Should The Commissioner Be Able To Do These Things? (2 SCENARIOS)

[the lone star 3]

SCENARIO 1:

Team A put a star player on the trading block to help him rebuild (old team, lost many players to injuries, suspensions, and retirement). The commissioner entered into trade talks with Team A, and they went back and forth discussing a deal. Team A thought that the talks had hit a roadblock, so he told the commissioner he was going to talk to other teams, including the commissioner's two brothers, who were also in the league. The commissioner does not like this, so he sends angry text messages to his brothers, one of which (Team tells Team A that he is dropping out because of the text. The contents of the text are not known other than the fact that it was angry and hostile, but it is presumed that the commissioner was playing the "family card" in order to make sure that his brothers didn't compete with him, and vice versa.

For what it is worth, the rules do not actually address this scenario.

 

Should The Commissioner Have Been Able To Do This?

 

SCENARIO 2:

In a dynasty league, each dynasty owner has the right of last refusal for all of their free agents. That is, each free agent is actually a restricted free agent. Restricted free agency is an auction style bidding system, and how much money each person has is also visible on the site.

The Commissioner saw that someone like Drew Brees had a super low bid on him and feared that someone would win him for that amount. He also wanted Brees' owner to pay more in free agency to keep him, so the commish sent out individual text messages to all the owners in the league, specifically telling them to increase the bid on Brees. The text message read "INCREASE THE BID ON BREES!!!" This tactic worked, as multiple owners began to increase the price on Brees.

 

For what it is worth, the rules do not actually address this situation.

 

Should The Commissioner Have Been Able To Do This?

[seafoam1 1,879]

I didn't read a word of it. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. The commissioner should not be able to cause a bunch of confusion in the league.

[Brutal Brutus 182]

Not sure him being commish has anything to do with what he's doing. Literally any player could have done it. Other league members can just ignore him if they don't like it.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Not sure him being commish has anything to do with what he's doing. Literally any player could have done it. Other league members can just ignore him if they don't like it.

Ok. I read it. Dumb. Who cares if someone sent out an email or text message telling others what to do. This isn't Al Capone as commish that people have tp listen to or else. I mean, who cares about what some dude sends out in an email?

[polecatt 403]

I have always found that as the commish it is best to set a good example and not get involved in stuff like this.

It may not be against the specific rules but there are always scenarios that may come up that the rules do not specifically address and the commish has to rule on them with his best judgement.

Tactics like these can be considered shady and could bring the commish's integrity into question. Therefore he should not be involved in actions like these.

As the commish the last thing you ever want is to have your integrity in question. That's bad for the entire league.

[Mephisto 15]

I voted no in both cases. I considered a yes for the second scenario, but didn't feel like getting clarification on whether or not ONLY the commissioner could see what the current bid status was on players.

If EVERYONE can see the current bid amount on a given player, then I would probably vote a shaky yes... as I would consider it league-banter and anyone could be like, "NO WAY, DON'T LET BREES GO THAT CHEAP!" If only the Commissioner can see it, then he's abusing his position.

 

Quit the league.

[mobb_deep 917]

Your commissioner did the right thing. Id be forced to veto that trade as well.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Your commissioner did the right thing. Id be forced to veto that trade as well.

No commissioner should be able to veto anything unless it violates a rule already stated and agreed upon. If there is no rule around something that happened, then there should be a vote on the action at hand, then a vote on how to handle it moving forward.

 

Jeez, how archaic are these leagues?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

No commissioner should be able to veto anything unless it violates a rule already stated and agreed upon. If there is no rule around something that happened, then there should be a vote on the action at hand, then a vote on how to handle it moving forward.

 

Jeez, how archaic are these leagues?

That's the way leagues need to be set up these days though. Commish rules because the rest of the owners are selfish dolts who can't make up their mind anyway. It's about fairness and making sure the sheeple don't run the assylum

[mobb_deep 917]

That's the way leagues need to be set up these days though. Commish rules because the rest of the owners are selfish dolts who can't make up their mind anyway. It's about fairness and making sure the sheeple don't run the assylum

 

MFFGA

[jaxjag 43]

Didn't read it. Didn't have to.

