What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I think this one takes the cake (My trade vetoed by lame commish) (1 Viewer)

packer_junkie

packer_junkie

Footballguy
10 team $100 buy-in league. I know commish really well. Only know probably 3 or 4 of the other 9 guys in the league. This is my 4th year but its been around probably a decade.

Tiered keeper system where basically you can keep guys for the round you picked them + all free agents are last round picks but the keepers reset every 4 years.

So I was able to keep OBJ the last four years for a 16th round pick-- its helped me win the league obviously. Other guys like David Johnson were in the same boat.

Anyways-- the rules have been this way since I joined the league-- EVERYONE should have known that after this year- keeper reset (its a fresh draft next year)

Back to topic at hand:

I have Brady & Deshaun watson-- so I start flinging out offers last week for WRs to replace Odell using them as my bait.

I offered Brady straight up for all the top tier wrs from AB all the way to Jordy/Michael Thomas types.

I get a counter offer tuesday night around midnight of Brady + OBJ for Antonio Brown. I instantly accept.

Last night about 6 pm I get a text from the commish (my buddy) who says "Owner you traded with thought he could keep OBJ therefor I am vetoing the trade at his request"

Im not a very confrontational person so I simply replied "Thats a complete joke-- all owners know the rules... or they should- thats not my problem"

Anyways, Im a nuts to think this moronic owner who probably drafted 1/2 his players and made free agent moves thinking that guys can be kept shouldn't be forced to continue on with the trade he proposed?? 

Id love thoughts-- suggestions-- ideas!!

And yes-- I will more than likely not playing in this league next year w/ lame owners who don't even know the rules. 

 
Keep in mind-- it was declared sunday evening he's done for the season- his proposal was some 36 hours after the fact that he got hurt. 

 
Nope. No problem.

Like virtually every single thread about trades there is nothing to see here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I understand the "tough luck, know the rules" stance, and it's not unreasonable I suppose, personally I wouldn't feel very good about forcing a trade to be upheld if I knew the other owner would never have agreed to it if there wasn't a misunderstanding.

 
He should've known the rules but that applies to you as well.  Obviously when he countered with Odell and Brady you had to have known he was under the impression he could keep Beckham otherwise what would be the point of his offer.  Yes you shouldn't have to babysit the other owners but if something is too good to be true...

 
Yeah, I don't mind reversing the trade at all.  I agree with you that all the owners should know the rules and it is not on you to babysit the other owners.  However, this was quickly found out and you obviously knew what you were doing when trying to trade a player that is worthless hoping to entice them into this deal you completed (then vetoed).

 
I guess maybe I was wrong & it should be vetoed-- Im a believer that no trade should ever be vetoed unless collision is involved.

One note: I didnt offer or dangle OBJ at all-- the trade was proposed to me.

My main thought after receiving word that it would be vetoed is that this league manager drafted a full team, made multiple free agent moves and a previous trade all under this assumption so what makes his 31st move fixable when his first 30 aren't?

I guess Ill just lose AB-- maybe you guys are right.

 
packer_junkie said:
I guess maybe I was wrong & it should be vetoed-- Im a believer that no trade should ever be vetoed unless collision is involved.
Click to expand...
Well this wasn't really vetoed - the commissioner overturned it because the other side made a mistake (sort of if he had accidently hit "accept" instead of "reject") . Sure you could play hardball and stand firm on "he should have known the rules" but do you really want to win like that? It's obvious if he rejected Brady for Brown and countered with adding OBJ that he thought he could keep OBJ. I think the commish is doing the right thing here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the commissioner God or something? 

Trade got offered to you and it's not collusion. 

It ought to be set up to where at least it's a vote if there are trade vetoes. 

 
So let's look at it from this perspective:

If the owner knew he couldn't keep OBJ, why would he trade for him? So really it's AB for Brady, which is not necessarily fair. If it was to keep OBJ, then this trade is more lopsided against you. 

