What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Commish Question - T Richardson Trade (1 Viewer)

FF Wiseguy

Footballguy
A trade was accepted in the league I run yesterday.

Team A gives

DeSean Jackson

Brian Hartline

Ahmad Bradshaw

Team B Gives

Arian Foster

Ben Tate

Kenbrell Thompkins

The trade was proposed long before the T-Rich trade was announced, and was accepted after the trade was announced. The owner getting Bradshaw is complaining that the trade was made under the assumption of Bradshaw as starter, and thus should be invalidated.

Here's my question: Do you judge the trade based on the value at time of proposal, or at time of acceptance? I realize it's poor etiquette to accept a trade where a player's value has changed drastically since its original proposal, but to me, it does not invalidate a trade.

For the purposes of this argument, set aside the value of the players involved. I feel the trade is not overly lopside no matter how you value bradshaw.

To me, the trade is judged on value at time of proposal. But I'm open to being told I'm wrong.

 
Yep, just bush league by the other owner.

Trade should stand, and Bradshaw owner has learned a lesson about leaving trade offers out there.

New Arian Foster owner, I would never do a deal with him, on principle, unless it was drastically lopsided in my favor.

 
Personally, if I was Team A, I would've made sure B knew about Bradshaw before accepting. I only play with friends, so I don't have any interest in screwing somebody that way. Against people I don't know, I probably wouldn't worry about it.

For the league, I'd say it's up to B's responsibility to retract that offer. As a commish, I wouldn't veto.

I might ask A to do what I'd call the right thing, but if he wouldn't, I wouldn't make him.

 
He has to mind his own trade values and rescind or deny a trade based on that. That sounds like the wussification of America to me. WAAAHHHHHHH. FIX IT FOR ME MOMMY.

 
Once the TRich trade went down, it was a race against the clock for either the trade proposer to revoke the trade offer or the other owner to hit the accept button. The information came down at the same time for both parties.

 
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?

This happened a few years back, and as LM, I voted to allow the trade, for the reasons you all have stated above. Just wondering if the extreme circumstances change people's views or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?
It's a different example, because most league software doesn't allow in game transactions. All transactions are frozen during games.

You shouldn't be able to accept a trade mid-game.

 
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?
It's a different example, because most league software doesn't allow in game transactions. All transactions are frozen during games.

You shouldn't be able to accept a trade mid-game.
This happened on ESPN, and I believe both ESPN and Yahoo allow you to propose and accept trades once games have started (this was a couple years back, so I don't know if changes have been made since.)

 
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?
It's a different example, because most league software doesn't allow in game transactions. All transactions are frozen during games.

You shouldn't be able to accept a trade mid-game.
This happened on ESPN, and I believe both ESPN and Yahoo allow you to propose and accept trades once games have started (this was a couple years back, so I don't know if changes have been made since.)
I'm not judging the balance/fairness of the trade.

 
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?
It's a different example, because most league software doesn't allow in game transactions. All transactions are frozen during games.

You shouldn't be able to accept a trade mid-game.
This happened on ESPN, and I believe both ESPN and Yahoo allow you to propose and accept trades once games have started (this was a couple years back, so I don't know if changes have been made since.)
I'm not judging the balance/fairness of the trade.
I won't be in leagues where the commish can veto based on his opinion.

 
dont reverse. lesson learned
this.

So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?
It's a different example, because most league software doesn't allow in game transactions. All transactions are frozen during games.

You shouldn't be able to accept a trade mid-game.
This happened on ESPN, and I believe both ESPN and Yahoo allow you to propose and accept trades once games have started (this was a couple years back, so I don't know if changes have been made since.)
I'm not judging the balance/fairness of the trade.
I won't be in leagues where the commish can veto based on his opinion.
and this..

dont veto the trade.

 
A trade was accepted in the league I run yesterday.

Team A gives

DeSean Jackson

Brian Hartline

Ahmad Bradshaw

Team B Gives

Arian Foster

Ben Tate

Kenbrell Thompkins

The trade was proposed long before the T-Rich trade was announced, and was accepted after the trade was announced. The owner getting Bradshaw is complaining that the trade was made under the assumption of Bradshaw as starter, and thus should be invalidated.

Here's my question: Do you judge the trade based on the value at time of proposal, or at time of acceptance? I realize it's poor etiquette to accept a trade where a player's value has changed drastically since its original proposal, but to me, it does not invalidate a trade.

