Recent Trade

[dats007 1]

Team A trades Vincent Jackson, Phillip Rivers and the Saints D/ST to team B for Chris Johnson, Percy Harvin and the Packers D/ST.

 

However, because team B has 2 RB's on BYE (Hillis/F.Jones) this week and would only have Addai on his roster to fill one of the two required RB positions, the owner adds a stipulation to the deal that says Chris Johnson won't be moved to team A until after this week.

 

Team B's starting lineup this weekend will include Phillip Rivers, Vincent Jackson, Chris Johnson and Joseph Addai, instead of Joseph Addai and whatever RB was available through free agency.

 

Team B is 0-4, in last place in the league and is playing a 1-4 team that just won his first game. In a must win scenario such as this, how do you feel about adding stipulations to the deal where you get to keep the best player you added to the deal for an extra week, while adding two huge upgrades to your roster immediately? Stipulations aside, I think team A gave up too much and made his team worse, so I'm not interested in hearing about that, but rather am curious what you think about adding this sort of stipulation to a deal.

 

Thanks.

[420allstars 13]

its a bad trade but not somthing u can do much about..very likely its not collusion!!

[dats007 1]

its a bad trade but not somthing u can do much about..very likely its not collusion!!

 

I don't think it's collusion either, although I did suggest it might be last night when it went down. Thinking about it a day later, it just seems like it sets a terrible president for our league moving forward.

[montana 89]

You don't think its collusion?

How would you define collusion?

You may want to Google it....?

 

I think it is. And as a Commish I wouldn't put up with this.

[dats007 1]

You don't think its collusion?

How would you define collusion?

You may want to Google it....?

 

I think it is. And as a Commish I wouldn't put up with this.

 

Believe me, as the commissioner, I am raising a stink about it. So much so that I've had to come here to check my senses. It's borderline on being collusion for sure, save for that they announced the stipulation of the deal to the league message board prior to actually finalizing the trade. Additionally, they checked with several of the other owners, who all gave them their blessing. Of course, I wasn't made aware of any of it until moments before they pulled the trigger, and that was pretty much only to let me know that they checked with everyone else first. I didn't get home and read the message board until several hours later.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I don't think you should be able to stipulate to certain players not changing hands until after the coming weekend. Either do the deal now or don't.

 

But as for the rest, no it doesn't look like collusion to me.

[shutdown 40]

Team A trades Vincent Jackson, Phillip Rivers and the Saints D/ST to team B for Chris Johnson, Percy Harvin and the Packers D/ST.

 

However, because team B has 2 RB's on BYE (Hillis/F.Jones) this week and would only have Addai on his roster to fill one of the two required RB positions, the owner adds a stipulation to the deal that says Chris Johnson won't be moved to team A until after this week.

 

Team B's starting lineup this weekend will include Phillip Rivers, Vincent Jackson, Chris Johnson and Joseph Addai, instead of Joseph Addai and whatever RB was available through free agency.

 

Team B is 0-4, in last place in the league and is playing a 1-4 team that just won his first game. In a must win scenario such as this, how do you feel about adding stipulations to the deal where you get to keep the best player you added to the deal for an extra week, while adding two huge upgrades to your roster immediately? Stipulations aside, I think team A gave up too much and made his team worse, so I'm not interested in hearing about that, but rather am curious what you think about adding this sort of stipulation to a deal.

 

Thanks.

 

I've actually done a deal like this this, but worked it as two separate deals. If he won't give up CJ this week, he doesn't get Vjax or Rivers until next week. Also if you pay transaction fees it should count as two transactions.

[krizay 0]

either reverse the trade or push it ALL THE WAY THROUGH. stipulations? "Child please!"

[Pavlov 0]

I'm in the "(almost) never veto" camp but this sounds fishy. Not so much because of player imbalance but because it circumvents one of the major mechanics of fantasy football: the bye week. You can't pass around a Pro Bowl running back on a staggered schedule to get around your bye weeks when all of your opponents have to adjust their rosters normally.

[montana 89]

Look, its either a deal or not. Not half today, half next week....or 2/3 today, 1/3 tomorrow.

I just think you're opening up a huge can of worms & it'll spiral out of control later. I don't care if its friends or family, it'll happen trust me. And when it does, they'll refer back to this trade.

Obviously, you came here looking for advice. If you felt that there was nothing wrong, you wouldn't ask for responses. That little voice that drove to ask this here is the same voice that's telling you something is wrong.

If you have to ask, there's your answer.

Just sayin.