 

Every time I see a "Should the commish..?" thread, I think, "Oh, another lone star thread".

 

Either stop making this stuff up or just quit your league(s).

[J-Money 4]

I'm not going to vote, the obvious answer is "no he shouldn't do that" but what you should do is often different than what gets done. In my leagues I let people run their team how they see fit. If there are suspicious trades I reach out to the owners and ask them to explain, and as long as its not ridiculous I let it thru. Sometimes the guy who you think is getting bent over a barrel is really the guy who initiated the trade proposal. Just because you think you are offering more than someone else, it doesn't mean THAT particular owner values your players the same. As stated before, if you are in a garbage league, leave and set up a better one.

[the lone star 3]

Your commissioner did the right thing. Id be forced to veto that trade as well.

 

Which trade?

[the lone star 3]

Didn't read it. Didn't have to.

 

Every time I see a "Should the commish..?" thread, I think, "Oh, another lone star thread".

 

Either stop making this stuff up or just quit your league(s).

 

I just want input man.

[The PosterFormerlyKnownAs 61]

Dude, find new leagues. You are constantly posting about issues with the commissioner(S).

[the lone star 3]

Dude, find new leagues. You are constantly posting about issues with the commissioner(S).

 

On this forum, I think I've only posted about issues 3 times total.

[mobb_deep 917]

 

Which trade?

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 cplain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

Which trade?

You can't just start parsing trades in these situations. All trades can come under scrutiny, not just the ones you alone decide are worth looking at. It's like comparing apples and snake venom.

[the lone star 3]

You can't just start parsing trades in these situations. All trades can come under scrutiny, not just the ones you alone decide are worth looking at. It's like comparing apples and snake venom.

 

So we talking about the Julio Jones for Allen Hurns trade then, or the trade in Scenario 1?

[the lone star 3]

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 cplain about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was.

We talking about Scenario 1?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

So we talking about the Julio Jones for Allen Hurns trade then, or the trade in Scenario 1?

All of them. I'm not going to just single one out. It's like this, if you have a family of raccoons living under your porch causing havoc, you're not going to just remove one and consider the problem solved. You have to tackle each one as an individual problem. Once all the problems are solved, then you can have a healthy functioning league that's "raccoon free" so to speak.

[the lone star 3]

All of them. I'm not going to just single one out. It's like this, if you have a family of raccoons living under your porch causing havoc, you're not going to just remove one and consider the problem solved. You have to tackle each one as an individual problem. Once all the problems are solved, then you can have a healthy functioning league that's "raccoon free" so to speak.

 

So you are singling them out or you aren't?

 

But anyway, if the Julio/Hurns deal shouldn't be allowed, then Scenario 1 shouldn't be allowed too? Is that what you're saying? Sorry, I'm having a little trouble understanding.

[mobb_deep 917]

 

So you are singling them out or you aren't?

 

But anyway, if the Julio/Hurns deal shouldn't be allowed, then Scenario 1 shouldn't be allowed too? Is that what you're saying? Sorry, I'm having a little trouble understanding.

That's just it, everyone pays a fee. Good luck if you think just because your commissioner you can do whatever you choose. There is lot of games to be played , and if you cant see the value of a Eddie Lacy added with Eli for Brees with RBs of his caliber being at a premium then you should stick to your free leagues. I have no problem with you doing a high five at the end of a year for winning, but its not a fair trade, and to evaluate players after 3 weeks is silly..Im okay with some a bit loppy, who am I to judge, but good gawd this isn't even close. I just gave my 2 cents on the point if its a fair trade part of it, how you run your leagues is your business.

[the lone star 3]

That's just it, everyone pays a fee. Good luck if you think just because your commissioner you can do whatever you choose. There is lot of games to be played , and if you cant see the value of a Eddie Lacy added with Eli for Brees with RBs of his caliber being at a premium then you should stick to your free leagues. I have no problem with you doing a high five at the end of a year for winning, but its not a fair trade, and to evaluate players after 3 weeks is silly..Im okay with some a bit loppy, who am I to judge, but good gawd this isn't even close. I just gave my 2 cents on the point if its a fair trade part of it, how you run your leagues is your business.

