Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
  • 0
the lone star

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal? (Dynasty League)

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?  

38 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Question

In my dynasty fantasy football league, someone made a trade for Julio Jones in 2015 (Yeah, I know, long time ago, but just humor me here, please).

Here's how the deal looked back then.

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))

Scoring settings were PPR, with TE premium (1.5 per catch). 16 teams in the league, 16 players start. QBs get 4 points for TDs, -1 for interceptions, 2 for 2pt conversions, and 1 point for 25 yards passing. 

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.

Furthermore, 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 about this, and nothing was offered to cement such a statement. Team B still offered a deal to Team A after he won, which was rejected by Team A.

Additionally, 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. 

Regardless, 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 a first round pick into the deal. Team B's initial offers were rejected by Team A, until Team finally offered the deal above. That is, the deal posted above actually involved negotiating and bargaining.

There was no agreement between Team A and Team B that if Team B won, then he'd split his earnings with Team A. In other words, there was no collusion. 

Again, Team A offered Team B the deal, and Team B accepted. 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 sure wouldn't go through.

Finally, the league does not vote on trades. The commissioner has never nixed a deal before (if he has, then it's not well known at all). 

Since Team A was leaving, the commissioner was concerned with recruiting a new owner. He thought that a team with Julio would be more attractive to a new owner than a team with Hurns, Wentz, and Neal.

With all of this in mind, was it correct for the commissioner to nix the deal that Team B made for Julio Jones? Why or Why not?

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 1

What the hell kind of leagues are you in dude, JFC.  This answer is as obvious as the last one, I can't believe you're still posting this drivel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

Lone star...  you could have typed a single letter "a"... and I would have thought that too much to read from your constant stream of drivel.

Cut the crap.   Stop posting and just ####.  For the benefit of everyone here, OK?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What I really want to know is what team f thru k said at the time. Wtf @the lone star? 11 posts and the 2 I’ve read is complaining about commish decisions, with polls? One from 2015? Yes- it was a stupid deal, and if one team announces they are leaving and starts making trades when they are out of playoff contention, and one is the commishs brother, and I really can’t keep track of who said what when in that story but it all sounds fishy to me. “I’m leaving, but before I do I’ll trade you julio if you beat me” sounds like collusion whether money is exchanged or not. Now, why don’t you go argue with us over whether guice will be good because he likes to play fortnite. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

What I really want to know is what team f thru k said at the time. Wtf @the lone star? 11 posts and the 2 I’ve read is complaining about commish decisions, with polls? One from 2015? Yes- it was a stupid deal, and if one team announces they are leaving and starts making trades when they are out of playoff contention, and one is the commishs brother, and I really can’t keep track of who said what when in that story but it all sounds fishy to me. “I’m leaving, but before I do I’ll trade you julio if you beat me” sounds like collusion whether money is exchanged or not. Now, why don’t you go argue with us over whether guice will be good because he likes to play fortnite. 

lol, will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
54 minutes ago, the lone star said:

lol, thanks fellas. I could have asked this in a much shorter way, but thought I'd give all facts. Next time I'll just be brief though.

I’d suggest being super brief. Maybe not even bother posting it?

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here’s what happened...

*stuff happened*

However...

*more stuff happened*

Furthermore...

*more stuff happened*

Additionally...

*more stuff happened*

Regardless...

*more stuff happened*

Again...

*more stuff happened*

Finally...

*more stuff happened*

So, with all of this cluttering your mind, what to you guys think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
36 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

Here’s what happened...

*stuff happened*

However...

*more stuff happened*

Furthermore...

*more stuff happened*

Additionally...

*more stuff happened*

Regardless...

*more stuff happened*

Again...

*more stuff happened*

Finally...

*more stuff happened*

So, with all of this cluttering your mind, what to you guys think?

Was trying to be as fair, objective, and neutral as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, the lone star said:

Was trying to be as fair, objective, and neutral as possible.

You failed to document weather conditions and astrological signs of the parties involved.  It’s that level of detail that would help us address this question.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

TLDR: Commish sent a bad trade and got Gurley, and someone else sent a bad trade and got Julio, and then Commish didn't allow the 2nd trade because he decided it wasn't in the best interest of the league.

 

But no, he shouldn't have nixed it, because a commish should never nix trades unless there's collusion, and Team B didn't collude.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Voted yes.

