confirmed by contacting the assistant commissioner (to be named shortly).

 

ANY TRADE can be challenged by any member of the league. The challenging owner must post his intent to challenge as a reply to the trade post (or by methods described above). Then, the remaining members of the league will vote to uphold or overturn the trade. The owners involved in the trade and the owner who initiated the challenge will not vote. The validity of the trade will be determined by a majority decision. In the case of a tie vote, the trade will stand.

-------

I realize that some of you may have issues with trading future cap $$, etc. I did have these same concerns, but allowing a trade to be challenged in addition to the quality of the competition and owners involved, I think those concerns can be laid to rest. One of my favorite qualities of this league are the many strategies owners can use to win in this league. I believe that not limiting these options makes this league more challenging and entertaining.

 

As I stated above, I will listen to any differing opinions on this matter, as I want this to continue to be the best league I play in. I know I dont have all the answers, but I have most of them.

[Superfreaks 0]

Two things-

 

One- Martin, I think those rules proposed are well thought out and masterfully detailed. The contingency of the challenge is a beautiful check and balance system. You are a noble ruler of sorts and should be praised for your efforts here. Thank you.

 

Secondly,

For the record- I apologize for causing grief in an environment that I cherish and respect so much. This fantasy footballgame we play brings me joy every week and makes games, I would never care about, become so meaningful. That is purely the subtle genius of fantasy sports. Then the projecting of players performances and equating that with a dollar of worth based on our opinions of what the market will bare.....these things combined are what fascinate us all and to be in such a league where the competition is so well balanced- it would be a shame to blacken any of this over something so trifle. For that I apologize to Scott and anyone else who might have felt sorry to be in this league, even if just for a moment.

 

This is our habitat away from real life and this place is sacred. I respect that and hope to increase the enjoyment with my presence rather take any away.

 

the fReak

[Buda 0]

Well stated and tought out by both Martin and Terry.

 

Thank you

 

Jerry

[J-bob 0]

as one addendum to the rule of challenging trades, I recommend this:

 

Once an owner challenges a trade, the challenge first goes to the Commissioner or Associate Commissioner. If he determines that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the challenge, then the issue will go before the league for a vote. If the Commissioner/Assoc. Commissioner does NOT feel there is sufficient evidence to warrant the challenge, the trade will stand without a vote. Keep in mind, however, that the Commish can still invalidate any trade he feels would compromise the best interests of the league.

[Strumey 0]

Sounds good Jacob.

 

I nominate Jacob as asst. commish. Someone give a second and that is good enough for me to confirm.

 

Thanks

[Superfreaks 0]

I will second Jacob. He is fair and very much involved with this league. A quality choice.

 

the fReak