Can't find the old Commissioner Court thing (1 Viewer)

[Big Papi]

I'm the commissioner in my league and there was just a trade that has sparked a bit on controversy, so I thought I'd come here and get some advice.

Here's the situation:

> Owner 1 proposes giving Chad Johnson to Owner 2 in return for Reggie Bush last Wednesday

> Owner 1 proceeds to trade Plaxico Burress, Lamont Jordan, and Rian Lindell for Travis Henry, LenDale White, and Reggie Williams

> Owner 2 accepts the Reggie Bush for Chad Johnson offer this morning, as soon as CBS would allow it

> Owner 1 emails me saying that he though he had pulled back that offer after accepting the trade where he got rid of Plaxico.

I fully believe that Owner 1 meant to pull back the trade offer, but technically any offer that is put through the league website is an official offer. Do I go letter of the law here and uphold the trade, or do I show some compassion and overturn it? Owner 2 says he would accept whatever decision I make - he's a big Chad Johnson fan and says the only reason he waited until this week to accept it was because he only had 2 active RBs for this past week.

Just to add to the mess, Owner 1 is the commissioner of a baseball leaguer where Owner 2 inadvertently accepted a trade he meant to decline. Owner 1 was good enough to undo that trade in the baseball league.

League details:

Start 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D/ST

Owner 1's RBs before trade: Kevin Jones, Travis Henry, LenDale White, Dominic Rhodes, Correll Buckhalter

Owner 1's WRs before trade: Chad Johnson, Braylon Edwards, Keyshawn Johnson, Reggie Williams, Lee Evans

Owner 2's RBs before trade: Ronnie Brown, Willis McGahee, Reggie Bush, Michael Turner, Ladell Betts

Owner 2's WRs before trade: Larry Fitzgerald, Marques Colston, Randy Moss, Terry Glenn, Chris Henry

 

[Yitbos69]

Deal offered deal accepted.....Done Deal

 

[glumpy]

The trade is a done deal, per the league rules

Just to add to the mess, Owner 1 is the commissioner of a baseball leaguer where Owner 2 inadvertently accepted a trade he meant to decline. Owner 1 was good enough to undo that trade in the baseball league.

This is technically irrelevant, though it does add a twist to things. Given those circumstances, I would suggest as commish that though you can't do anything about reversing the trade within the parameters of your rules--Owner 1 could prevail on the good graces of Owner 2 explaining the situation and requesting a cancellation of the trade. I am assuming that you have not performed reversals for this league in the past. It's always easier to stand on ceremony if you follow it religiously.

 

[Big Papi]

The trade is a done deal, per the league rules

Just to add to the mess, Owner 1 is the commissioner of a baseball leaguer where Owner 2 inadvertently accepted a trade he meant to decline. Owner 1 was good enough to undo that trade in the baseball league.

This is technically irrelevant, though it does add a twist to things. Given those circumstances, I would suggest as commish that though you can't do anything about reversing the trade within the parameters of your rules--Owner 1 could prevail on the good graces of Owner 2 explaining the situation and requesting a cancellation of the trade. I am assuming that you have not performed reversals for this league in the past. It's always easier to stand on ceremony if you follow it religiously.

Just to add a bit more information that I intentionally left out the first time...I am Owner 2. This would be the first time there was a trade reversal in this league and creating this loophole is one of my biggest concerns.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Deal offered deal accepted.....Done Deal

Yep. Managers are responsible for knowing what offers they have up and what offers they have withdrawn. This could easily get into a murky situation when next time, an owners screws around on purpose to gain some kind of competetive edge, and then just says "Hey - I meant to withdraw that."Have to be consistent, have to make owners responsible for their teams.

 

[Big Papi]

Thanks for the replies and votes so far. I'm hearing a lot from the 'don't overturn it' camp. Any comments from the other side?

 

[audiophile]

It's funny how the replies are all in the "no" camp, but the "yes" voters are leading the poll..........I am a commish and I am in the "yes" camp.

The key here is that the evidence supports owner #1's claims and the fact that both sides of the disputed trade are fine with it being nullified speaks volumes, IMO.

I would nullify the trade and use the incident to say that trade reversals are extremely rare and then reinforce the fact that all owners need to be diligent about monitoring their pending transactions so that the league is not in this position in the future.

Hope this helps. - Brad

 

[glumpy]

The trade is a done deal, per the league rules

Just to add to the mess, Owner 1 is the commissioner of a baseball leaguer where Owner 2 inadvertently accepted a trade he meant to decline. Owner 1 was good enough to undo that trade in the baseball league.

This is technically irrelevant, though it does add a twist to things. Given those circumstances, I would suggest as commish that though you can't do anything about reversing the trade within the parameters of your rules--Owner 1 could prevail on the good graces of Owner 2 explaining the situation and requesting a cancellation of the trade. I am assuming that you have not performed reversals for this league in the past. It's always easier to stand on ceremony if you follow it religiously.