If a league gives the commissioner the power to reverse a trade, then he should reverse all trades until the league folds or learns that that was a bad decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 3:27 PM, steelers1080 said:

TLDR: Commish sent a bad trade and got Gurley, and someone else sent a bad trade and got Julio, and then Commish didn't allow the 2nd trade because he decided it wasn't in the best interest of the league.

 

But no, he shouldn't have nixed it, because a commish should never nix trades unless there's collusion, and Team B didn't collude.

Pretty much, but I was trying to be as fair, neutral, and objective as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 4:33 PM, brun said:

Voted yes.

If a league gives the commissioner the power to reverse a trade, then he should reverse all trades until the league folds or learns that that was a bad decision.

lol. Are you in favor of league-wide votes on trades then?

Or do you all have a process in place where a seemingly lopsided trade can be objected to and then put to a vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 1:38 PM, Dr. Octopus said:

I’d suggest being super brief. Maybe not even bother posting it?

Well, I could have asked how people feel about a team known to be leaving at the end of the year still having the power to make trades.

 

However, I wanted to get all the facts out there. I'm currently pursuing a profession where laying out all the facts is super important, especially in a fair, neutral, and objective way. Gotta look at it from a lot of different angles. I understand that some people won't be happy about that, but if it's something I'll be doing for quite a while, might as well get some practice at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 2:42 PM, cobalt_27 said:

You failed to document weather conditions and astrological signs of the parties involved.  It’s that level of detail that would help us address this question.

 

I'll try to do that next time for you bro. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 4:33 PM, brun said:

Voted yes.

If a league gives the commissioner the power to reverse a trade, then he should reverse all trades until the league folds or learns that that was a bad decision.

But to be honest, per the rules, I don't think the commish explicitly has that power in this league. I believe the rules state that a trade can be put to a vote.

There's also a section that says the commish is supposed to use the league's best interest when making decisions, but that rule was put in after this trade, and what's worse is that the commish didn't disclose such a rule to everyone in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/3/2018 at 6:57 PM, the lone star said:

But to be honest, per the rules, I don't think the commish explicitly has that power in this league. I believe the rules state that a trade can be put to a vote.

There's also a section that says the commish is supposed to use the league's best interest when making decisions, but that rule was put in after this trade, and what's worse is that the commish didn't disclose such a rule to everyone in the league.

So, I was joking a little in my post.

IMO unless there's obvious collusion involved, I don't care for others routinely passing judgement on trades. If a smart owner takes advantage of a not-so-smart owner. That's just life. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to manage my own teams. Why would I think I could manage others' as well?

Re: the bolded part of your post
I don't believe a rule is actually a rule unless it's been communicated to the league. Until then it's just a way for the commish to screw over the league if things don't go his way.

This is really the main reason, despite a <100% payout,  I prefer playing in established contests like the FFPC or the MFL10s. I know what I need to know before I sign up. Of course, if a contest goes belly up before I get paid I won't feel good about that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

What the hell kind of leagues are you in dude, JFC.  This answer is as obvious as the last one, I can't believe you're still posting this drivel.

This one is a little tougher for me tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It appears that you are asking if Julio Jones is fair game for a trade  I'd send a fair offer considering Team C may be willing to overpay  Make sure you wind up w a good TE in the deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Dismattle said:

It appears that you are asking if Julio Jones is fair game for a trade  I'd send a fair offer considering Team C may be willing to overpay  Make sure you wind up w a good TE in the deal

It's actually a little more complicated than that tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, the lone star said:

It's actually a little more complicated than that tbh.

Not really   The "comish" accepted a bonehead trade which is kind of the thing that can happen now and again  It actually could have been in somewhat good faith  However, it sounds like he'll be damned to see it happen again  (FWIW)   I believe quite a few here are players in Leagues where the comish isn't allowed to veto trades etc.  It sorta makes sense  I mean if ya slide me a few bucks it may help to get some trades done  Bottom line you lived and learned which means ya know what your up against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Dismattle said:

Not really   The "comish" accepted a bonehead trade which is kind of the thing that can happen now and again  It actually could have been in somewhat good faith  However, it sounds like he'll be damned to see it happen again  (FWIW)   I believe quite a few here are players in Leagues where the comish isn't allowed to veto trades etc.  It sorta makes sense  I mean if ya slide me a few bucks it may help to get some trades done  Bottom line you lived and learned which means ya know what your up against

I'm lost. 