While I agree, it's not up to the commish or even you to make sure everyone knows the rules. If you don't know them and you make a decision for your roster based on not knowing the rules, tough luck. My league is very similar but you add +1 to the draft position to keep the player. Also can only keep a player 2 times (3 seasons total). A guy thought he could keep Hopkins one more year and couldn't. Long story short, commish said too bad so sad. I had offered him a trade earlier in the year and he declined it saying Hopkins was a keeper... I knew he couldn't keep him... he apparently didn't. 

In this case, I can see how the OP is upset... it's not his fault. I can see how the commish was in a bad position, and really no matter what you irritate someone here- either the guy traded AB away and can't keep OBJ- he gets mad and doesn't come back. Or he vetoes and makes the OP mad and the OP doesn't want to go back the next year. I'd say preserving the integrity of the league and keeping league owners wanting to come back, he made the right call... unfortunately. The OP is more likely to get over this and go back next year than the guy thinking he could keep OBJ and can't. 

It's not collusion. It's an honest mistake. @Dr. Octopus has it dead right above- if he rejected Brady for AB but then added OBJ- it's obvious he thought he could keep OBJ

 
FF is supposed to be fun.  It is not life and death.  I don't think it is ever right to improve your fake football team by capitalizing on someone else's confusion.  When you got that counter including OBJ you should have corrected him.  It is good it got reversed.  Even if you won the season I don't believe you would have felt good about it.

 
I think it comes down to whether or not you believe the other owner made a mistake by not understanding the rules.  If you believe this is the case then let it go.  The mistake got recognized quickly and reversed.  I don't see a problem with this and would do the same as commissioner.

 
I always open these threads thinking (hoping?) that this is the one that will finally be so incredibly lopsided that the entire SP will be outraged and rally to the defense of the OP.

Maybe next time.

 
This takes no cake. Honest mistake, should have been reversed, I also don't think less of you for accepting, you don't manage other teams or have to try to read their minds. 

If a game would have been played before the other owner noticed then tough. 

 
You offered Brady for AB and he rejected. Then he countered Brady & ODB (who you know could not be kept) for AB and you instantly accepted. Do you not think this was a ##### move on your part? Seriously read that back again slowly multiple times.

 
msudaisy26 said:
This takes no cake. Honest mistake, should have been reversed, I also don't think less of you for accepting, you don't manage other teams or have to try to read their minds. 

If a game would have been played before the other owner noticed then tough. 
Click to expand...
I do considering the same owner rejected Brady for AB.

Have some integrity people.

 
Maybe you guys are right-- Im glad I came here because obviously-- I see it only from my perspective (someone who would never make that mistake)

 
shadyridr said:
You offered Brady for AB and he rejected. Then he countered Brady & ODB (who you know could not be kept) for AB and you instantly accepted. Do you not think this was a ##### move on your part? Seriously read that back again slowly multiple times.
Click to expand...
Yea I accepted. Ive been in the league 4 years. Most of these guys 10+... Its not my fault Owner doesnt know the rules. They're pretty damn clear. 

Do you stop a live draft when a guy drafts a second qb in the 3rd round thinking he can start 2? Or flex 1? Let him re-pick? 

Give me a break.

 
shadyridr said:
I do considering the same owner rejected Brady for AB.

Have some integrity people.
Click to expand...
Disagree, it is not his business to hold the other teams hand, it also isn't his job to give away his hand. So next time he gets a lopsided trade in his favor he should decline it and say "This is unfair, make me an offer where you get more." No, that isn't his job.

 
ThreeThousand said:
I love it when these threads don't go the way the originator intended.
Click to expand...
I love how its going-- glad i got insight from both sides. More so siding with the commissioner. 

Proves that me blowing up would have been a bad idea-- which I didnt do. 