 

Thanks.

[shutdown 40]

Scenario 1 - You allude the the fact that the commissioner may have used some external influence or family bond to remove potential trading partners for the other team. If that's the case, then it's a form of collusion and shouldn't be allowed. Not the collusion we all think of where two owners rig up one super team, but a form of it where 3 teams are using their bond to potential improve the commissioners team because they are brothers. Now the other team still has no obligation to trade with the commissioner. There are a lot of unrelated team owners he could still deal with so on the collusion scale, it's at the minor end, but it's not something a commissioner who wants to be seen as impartial should be engaging in.

 

Scenario 2 - I've seen the same thing done countless times in auction drafts. A player is about to go for a low value and someone exclaims "I can't believe so and so is about to get player X that cheaply" And more than half the time the bidding re-fires. It's just strategy and it does work. I've got no issue with that.

[the lone star 3]

Scenario 1 - You allude the the fact that the commissioner may have used some external influence or family bond to remove potential trading partners for the other team. If that's the case, then it's a form of collusion and shouldn't be allowed. Not the collusion we all think of where two owners rig up one super team, but a form of it where 3 teams are using their bond to potential improve the commissioners team because they are brothers. Now the other team still has no obligation to trade with the commissioner. There are a lot of unrelated team owners he could still deal with so on the collusion scale, it's at the minor end, but it's not something a commissioner who wants to be seen as impartial should be engaging in.

 

Scenario 2 - I've seen the same thing done countless times in auction drafts. A player is about to go for a low value and someone exclaims "I can't believe so and so is about to get player X that cheaply" And more than half the time the bidding re-fires. It's just strategy and it does work. I've got no issue with that.

 

Thank you for an honest answer.

 

With Scenario 2, I am OK if someone says that he can't believe someone is gonna go for a low amount, but I think it's another thing when the Commish of all people explicitly tells people to increase the bid. Just me though. I don't like it, but I don't think it's necessarily playing dirty. Just not a kosher method.

[ralphster 274]

Usually we see 3-5 posts a season about some shady mish pulling shady sh*t. You've got 3 of those posts on your own lone star. Edit: like 5 or 6 now?

 

I'll echo others' suggestions and advise you join new leagues with bylaws that prevent such shenanigans. Thats a much better option than posting here to what ultimately will have no effect on your current leagues.

 

As to the situations above: A calls for the good ole go to house/punch face in front of wife & kids. Angry texts to your brother over trade rights in a ff league are out of line. B calls for little more than on the record shaming; its bush league bs but not illegal.

[jaxjag 43]

 

On this forum, I think I've only posted about issues 3 times total.

 

You have 3 threads on the front page at this very moment. Maybe you're the common denominator in all these "issues"?

[Ray_T 591]

never mind whether the commish should be allowed, even if he wasnt the commish, this sounds fishy. In general I have found that most of the stupidest stuff in draft leagues happens when there are multiple members of a family in the same league. I'd just find myself another league. you dont need the headache of playing with someone like that.

[the lone star 3]

 

You have 3 threads on the front page at this very moment. Maybe you're the common denominator in all these "issues"?

 

I posted more after your initial comment.

 

And that's a valid point, but the commish is involved in all as well. So maybe he's the common denominator.

[Strike 3,979]

never mind whether the commish should be allowed, even if he wasnt the commish, this sounds fishy. In general I have found that most of the stupidest stuff in draft leagues happens when there are multiple members of a family in the same league. I'd just find myself another league. you dont need the headache of playing with someone like that.

In my main league we have three brothers and their cousin. Have no issues. They're Greek. They want to beat the snot out of each other in FF for bragging rights. Collusion is the last thing that would ever happen.

[the lone star 3]

In my main league we have three brothers and their cousin. Have no issues. They're Greek. They want to beat the snot out of each other in FF for bragging rights. Collusion is the last thing that would ever happen.

 

Yeah, I've seen it work out well, but I've also seen it play out terribly.

I guess this league was the latter. :-/