[dats007 1]

I'm in the "(almost) never veto" camp but this sounds fishy. Not so much because of player imbalance but because it circumvents one of the major mechanics of fantasy football: the bye week. You can't pass around a Pro Bowl running back on a staggered schedule to get around your bye weeks when all of your opponents have to adjust their rosters normally.

 

I appreciate the insight. I had been trying to put what you just explained into words...this summed up all of what I was thinking. Thank you!

[Quickolas1 80]

its a bad trade but not somthing u can do much about..very likely its not collusion!!

 

you most certainly can do something about it. squash it.

it is a form of collusion when you give up a player for nothing (even for a week) to help someone else out.

FF is not a partner sport.

[Hawkfin 32]

Look, its either a deal or not. Not half today, half next week....or 2/3 today, 1/3 tomorrow.

I just think you're opening up a huge can of worms & it'll spiral out of control later. I don't care if its friends or family, it'll happen trust me. And when it does, they'll refer back to this trade.

Obviously, you came here looking for advice. If you felt that there was nothing wrong, you wouldn't ask for responses. That little voice that drove to ask this here is the same voice that's telling you something is wrong.

If you have to ask, there's your answer.

Just sayin.

 

I agree with this and most others: You have to have a full deal not half a deal tomorrow or next week or "barrowed-rent to own" trades

(Really trades should be made even - 2for2 3for3)

 

But, If they want to wait a week and trade V. jackson for C. Johnson next week after they do the first part of the deal this week then I have NO PROBLEM with it. They could have that all setup and ready to go, but are RISKING a change of mind later with the 2nd part of the deal. And also, it would be 2 separate transactions in that case.

 

But, taking into account this weeks move: Trade is unfair/collusion as one player gets 4.24, Rivers, and Jackson vs 3rd party

And next week the trade is again unfair/collusion as one player is getting 4.24 for nothing.

 

I don't think it's collusion as in "cheating" though. I think they both want the deal and its fair for each of them, but the Chris Johnson guy can't do it "this week" do to bye week issues. But, he'll need to decide what is more important as you should not be able to do split it up like this.

It's not fair to the 3rd party being effected! plus makes the trading to much of pain anyway.

 

They need to figure out a better way of doing this and so I would reject or vote against this kind of trade.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Contingent trades are not allowed in most leagues, so unless your by-laws specifically permit it, you as commish must put your foot down. The trade can go through or not, as the two parties so wish, but you have to tell them that all players must be exchanged at the same time. Make sure that they also understand that 'loaning' players to cover bye weeks, and then trading them back will also not be permitted.

 

There is no gray area here - this is one of those times where the commish has got to take a stand. BTW, both of these points should be covered in WRITTEN league by-laws separate from your league settings.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

I don't have a problem with it. This is an 0-4 team versus a 1-3 team. Come on, let the losers have their fun.

[yanivsme 0]

Well Well Well, I see my commish came here to ask advice....I appreciate that in my commish, going the extra mile. I have read all the posts here and I will let you as well as my commish who will read this post know that we could have just made a trade this week and then next week. We do not veto trades in our league because we are adults not little girls. If we did that, it is our right as owners.

 

We told the league we were planning on making another trade next week which would make the trade not so lopsided. Collusion? Really?

 

 

I will say this, I am 0-4 and I am trying to make my team better and I told the other owner I cant make this trade this week becasue I need my rb casue the other 2 rbs were on bye, however the guy I traded with wanted the trade to happen right now so we brainstormed it and thats what we came up with.

 

Hey commish, notice I am not bringing up any past trades you have made which basically would crush your credibilty on this board and thread.

 

Peace out, love the drama son!!

[Truck Jackson 0]

Well Well Well, I see my commish came here to ask advice....I appreciate that in my commish, going the extra mile. I have read all the posts here and I will let you as well as my commish who will read this post know that we could have just made a trade this week and then next week. We do not veto trades in our league because we are adults not little girls. If we did that, it is our right as owners.

 

We told the league we were planning on making another trade next week which would make the trade not so lopsided. Collusion? Really?

 

 

I will say this, I am 0-4 and I am trying to make my team better and I told the other owner I cant make this trade this week becasue I need my rb casue the other 2 rbs were on bye, however the guy I traded with wanted the trade to happen right now so we brainstormed it and thats what we came up with.

 

Hey commish, notice I am not bringing up any past trades you have made which basically would crush your credibilty on this board and thread.

 

Peace out, love the drama son!!

Is there a process time on your trade? If so, accept it just before the games start this week, so he is garaunteed the trade will go through later, and you still have your rb for this weekend.

[dats007 1]

I don't have a problem with it. This is an 0-4 team versus a 1-3 team. Come on, let the losers have their fun.