For the purposes of this argument, set aside the value of the players involved. I feel the trade is not overly lopside no matter how you value bradshaw.

To me, the trade is judged on value at time of proposal. But I'm open to being told I'm wrong.
tell him, never assume it makes an ### out of you and me!

trades happen, moves are made,

its like saying a trade happens on saturday and you get forte. and forte goes out and tears up his knee on sunday.. and the reciever of forte wants to veto it..

It still like you said not a bad trade at all.

Desean for Arian

Ahmad for Tate

Hartline for thompkins

seems fair when you look at it like that

 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.

 
So most of you have confirmed my belief that the circumstances don't invalidate the trade, so let me give you one more example.

Team A proposes a trade of Doug Martin for Jamaal Charles, and leaves it up once the games start. During the games, Jamaal Charles gets injured for the season.

Now the same principle applies (don't leave your trades out, proposing owners responsibility). But when you're judging the balance/fairness of the trade, are you judging it as RB1 for RB1, or RB1 for RB on IR?

This happened a few years back, and as LM, I voted to allow the trade, for the reasons you all have stated above. Just wondering if the extreme circumstances change people's views or not.
I dealt with the same thing with Percy this year. Called the former Harvin owner to badger him into reversing the trade (in exchange for a small concession from the trade partner). They couldn't work it out, so the trade stands.
 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?

 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?
I wouldn't want an owner that took advantage of breaking news like that. I personally try to never offer a trade via league systems until it has been agreed upon via private communications and I know it will be accepted & executed immediately upon offer. But not everybody does that and I wouldn't want someone that blatantly screws someone else over based on timing in my leagues.

 
yeah

it is fair but ####ty

i had a trade offer in earlier this year in a dynasty to move Harvin that was going to be accepted and when the news broke of him being out I let the other owner know

that's the way i choose to play and the type of people i choose to play with, withholding actual injury info or trade info to make a trade is shady, beat the guy fair and square

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I commish a pretty competitive work league. One of the few items we have in our charter is the following:

  • Trades offered on the website are considered valid offers until they are revoked or rejected. Owners are responsible for removing offers they have made (think of the possibility of future injuries).That being said…when in doubt, act in good faith.
The disclaimer reminds people not to be a ####, and we've never had an issue.

 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?
I wouldn't want an owner that took advantage of breaking news like that. I personally try to never offer a trade via league systems until it has been agreed upon via private communications and I know it will be accepted & executed immediately upon offer. But not everybody does that and I wouldn't want someone that blatantly screws someone else over based on timing in my leagues.
I think its as much on the owner trading for bradshaw as it is on the other owner giving up bradshaw.

Its the NFL things can happen at any moment. I personally never leave trades up for more than a day.

Who knows T-Rich could get hurt and Bradshaw play great, or D jax could get hurt for his current owner.

But when your in a big money league for fantasy, its the responsible of the owners to be a top of their trades (also everyone has a fair advantage when it comes breaking news, between espn, twitter, and everything else) its not like the old days were you might not hear about an nfl trade until the day of the game.

maybe if in good faith the guy who traded bradshaw can upgrade hartline.. but if hes not willing to then its on him,

 
yeah

it is fair but ####ty

i had a trade offer in earlier this year in a dynasty to move Harvin that was going to be accepted and when the news broke of him being out I let the other owner know

that's the way i choose to play and the type of people i choose to play with, withholding actual injury info or trade info to make a trade is shady, beat the guy fair and square
but are you withholding that information when its all over twitter, football guys, espn etc?

I see both sides of the coin but in a competitive league where big money is on the line, guys will take every advantage they can get, especially if your playing with people you dont know and probably never will know

 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?
I wouldn't want an owner that took advantage of breaking news like that. I personally try to never offer a trade via league systems until it has been agreed upon via private communications and I know it will be accepted & executed immediately upon offer. But not everybody does that and I wouldn't want someone that blatantly screws someone else over based on timing in my leagues.
I think its as much on the owner trading for bradshaw as it is on the other owner giving up bradshaw.

Its the NFL things can happen at any moment. I personally never leave trades up for more than a day.

Who knows T-Rich could get hurt and Bradshaw play great, or D jax could get hurt for his current owner.