Also proves how big of a joke the league is when a league member has no clue the rules of the league. 

 
msudaisy26 said:
Disagree, it is not his business to hold the other teams hand, it also isn't his job to give away his hand. So next time he gets a lopsided trade in his favor he should decline it and say "This is unfair, make me an offer where you get more." No, that isn't his job.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

 
I agree with you OP.

In both of my leagues it would be on the owner to know the rules.

If this is the other owners' first season, as commish I would probably consider it/put it to a vote.

If it's not his first season, that's on him. 100%.

 
packer_junkie said:
10 team $100 buy-in league. I know commish really well. Only know probably 3 or 4 of the other 9 guys in the league. This is my 4th year but its been around probably a decade.

Tiered keeper system where basically you can keep guys for the round you picked them + all free agents are last round picks but the keepers reset every 4 years.

So I was able to keep OBJ the last four years for a 16th round pick-- its helped me win the league obviously. Other guys like David Johnson were in the same boat.

Anyways-- the rules have been this way since I joined the league-- EVERYONE should have known that after this year- keeper reset (its a fresh draft next year)

Back to topic at hand:

I have Brady & Deshaun watson-- so I start flinging out offers last week for WRs to replace Odell using them as my bait.

I offered Brady straight up for all the top tier wrs from AB all the way to Jordy/Michael Thomas types.

I get a counter offer tuesday night around midnight of Brady + OBJ for Antonio Brown. I instantly accept.

Last night about 6 pm I get a text from the commish (my buddy) who says "Owner you traded with thought he could keep OBJ therefor I am vetoing the trade at his request"

Im not a very confrontational person so I simply replied "Thats a complete joke-- all owners know the rules... or they should- thats not my problem"

Anyways, Im a nuts to think this moronic owner who probably drafted 1/2 his players and made free agent moves thinking that guys can be kept shouldn't be forced to continue on with the trade he proposed?? 

Id love thoughts-- suggestions-- ideas!!

And yes-- I will more than likely not playing in this league next year w/ lame owners who don't even know the rules. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your main point: owners should know the league rules. But the reality is that maybe the other owner is in a lot of leagues with very different rules. Or maybe they have a very busy life and weren't paying as close attention as they should. Regardless, had they understood the rule they clearly wouldn't have offered the trade. This looks more like you are trying to take advantage of their ignorance. I think that is more egregious than the other owner not knowing the rules.  

And quitting the league because this issue makes you look even worse. But you do you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
packer_junkie said:
Yea I accepted. Ive been in the league 4 years. Most of these guys 10+... Its not my fault Owner doesnt know the rules. They're pretty damn clear. 

Do you stop a live draft when a guy drafts a second qb in the 3rd round thinking he can start 2? Or flex 1? Let him re-pick? 

Give me a break.
Click to expand...
I feel you buddy. I play in one league that has limited transactions. Couple years ago a guy used his all up and the commissioner changed it to allow more. I was like don't you think I wouldn't have maybe drafted 2 kickers if I knew I had more transactions?

 
packer_junkie said:
I love how its going-- glad i got insight from both sides. More so siding with the commissioner. 

Proves that me blowing up would have been a bad idea-- which I didnt do. 

Also proves how big of a joke the league is when a league member has no clue the rules of the league. 
Click to expand...
You are reaching here.

 
packer_junkie said:
Also proves how big of a joke the league is when a league member has no clue the rules of the league. 
Click to expand...
Quit the league then if its such a huge deal, the dude forgot and you weren't able to take advantage of that. Not sure what's the bigger joke here....

 
packer_junkie said:
I love how its going-- glad i got insight from both sides. More so siding with the commissioner. 

Proves that me blowing up would have been a bad idea-- which I didnt do. 

Also proves how big of a joke the league is when a league member has no clue the rules of the league. 
Click to expand...
No clue about the rules is probably too harsh.  More likely, just forgot that next year is a reset year.  Seems like it'd be an easy thing to lose track of, especially for an owner that's less than hardcore.