Should the deal have been nixed, or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

1) The Comish is right not every guy fancys the idea of adopting a team in Full rebuild mode  Although honestly even with a name like Julio Jones it may be viewed as such  Everyone places a different value on some players  2) It appears the Comish may have received word of selling off key players to the guys friends for spite if nothing else  I find it interesting that you appear to base your reasoning on the Comish having made a previous trade for one of the Teams players  Because that in fact may have been the trade that made the Comish feel the guy is kinda challenged and/or overzealous on some players  (Lets call it Rookie fever)  It's one thing to be told something is foolish and it's another to learn it first hand

The bottom line is that the League allows the Comish to overturn trades for better or worse  For all we know the guy is leaving before he is kicked out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Dismattle said:

1) The Comish is right not every guy fancys the idea of adopting a team in Full rebuild mode  Although honestly even with a name like Julio Jones it may be viewed as such  Everyone places a different value on some players  2) It appears the Comish may have received word of selling off key players to the guys friends for spite if nothing else  I find it interesting that you appear to base your reasoning on the Comish having made a previous trade for one of the Teams players  Because that in fact may have been the trade that made the Comish feel the guy is kinda challenged and/or overzealous on some players  (Lets call it Rookie fever)  It's one thing to be told something is foolish and it's another to learn it first hand

The bottom line is that the League allows the Comish to overturn trades for better or worse  For all we know the guy is leaving before he is kicked out

I'll have to check the rulebook to see if the commish can veto or not. I don't think there is a provision for that, but maybe there is. Not sure tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/6/2018 at 11:43 AM, Dismattle said:

Yeah, I may not be following the OP very well to say the least

Feel free to vote in the poll though to clarify your position.

Edited by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'll go with the minority and say YES.  As soon as a team announces their intent to leave a dynasty league, all trading involving that team should cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 4:27 PM, ConnSKINS26 said:

:lmao:

Seriously? 2015?

He likely started typing out the post as soon as the trade went through and just finished now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/6/2018 at 4:14 PM, BassNBrew said:

I'll go with the minority and say YES.  As soon as a team announces their intent to leave a dynasty league, all trading involving that team should cease.

It does create an interesting situation where he may have said it to some teams, but not all. Also, he could change his mind and come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, the lone star said:

The vote is not as close in this poll than it is in the other poll. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/766312-tldr-should-a-leaving-owner-still-be-allowed-to-make-trades-in-dynastyff/

What are the main differences?

Start with a word count in the original post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, cobalt_27 said:

Start with a word count in the original post.  

 

1 hour ago, the lone star said:

lol, IKR.

This raises a philosophical question...is lone star's post here scored as two words or six?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 4/30/2018 at 11:23 PM, the lone star said:

In my dynasty fantasy football league, someone made a trade for Julio Jones in 2015 (Yeah, I know, long time ago, but just humor me here, please).

Here's how the deal looked back then.

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))

Scoring settings were PPR, with TE premium (1.5 per catch). 16 teams in the league, 16 players start. QBs get 4 points for TDs, -1 for interceptions, 2 for 2pt conversions, and 1 point for 25 yards passing. 

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). 

Furthermore, 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 about this, and nothing was offered to cement such a statement. Team B still offered a deal to Team A after he won, which was rejected by Team A.

Additionally, 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. 

Regardless, 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 a first round pick into the deal. Team B's initial offers were rejected by Team A, until Team finally offered the deal above. That is, the deal posted above actually involved negotiating and bargaining.

There was no agreement between Team A and Team B that if Team B won, then he'd split his earnings with Team A. In other words, there was no collusion. 

Again, Team A offered Team B the deal, and Team B accepted. 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 sure wouldn't go through.

Finally, the league does not vote on trades. The commissioner has never nixed a deal before (if he has, then it's not well known at all). 

Since Team A was leaving, the commissioner was concerned with recruiting a new owner. He thought that a team with Julio would be more attractive to a new owner than a team with Hurns, Wentz, and Neal.

With all of this in mind, was it correct for the commissioner to nix the deal that Team B made for Julio Jones? Why or Why not?

You were the team getting Julio, weren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 1:31 PM, the lone star said:

lol, thanks fellas. I could have asked this in a much shorter way, but thought I'd give all facts. Next time I'll just be brief though.

Collusion. It should have been nixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 4/30/2018 at 11:23 PM, the lone star said:

Additionally, 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.

This make sit collusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Flash1 said:

This make sit collusion

Define collusion.

Because what if other teams agree to jack up the auction price on a RFA to put another team in a tough spot. What if all teams agree not to trade with a certain owner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.