But when your in a big money league for fantasy, its the responsible of the owners to be a top of their trades (also everyone has a fair advantage when it comes breaking news, between espn, twitter, and everything else) its not like the old days were you might not hear about an nfl trade until the day of the game.

maybe if in good faith the guy who traded bradshaw can upgrade hartline.. but if hes not willing to then its on him,
If the guy getting Richardson did something to show good faith I'd be fine. As commish (I think) there are timestamps that would make it clear whether or not the guy getting Trent was acting in good faith and just walked into dumb luck or was clearly taking advantage of the timing. For instance, I was at the dinner table with my family when I heard the news. I'm not jumping online to pull a trade offer (hypothetical, of course) at the expense of family time. Or guys could have been at work and blocked from the league site, etc. I think the simple phrase "good faith" is the crux of it. There's too much douchebaggery in the world to allow it into my FF leagues. If Trent made a big difference and you won the money with the assistance of said douchebaggery it would be a parting gift. lol

 
Wth is wrong with you people? Is honor dead?
What does this even mean?
Haterade has a good point, but honor in this case isn't in the commissioner's court. It's really an ethical decision by the guy who accepted if he wants to trade the guy back. I don't think it's cool to be the guy who takes advantage of other owners, but every league has at least one of those guys.

This brings up the point, don't propose trades by using league software, send a league private message or an email to the owner. Only send the proposal after you've agreed on the trade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?
I wouldn't want an owner that took advantage of breaking news like that. I personally try to never offer a trade via league systems until it has been agreed upon via private communications and I know it will be accepted & executed immediately upon offer. But not everybody does that and I wouldn't want someone that blatantly screws someone else over based on timing in my leagues.
I think its as much on the owner trading for bradshaw as it is on the other owner giving up bradshaw.

Its the NFL things can happen at any moment. I personally never leave trades up for more than a day.

Who knows T-Rich could get hurt and Bradshaw play great, or D jax could get hurt for his current owner.

But when your in a big money league for fantasy, its the responsible of the owners to be a top of their trades (also everyone has a fair advantage when it comes breaking news, between espn, twitter, and everything else) its not like the old days were you might not hear about an nfl trade until the day of the game.

maybe if in good faith the guy who traded bradshaw can upgrade hartline.. but if hes not willing to then its on him,
If the guy getting Richardson did something to show good faith I'd be fine. As commish (I think) there are timestamps that would make it clear whether or not the guy getting Trent was acting in good faith and just walked into dumb luck or was clearly taking advantage of the timing. For instance, I was at the dinner table with my family when I heard the news. I'm not jumping online to pull a trade offer (hypothetical, of course) at the expense of family time. Or guys could have been at work and blocked from the league site, etc. I think the simple phrase "good faith" is the crux of it. There's too much douchebaggery in the world to allow it into my FF leagues. If Trent made a big difference and you won the money with the assistance of said douchebaggery it would be a parting gift. lol
richardson wasnt part of the deal though, It was Bradshaw..

But I get what your saying.

I guess it comes down to is it a money league, if so how much, is this a league your in every year, etc..

I still think the trade is fine either way.. I actually think the T-rich trade probably makes the trade more fair.

before the t-rich trade player b was getting 2 starting wrs and a 1 starting rb.

player was getting 2 rbs and an alright wr.

Just have to live with it, if your the commish, because if you veto this, your setting yourself up to have to veto further trades in any situation where the one owner complains.

 
Wth is wrong with you people? Is honor dead?
What does this even mean?
Haterade has a good point, but honor in this case isn't in the commissioner's court. It's really an ethical decision by the guy who accepted if he wants to trade the guy back. I've sent back trades when I thought there was something that changed or a rule that the other owner was not aware of.

This brings up the point, don't propose trades by using league software, send a league private message or an email to the owner. Only send the proposal after you've agreed on the trade.
Agreed. Good post. It sucks that it comes down to money. But if your in a league where you could win big dollar amounts 10k +, honor usually will go out the window, especially if your playing with people you have no clue who they are.

is it right ? probably not, but its the way it is

 
There's no way you can reverse that trade. I'd consider looking for a replacement owner in my leagues, though. FF is supposed to be fun and d-bag moves like that are not fun. Bush league is precisely the term I thought of when reading.
who should be replaced?

the one complaining or the guy trading bradshaw and d jax?
I wouldn't want an owner that took advantage of breaking news like that. I personally try to never offer a trade via league systems until it has been agreed upon via private communications and I know it will be accepted & executed immediately upon offer. But not everybody does that and I wouldn't want someone that blatantly screws someone else over based on timing in my leagues.
I think its as much on the owner trading for bradshaw as it is on the other owner giving up bradshaw.

