Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      19


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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  

×