Just to add a bit more information that I intentionally left out the first time...I am Owner 2. This would be the first time there was a trade reversal in this league and creating this loophole is one of my biggest concerns.

Then I think your next move is pretty clear. Not even counting that you "owe him a favor" as an owner--as a commish you have to be above reproach. Even though you are technically correct by following the rules to the letter, as they are posted, obviously by posing your question here you feel like there may be justification for an exception. It looks like you're in a lose/lose situation--but I think the politics of your position suggest that you reverse the trade. If you can to it as "owner" and not commish, then you could simply trade back--but that's assuming that you don't also have anti-collusion rules in place which would prevent that. Otherwise it will have to be understood that you are only breaking your league rules in the utmost effort to keep the commish position beyond reproach, and that it's not a precedent.

 

[Killerclown]

seems he made an honest mistake and when you made a honest mistake he did the right thing. So I vote that the trade should be overturned.

 

[Andrew]

I do not think you should reverse it as commissioner.

I do think you should undo the trade as an owner. (Since it's in the same week, there shouldn't really be any collusion /player renting issues.)

Furthermore, this is a good example of why I think league software should prevent trade offers from lasting indefinitely. In my opinion, they should automatically be cancelled when rosters/lineups lock for that week. (Our trading deadline is actually at 12pm on Sunday, but regardless.)

If you still want to do the offer after that week, redo the offer.

 

[jesseasi]

The owners should agree that the trade was a mistake. In the spirit of the league, if one owner made a mistake on the site - the he should not be screwed by it.

We have had our share of problems with CBS's site in our league as well. The fact that you have to review a trade offer before rejecting it always has our owners scared.

Owner 2 should see that this was a mistake and let the trade be reversed.

Let me tell you - there is nothing worse than winning a TAINTED championship. If owner 2 went on to win - it would be tainted.

 

[Big Papi]

I do not think you should reverse it as commissioner.I do think you should undo the trade as an owner. (Since it's in the same week, there shouldn't really be any collusion /player renting issues.)Furthermore, this is a good example of why I think league software should prevent trade offers from lasting indefinitely. In my opinion, they should automatically be cancelled when rosters/lineups lock for that week. (Our trading deadline is actually at 12pm on Sunday, but regardless.)If you still want to do the offer after that week, redo the offer.

Yeah, I think this is a good idea. Ideally the site would automatically cancel out all trade offers once rosters are frozen each week. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so I have a judgement call to make here.I've been polling people around my office and they're about as evenly split as the votes here.

 

[Pnishthm]

As long as both parties involved in the trade agree to let the trade be overturned, then I say that's fine. If one of the owners has a problem with it, then the trade should stand.

 

[GregR_2]

Do not overturn the trade as commish. If you want to undo the trade, then trade him the players back if your league allows it.Then implement something like these from the pinned thread on things your rules should cover

7) Whether any transactions committed on the website by an owner are final. If you allow owners to "take back" a mistake, you need to detail exactly what the conditions are for them to take it back and what steps they must take as far as league notification.-- This one comes up a lot. "I didn't mean to hit accept." "I dropped the wrong player". Be specific, especially if allowing teams to take mistakes back. I.e. "If you make a mistake, you must (mail the entire league/post on the message board) within 15 minutes of the transaction timestamp on the website for it to be rolled back." Include in your rule that the responsibility is on the owner to verify his transactions before and after submittal. Then your role when a problem arises is made even more simple since it was explicit what they should have already known -- that they had the responsibility to verify it themself.8) Trades offered on the website are considered valid offers until they are revoked or rejected. Owners are responsible for removing offers they have made. Due to the risk of a player asked for in a trade being injured, it is strongly recommended owners conduct negotiations outside the website and only use the website to consumate trades that are agreed to.-- This is the old, Player X for Steve Smith offer, which lingers for a week and then is only accepted because Steve Smith broke his leg. Put the burden on the owner to be responsible for trades he leaves out there, and put in writing the suggestion that the website only be used to execute trades, not to make initial offers. You could include requiring a valid email for owners so trade negotiations can take place outside the site.

 

[PatronSaintOfMediocraty]

Since both sides are ok with the deal being reversed, I would reverse it. It doesn't necessarily have to become a slippery slope in the league, but be clear with the owners why it was done on an exception basis.

 

[toppshelff]

...love the idea of a Commissioner Court. We could keep all of these "Should it be Vetoed" questions in one thread. Probably belongs in Assistant Manager. Would be great to have a committed team of Commishes to monitor the thread every day or two to weigh in. Perhaps a Football Guys membership for those volunteers.

 

[Big Papi]

Shameless self bump to get input from the evening crowd