Its the NFL things can happen at any moment. I personally never leave trades up for more than a day.

Who knows T-Rich could get hurt and Bradshaw play great, or D jax could get hurt for his current owner.

But when your in a big money league for fantasy, its the responsible of the owners to be a top of their trades (also everyone has a fair advantage when it comes breaking news, between espn, twitter, and everything else) its not like the old days were you might not hear about an nfl trade until the day of the game.

maybe if in good faith the guy who traded bradshaw can upgrade hartline.. but if hes not willing to then its on him,
If the guy getting Richardson did something to show good faith I'd be fine. As commish (I think) there are timestamps that would make it clear whether or not the guy getting Trent was acting in good faith and just walked into dumb luck or was clearly taking advantage of the timing. For instance, I was at the dinner table with my family when I heard the news. I'm not jumping online to pull a trade offer (hypothetical, of course) at the expense of family time. Or guys could have been at work and blocked from the league site, etc. I think the simple phrase "good faith" is the crux of it. There's too much douchebaggery in the world to allow it into my FF leagues. If Trent made a big difference and you won the money with the assistance of said douchebaggery it would be a parting gift. lol
richardson wasnt part of the deal though, It was Bradshaw..

But I get what your saying.

I guess it comes down to is it a money league, if so how much, is this a league your in every year, etc..

I still think the trade is fine either way.. I actually think the T-rich trade probably makes the trade more fair.

before the t-rich trade player b was getting 2 starting wrs and a 1 starting rb.

player was getting 2 rbs and an alright wr.

Just have to live with it, if your the commish, because if you veto this, your setting yourself up to have to veto further trades in any situation where the one owner complains.
Yes, I mixed up the names, but the point is the same. I agree commish has no place preventing or reversing the trade. Which is why he takes care of business in the off season. :)

 
Interesting to hear all the different perspectives.

We do trade approval by league vote, with 6 out of 12 necessary to veto. I voted to approve, but looks like the trade is getting vetoed. Talked with 2 owners, and they voted veto out of self-interest, which is frustrating, but I guess if someone is willing to accept a trade in a shady way, then can't complain when people veto for the wrong reason.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ebsteelers said:
B-Deep said:
yeah

it is fair but ####ty

i had a trade offer in earlier this year in a dynasty to move Harvin that was going to be accepted and when the news broke of him being out I let the other owner know

that's the way i choose to play and the type of people i choose to play with, withholding actual injury info or trade info to make a trade is shady, beat the guy fair and square
but are you withholding that information when its all over twitter, football guys, espn etc?

I see both sides of the coin but in a competitive league where big money is on the line, guys will take every advantage they can get, especially if your playing with people you dont know and probably never will know
that's why i don;t play in big money leagues :)

 
Interesting to hear all the different perspectives.

We do trade approval by league vote, with 6 out of 12 necessary to veto. I voted to approve, but looks like the trade is getting vetoed. Talked with 2 owners, and they voted veto out of self-interest, which is frustrating, but I guess if someone is willing to accept a trade in a shady way, then can't complain when people veto for the wrong reason.
This is part of the reason league vetoes are a bad idea.

 
Interesting to hear all the different perspectives.

We do trade approval by league vote, with 6 out of 12 necessary to veto. I voted to approve, but looks like the trade is getting vetoed. Talked with 2 owners, and they voted veto out of self-interest, which is frustrating, but I guess if someone is willing to accept a trade in a shady way, then can't complain when people veto for the wrong reason.
This is part of the reason league vetoes are a bad idea.
They guy trading djax is probably happy he has him back. seemed like he was losing that trade either way

 
Interesting to hear all the different perspectives.

We do trade approval by league vote, with 6 out of 12 necessary to veto. I voted to approve, but looks like the trade is getting vetoed. Talked with 2 owners, and they voted veto out of self-interest, which is frustrating, but I guess if someone is willing to accept a trade in a shady way, then can't complain when people veto for the wrong reason.
This is part of the reason league vetoes are a bad idea.
I agree. That's why I set the required votes to 6. But that was before I realized the trading partners are allowed to vote on their own trade, so I really should have made it 7.