Just guessing though.

 
Unless there is suspected collusion then I think a trade is a trade is a trade. Everybody has access to the rules. I would be pissed that it was reversed . Why have rules in place if Comish can just change or veto because of lack of knowledge or care of certain teams. I would finish this year and bow out due to this specific instance . If this happens what else will ? Trade was offered you accepted. Done deal. BS that it was changed. Whether right or wrong it is not your job or commissioner job to officiate idiot owners. Yea most post seems to think opposite but it kills me all the time and effort some people put into Fantasy while other do nothing , understand nothing and expect to have mistakes corrected after the fact. why not let anybody who makes a mistake have it fixed after the fact... hey I dropped player x , but next realized I shouldn't of now I find out so and so is hurt so I shouldn't of dropped him yet it was known by everybody else in the world . I want player x back.  

 
packer_junkie said:
10 team $100 buy-in league. I know commish really well. Only know probably 3 or 4 of the other 9 guys in the league. This is my 4th year but its been around probably a decade.

Tiered keeper system where basically you can keep guys for the round you picked them + all free agents are last round picks but the keepers reset every 4 years.

So I was able to keep OBJ the last four years for a 16th round pick-- its helped me win the league obviously. Other guys like David Johnson were in the same boat.

Anyways-- the rules have been this way since I joined the league-- EVERYONE should have known that after this year- keeper reset (its a fresh draft next year)

Back to topic at hand:

I have Brady & Deshaun watson-- so I start flinging out offers last week for WRs to replace Odell using them as my bait.

I offered Brady straight up for all the top tier wrs from AB all the way to Jordy/Michael Thomas types.

I get a counter offer tuesday night around midnight of Brady + OBJ for Antonio Brown. I instantly accept.

Last night about 6 pm I get a text from the commish (my buddy) who says "Owner you traded with thought he could keep OBJ therefor I am vetoing the trade at his request"

Im not a very confrontational person so I simply replied "Thats a complete joke-- all owners know the rules... or they should- thats not my problem"

Anyways, Im a nuts to think this moronic owner who probably drafted 1/2 his players and made free agent moves thinking that guys can be kept shouldn't be forced to continue on with the trade he proposed?? 

Id love thoughts-- suggestions-- ideas!!

And yes-- I will more than likely not playing in this league next year w/ lame owners who don't even know the rules. 
Click to expand...
1. I don't know why you included OBJ in the deal knowing he had a serious injury. A 1:1 trade wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, so that seems to have increased risk of scrutiny & chances of people sayin it's weird. It just looks weird. Not saying anything wrong with it - but optics matter. 

2. The weirdest part of all of this is the "reset year". That's the lamest keeper format I've ever heard of. Basically a training wheels league that rewards the worst teams with a 4-year do-over while punishing good teams. 

3. Commish was wrong to veto the trade - everyone in the league should know the rules of the league, especially with such a significant rule as a "4 year do-over". That's a ridiculous reason to overturn the deal. On the surface it's fair. Elite QB for elite WR. I see none reason to veto it because OBJ was included. Again, not sure why you'd include OBJ since you also knew he couldn't be kept. So I have to question your motive for including him. Did you know that your trade partner thought he could keep him? Seems so. Otherwise why would you have included OBJ in the deal? 

So maybe some questionable ethics on your part if you knowingly took advantage of your trade partner's ignorance, but the deal was still fair and should not have been overturned. And even if it weren't fair, it wasn't collusion and it's up to your trade partner to know who he can or can't keep when making a deal. 