 

It's actually an 0-4 team and one of the better 2-2 teams.

[dats007 1]

Is there a process time on your trade? If so, accept it just before the games start this week, so he is garaunteed the trade will go through later, and you still have your rb for this weekend.

 

Doesn't work that way in our league.

[dats007 1]

 

Hey commish, notice I am not bringing up any past trades you have made which basically would crush your credibilty on this board and thread.

 

 

GFY!

[veebs4 2]

Then it should be two separate trades. Each keep a holdback. The one team is making out keeping the one guy for additional week, plus the guys he is supposed to be getting. I agree, a bad precedent. What's to stop some one else for doing the same thing, except extending the period two weeks for two players, etc?

[madd futher mucker 36]

Well Well Well, I see my commish came here to ask advice....I appreciate that in my commish, going the extra mile. I have read all the posts here and I will let you as well as my commish who will read this post know that we could have just made a trade this week and then next week. We do not veto trades in our league because we are adults not little girls. If we did that, it is our right as owners.

 

We told the league we were planning on making another trade next week which would make the trade not so lopsided. Collusion? Really?

 

 

I will say this, I am 0-4 and I am trying to make my team better and I told the other owner I cant make this trade this week becasue I need my rb casue the other 2 rbs were on bye, however the guy I traded with wanted the trade to happen right now so we brainstormed it and thats what we came up with.

 

Hey commish, notice I am not bringing up any past trades you have made which basically would crush your credibilty on this board and thread.

 

Peace out, love the drama son!!

 

This doesn't sound like a league that will be around next year. I would still veto this trade.

 

Your league needs Bylaws that spell out in writing that this crap doesn't go, because all it does is create friction and spoil the integrety of the league for everyone.

 

This is a sample from the by-laws in one of my leagues:

9. Each trade must stand on its own. Two-step trades, ‘string trades’ and/or contingent trades are not permitted. Since an owner may elect not to participate for the following year, trades for future draft choices are also not permitted during the season. ‘Loaning’ of players and/or trade backs to avoid bye week problems are also not permitted. If Team A trades a player to Team B, that player may not be traded back to Team A for 3 weeks worth of games, even if the composition of the trade is different from the original trade.

[Evil Genius 0]

Though MFM, above, has a valid point, others above make a valid compromise.

 

Simply divide it into two trades.

 

VJax for CJ post week 5, and the Owners have thus committed to it, regardless of scoring outcomes or injury from Week 5 itself.

 

No big deal.

[justforbeer 39]

Well Well Well, I see my commish came here to ask advice....I appreciate that in my commish, going the extra mile. I have read all the posts here and I will let you as well as my commish who will read this post know that we could have just made a trade this week and then next week. We do not veto trades in our league because we are adults not little girls. If we did that, it is our right as owners.

 

We told the league we were planning on making another trade next week which would make the trade not so lopsided. Collusion? Really?

 

 

I will say this, I am 0-4 and I am trying to make my team better and I told the other owner I cant make this trade this week becasue I need my rb casue the other 2 rbs were on bye, however the guy I traded with wanted the trade to happen right now so we brainstormed it and thats what we came up with.

 

Hey commish, notice I am not bringing up any past trades you have made which basically would crush your credibilty on this board and thread.

 

Peace out, love the drama son!!

 

Hey maye you should sweeten the deal with another bs move like give hime $50 under the table. This type of trade is a joke.

Trades are straight trades with no future trades contingent on it.

[dats007 1]

This doesn't sound like a league that will be around next year. I would still veto this trade.

 

We've been around for 10 years, most of us have known each other for 20+...the league ain't going nowhere.

[Jedi Sensei 17]

Though MFM, above, has a valid point, others above make a valid compromise.

 

Simply divide it into two trades.

 

VJax for CJ post week 5, and the Owners have thus committed to it, regardless of scoring outcomes or injury from Week 5 itself.

 

No big deal.

Couldn't help but think this also.

[jared7683 0]

Not that you needed any more replies, but here ya are. I am always in favor of the "NO VETO" policy. I always say, if it is between two grown ass men who are still in the hunt for the playoffs, let it go, whoever the players may be. BUT!!!!! In this case of "renting" CJ2K for a week, it's pure FF Bull****. For the sake and integrity of all that is Fantasy, you mustn't allow this to take place. This sir, is where you remember your sworn oath as a Fantasy Football Commissioner, and hammer your gavel down hard. I don't care if they did some stupid petition before hand and checked w/ the owners. It's not a democracy sir. You were chosen to uphold the standards and moralities of the league, no matter the circumstance. You must ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?