It was LM last year, but there was controversy over trades that I made, so we switches to league vote. Maybe the problem is me. Controversy seems to follow me wherever I go.

 
FF Wiseguy said:
A trade was accepted in the league I run yesterday.

Team A gives

DeSean Jackson

Brian Hartline

Ahmad Bradshaw

Team B Gives

Arian Foster

Ben Tate

Kenbrell Thompkins

The trade was proposed long before the T-Rich trade was announced, and was accepted after the trade was announced. The owner getting Bradshaw is complaining that the trade was made under the assumption of Bradshaw as starter, and thus should be invalidated.

Here's my question: Do you judge the trade based on the value at time of proposal, or at time of acceptance? I realize it's poor etiquette to accept a trade where a player's value has changed drastically since its original proposal, but to me, it does not invalidate a trade.

For the purposes of this argument, set aside the value of the players involved. I feel the trade is not overly lopside no matter how you value bradshaw.

To me, the trade is judged on value at time of proposal. But I'm open to being told I'm wrong.
I think that it is clear the trade shouldn't go through because things changed dramatically after the trade was offered. The argument that the "trade shouldn't have been left on the table" is lame as some people actually have lives. It shouldn't come down to who is closest to the internet.

You don't let a trade like this go through without creating a lot of bad blood.

 
Ghost Rider said:
Buyer beware. The guy getting Bradshaw is SOOL.
This is one of the reasons you have a commissioner; to intervene in controversial situations and, hopefully, to do the ethical thing.

 
This is why I work out all the details of of a trade outside of the league software first...by email or in person. Then when we have an agreement, I send the actual trade offer through the league software and it is quickly accepted. Don't leave a formal trade offer hanging out there when things can happen at any time. What if the guy you're trading for gets hurt in practice while you're at work and don't have time to pull down your offer?

All that said, the honorable move here would have been for Team A to re-confirm the trade with Team B before accepting it. But if Team A can live with being an opportunistic #####, and probably among friends, then more power to him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's an exposed glitch in this make believe game we play.

You shouldn't have to work out trades manually before going through the sites software.

 
massraider said:
Yep, just bush league by the other owner.

Trade should stand, and Bradshaw owner has learned a lesson about leaving trade offers out there.

New Arian Foster owner, I would never do a deal with him, on principle, unless it was drastically lopsided in my favor.
so u don't leave an offer on the table during the week? This is a sucky situation and just plain bad luck to the guy getting Bradshaw believing he'll be a starter. Its not very often a player's value is changed so dramatically during the week, especially Monday - Wednesday. But unless I got permission from the other owner I wouldn't undo the trade, its like trading for a player and when they get hurt you want to undo it.

Whats the lesson to be learned here? Send a offer and if you don't hear back with in the hr revoke it?

 
massraider said:
Yep, just bush league by the other owner.

Trade should stand, and Bradshaw owner has learned a lesson about leaving trade offers out there.

New Arian Foster owner, I would never do a deal with him, on principle, unless it was drastically lopsided in my favor.
so u don't leave an offer on the table during the week? This is a sucky situation and just plain bad luck to the guy getting Bradshaw believing he'll be a starter. Its not very often a player's value is changed so dramatically during the week, especially Monday - Wednesday. But unless I got permission from the other owner I wouldn't undo the trade, its like trading for a player and when they get hurt you want to undo it.

Whats the lesson to be learned here? Send a offer and if you don't hear back with in the hr revoke it?
The op never mentions how long the Bradshaw trade was on the table prior to the TRich trade. My own personal philosophy is to never leave an outstanding trade offer on the table after 24 hours. If an owner can't give me at least an acknowledgement of the offer then I will assume a lack of interest and no desire to counter so I will just pull the offer. If in this case this all happened within a 24 to 48 hour period, my attitude about how it went down would be different but any offer that an owner leaves on the table for longer than that shouldn't have been revoked no matter what the rest of the league thought about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Yep, just bush league by the other owner.

Trade should stand, and Bradshaw owner has learned a lesson about leaving trade offers out there.