 
The only time trades should be reviewed/reversed is if there is collusion.  Otherwise I stay out of it.  It's on the owner to know/research the rules BEFORE making a trade.  I'd also have no problem as a comissioner if both parties came back and said, please reverse/modify the trade because Owner B didn't realize he couldn't keep OBJ. 

 
shadyridr said:
You offered Brady for AB and he rejected. Then he countered Brady & ODB (who you know could not be kept) for AB and you instantly accepted. Do you not think this was a ##### move on your part? Seriously read that back again slowly multiple times.
Click to expand...
Ah - yeah, I missed that. I also questioned why OBJ was in there. Didn't realize it was based on a counter. That makes it a bad faith offer IMO because OP clearly knew his trade partner though he could keep OBJ. 

But it's still a fair deal and the commish shouldn't have overturned. 

Both things are equally true. 

 
Some of you are being hard on the OP. After a few responses he quickly admitted that was grateful for the responses and said he was only seeing this from his perspective. OP seems like a decent person who was trying to improve his team within the confines of league rules. I see nothing wrong with what OP did. 

From experience, it's a dangerous precedent to begin making exceptions to rules. The rule book is there for a reason and everyone has access to them. No individual should get an exception because they forgot or didn't understand a rule. All my opinion of course. Where do the exceptions end? That's why the rules exist... so everyone can manage their teams from the same baseline. If you make a poor management decision because you failed to understand or remember a rule, that is on you. 

 
What's the point in trading if you can't "pull one over" on a fellow league-mate?

and you would have gotten away with it too  ... if it weren't for that meddling commish.

 
What kind of cake was it?

Interesting ethical question though.  You clearly knew it wasn’t a fair trade, and the other owner clearly made a mistake by his own admittance. So it isn’t collusive.

As a commish I think I’d go to you first and explain the other owner’s position to see if you would agree to retract the trade.  If not I think I’d have to let it stand.  Sure it wasn’t fair, but it also wasn’t collusion.  I can’t overturn that.  It doesn’t work that way no matter how objectionable.

Then if you chose to let it stand, I’d post an explanation to the league of the whole situation and sit back and let you take all the **** you earned from the rest of the league.  Have fun enjoying your end of the deal then.

 
Rhythmdoctor said:
Some of you are being hard on the OP. After a few responses he quickly admitted that was grateful for the responses and said he was only seeing this from his perspective. OP seems like a decent person who was trying to improve his team within the confines of league rules. I see nothing wrong with what OP did. 

From experience, it's a dangerous precedent to begin making exceptions to rules. The rule book is there for a reason and everyone has access to them. No individual should get an exception because they forgot or didn't understand a rule. All my opinion of course. Where do the exceptions end? That's why the rules exist... so everyone can manage their teams from the same baseline. If you make a poor management decision because you failed to understand or remember a rule, that is on you. 
Click to expand...
I can definitely see this. One could say, "I thought I could rotate someone off my bench to my starting line up after the games were played." Ridiculous, but still. 

Bronco Billy said:
As a commish I think I’d go to you first and explain the other owner’s position to see if you would agree to retract the trade.  If not I think I’d have to let it stand.  
Click to expand...
This is probably the best way to handle this

 
I feel like situations like this are precisely why leagues need a commish.

The grey areas. This was an obvious case of an owner making an ill informed decision, and the commish decided to step in. I don't think its unfair for the commish to do so.

I would not have considered it egregious for the commish to let it stand either, but I think it probably serves your league better overall for someone to step in when another owner has been taken advantage of due to some confusion about rules. Not that its not that owners responsibility to know, but in the future they will, and they will likely stay in the league. Which is better, in most cases.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
1. I don't know why you included OBJ in the deal knowing he had a serious injury. A 1:1 trade wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, so that seems to have increased risk of scrutiny & chances of people sayin it's weird. It just looks weird. Not saying anything wrong with it - but optics matter. 

2. The weirdest part of all of this is the "reset year". That's the lamest keeper format I've ever heard of. Basically a training wheels league that rewards the worst teams with a 4-year do-over while punishing good teams. 

3. Commish was wrong to veto the trade - everyone in the league should know the rules of the league, especially with such a significant rule as a "4 year do-over". That's a ridiculous reason to overturn the deal. On the surface it's fair. Elite QB for elite WR. I see none reason to veto it because OBJ was included. Again, not sure why you'd include OBJ since you also knew he couldn't be kept. So I have to question your motive for including him. Did you know that your trade partner thought he could keep him? Seems so. Otherwise why would you have included OBJ in the deal? 

So maybe some questionable ethics on your part if you knowingly took advantage of your trade partner's ignorance, but the deal was still fair and should not have been overturned. And even if it weren't fair, it wasn't collusion and it's up to your trade partner to know who he can or can't keep when making a deal. 
Click to expand...
I didnt include OBJ.

I offered brady straight up. The other owner countered with Brady & OBJ for brown. I accepted. This the #### storm in here about me not having integrity by accepting it.

I agree about the training wheels league. Im out after this year. 

 
Bronco Billy said:
What kind of cake was it?

Interesting ethical question though.  You clearly knew it wasn’t a fair trade, and the other owner clearly made a mistake by his own admittance. So it isn’t collusive.

As a commish I think I’d go to you first and explain the other owner’s position to see if you would agree to retract the trade.  If not I think I’d have to let it stand.  Sure it wasn’t fair, but it also wasn’t collusion.  I can’t overturn that.  It doesn’t work that way no matter how objectionable.

Then if you chose to let it stand, I’d post an explanation to the league of the whole situation and sit back and let you take all the **** you earned from the rest of the league.  Have fun enjoying your end of the deal then.
Click to expand...
Very very good points. 

Interesting side note: Commish vetoed the trade and a #### storm started in the league message board that I have completely stayed out of. Owners basically saying even have vetoes is dumb (I agree), owners asking why it was vetoed and than telling the commish he's a moron for bailing out a league member for not knowing the rules that have been in place for 12 years, were stated at the draft, and are available via word document sent out before the season & on the yahoo website. 

 
packer_junkie said:
I didnt include OBJ.

I offered brady straight up. The other owner countered with Brady & OBJ for brown. I accepted. This the #### storm in here about me not having integrity by accepting it.
Click to expand...
Right - I posted again. I’d missed that there was a counter. And IMO that makes you look worse. 

The counter should have been a clue to you that the other guy didn’t understand the reset rules. A glaringly obvious one at that.

At which point I (and owners with decent ethical compasses) would have said, “why would you want OBJ? He’s hurt bad!” 

Because that’s an eyebrow raising counter-offer.

So again, both things are true: 

1. By jumping on that, your ethical compass was way off-kilter, and you showed poor judgement in accepting the counter. You had to know it was a bad look, since you’re clearly the one more familiar with the league rules. As Joe B always says, “be better than that”. 

2. It was still a fair deal regardless & shouldn’t have been vetoed - Brady for ABrown shouldn’t have been vetoed by the commish or league-members or however your league does it. I bet if you posted that trade on the AC forum, you’d get a 60-40 split on who got the better deal in a redraft league (which for the purpose of this trade, yor league is) 

so fair deal, terribly executed. lol

leaving the league over the deal is a loser move IMO. The correct approach is to vote out the training wheels rules and eliminate the 4-year reset. That’s the baller move. Taking your ball and going home is a sour grapes move that hurts the league because you’re butt-hurt over the deal getting whacked.

you asked for opinions, there’s mine. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Dan said:
I can definitely see this. One could say, "I thought I could rotate someone off my bench to my starting line up after the games were played." Ridiculous, but still. 
Click to expand...
I can see some one on a message board making ridiculous "slippery slope" arguments as well. :D

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zamboni
Should There Be A League Trade Deadline (Keeper/Dynasty)?
Replies
33
Views
761
Mitchie
M
F
My Commissioner is Cheating
Replies
17
Views
1K
massraider
massraider
fantasycurse42
The bad/lucky team that wins the low scoring games in your league
Replies
39
Views
1K
abrunn1133
abrunn1133

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top