New Arian Foster owner, I would never do a deal with him, on principle, unless it was drastically lopsided in my favor.
so u don't leave an offer on the table during the week? This is a sucky situation and just plain bad luck to the guy getting Bradshaw believing he'll be a starter. Its not very often a player's value is changed so dramatically during the week, especially Monday - Wednesday. But unless I got permission from the other owner I wouldn't undo the trade, its like trading for a player and when they get hurt you want to undo it.

Whats the lesson to be learned here? Send a offer and if you don't hear back with in the hr revoke it?
I don't use the software until the trade is agreed upon. There are several reasons not to do this, but breaking news, is the most obvious

 
The trade should probably be reversed and the person who accepted the trade probably shouldn't be invited back to the league next year.

 
FF Wiseguy said:
A trade was accepted in the league I run yesterday.

Team A gives

DeSean Jackson

Brian Hartline

Ahmad Bradshaw

Team B Gives

Arian Foster

Ben Tate

Kenbrell Thompkins

The trade was proposed long before the T-Rich trade was announced, and was accepted after the trade was announced. The owner getting Bradshaw is complaining that the trade was made under the assumption of Bradshaw as starter, and thus should be invalidated.

Here's my question: Do you judge the trade based on the value at time of proposal, or at time of acceptance? I realize it's poor etiquette to accept a trade where a player's value has changed drastically since its original proposal, but to me, it does not invalidate a trade.

For the purposes of this argument, set aside the value of the players involved. I feel the trade is not overly lopside no matter how you value bradshaw.

To me, the trade is judged on value at time of proposal. But I'm open to being told I'm wrong.
It shouldn't come down to who is closest to the internet.
This isn't some Thursday night game where someone runs to their computer to pick up an FA backup due to an in-game injury...

Big picture, a commish shouldn't get involved in "guessing at" value or intent. In my league, a trade must be submitted through the site to be valid (chat all you want through other mediums prior to) and a trade submitted and accepted through the site is a done deal.

 
The trade should probably be reversed and the person who accepted the trade probably shouldn't be invited back to the league next year.
absolutely. obviously the offer was not accepted under the same terms it was made under. absolutely poor move from that owner

 
The trade should probably be reversed and the person who accepted the trade probably shouldn't be invited back to the league next year.
absolutely. obviously the offer was not accepted under the same terms it was made under. absolutely poor move from that owner
I have a problem with the line of thinking that because the offer was not accepted under the same terms it was made under it should be reversed. Too me it's a blanket generalization that is dangerous if applied to all situations. There are so many things that can change that the value of the players involved has to be considered.

For example, if a trade was proposed for Bradshaw on Monday, then accepted after Vick Ballard got injured in practice, does that invalidate that trade? How about if a key offensive lineman goes down for the year?

Or what if the trade is proposed after Ballard's injury, when Bradshaw is now presumed to be the bell-cow, then the coach comes out and says it wil be a 50-50 split? If the trade is proposed before the announcement, and accepted after, does that invalidate the deal?

To me, the NFL is so fluid that you have to make owners accountable for their own proposals, and evaluate each trade based on the values at time of proposal. As many have stated here, there are a number of ways to protect yourself, such as negotiation through email before proposing, proposing with strict time limits, etc.

Is it bush league that the guy ran out and accepted the trade as soon as he heard the news? Absolutely. And he is getting a decent gain in the trade at the expense of losing a trade partner (and possibly more based on his reputation), and a chance of not being invited of the league. Not to mention the trade could definitely work against him based on current production.

But from the league/LM point of view, does this change the way a trade should be viewed? My opinion is no.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
in cases where it's simply a coach coming out and saying something a little different about a players usage I would leave it up to the owners involved. a major injury or trade and I'd call the owner who accepted and attempt to convince him to return the trade himself before I overturned it myself.

 
Pretty simple:

  1. Unless it's in the league rules, the commish should not veto. (Update the rules for the next season.)
  2. The owner trading away Bradshaw shouldn't have pulled the sleazy move of accepting what was, in essence, a different deal than was proposed.
  3. I would never play in a league in which every trade can be vetoed by a vote of the league members.
  4. The owner trading away Bradshaw should have had the moral decency to undo the trade.
  5. If it all went through, I'd not deal with the owner trading away Bradshaw as he'd proven himself to be a sleaze.
  6. If I was the commish, I'd try to get rid of the owner trading away Bradshaw after the season.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top