Commish Question - T Richardson Trade (1 Viewer)

[ebsteelers]

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.

No it shouldnt, not sure why everyone here is all of a sudden acting like a holy roller.

trades happen, injuries happen,

Now if T-rich goes out and breaks his leg and is out the rest of the season,

The guy receiving Bradshaw would want to do the deal again.

If you traded Doug Martin for Lesean Mccoy on Wednesday, and Mccoy which almost happened got hurt on Thursday, should that veto the trade? no, it happens its part of sports in general.

while I agree its probably in poor taste to accept the deal, there should be no vetoing or neccessary trade backs. and no whining by the guy getting who was suppose to get bradshaw, because like i said previously everyone hears the news around the same time now a days, its not like you dont hear about it until it comes out in the newspaper.

 

[Warrior]

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.

Humor us, Mr. contrarian. How about if he gets injured on Wednesday during practice?

 

[Warrior]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Irsay was talking about acquiring a back ever since Ballard went down. The only blame goes to the guy unaware of that. Nothing shady about trading Bradshaw to an uninformed owner.

Disagree. And acting as if you saw the TRich trade coming all along is laughable. It was a surprise to everyone.

 

[ebsteelers]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Irsay was talking about acquiring a back ever since Ballard went down. The only blame goes to the guy unaware of that. Nothing shady about trading Bradshaw to an uninformed owner.

Irsay is known to be a big talker.

And acquiring a back and acquiring a top 5 pick are a little different.

When it first was mentioned people are thinking more along a very good back up. not t-rich

 

[ryno1980]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Irsay was talking about acquiring a back ever since Ballard went down. The only blame goes to the guy unaware of that. Nothing shady about trading Bradshaw to an uninformed owner.

Disagree. And acting as if you saw the TRich trade coming all along is laughable. It was a surprise to everyone.

What's laughable is suggesting I said I saw THIS trade coming. What I'm saying is even acquiring an average to above average back to complement Bradshaw, which is what I saw coming, would put a dent into bradshaws value that would have stopped me from acquiring him.

 

[Griffindor]

Haha, if you really want to dig deep on this question, here you go: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1904732

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am surprised that so many think the guy getting rid of Bradshaw did something wrong. He didn't make the offer; the other guy did! All he did was accept the offer. Sure, you can argue that it was shady to accept it after the Richardson trade went down, but that is the chance you take when you offer a trade officially, as opposed to doing it via PM and then making the offer official once it is accepted, as was suggested earlier. To make a comparison, I had offered a trade to a fellow owner on Wednesday afternoon which included me trading him Richardson, and then I heard about the Richardson trade, but I was unable to get to the league site till five hours later, and I was obviously hoping he would not accept it. He did not, and I was happy, and was able to revoke the trade offer, but had he accepted it, that would have been on me, not him. I was after all the one who made the offer, just like this guy here who is pissed about acquiring Bradshaw.

 

[ryno1980]

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?

Send an email

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Haha, if you really want to dig deep on this question, here you go: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1904732

Haha, nice find. I didn't want to dig that deep, but I did find this interesting in the abstract:

It is trite law that a change of circumstances between the making of an offer to enter into a contract and a purported acceptance of that offer may render the offer incapable of acceptance so that no contract is in fact formed. The juristic basis of this legal postulate, however, is far from clear and uncontroversial.

In the end, the trade was vetoed by half the league, so the trade was revoked. I stand by my argument (which I had with people in my league, not on here) that there is no basis for veto. The trade should be graded based on the value proposed, and even if you grade it based on the value after the t-rich trade, it is not so lopsided of a trade that it must be vetoed. Basically, people vetoed on the basis that shady moves shouldn't be allowed, or did it to keep a top team from getting better.

Part of me wishes trade veto was still by LM only, as justice would have been served. But I'm also glad it wasn't put in my hands, as now at least the controversy goes away, as opposed to me having to defend my position to the league for the next few weeks.

 

[Lydia]

In the end, the trade was vetoed by half the league, so the trade was revoked. I stand by my argument (which I had with people in my league, not on here) that there is no basis for veto. The trade should be graded based on the value proposed

Seriously?

The value at the time of the trade, especially any changes in value in-between the time the offer was sent and the offer was accepted, are extremely relevant.

It's one thing where a trade is completed, and then something happens. That's just tough luck. But for someone to take advantage of breaking news to accept an offer which no longer really is open is just being a #####.

 

[BaBastage]

I think there's a lesson to be learned about leaving open-ended offers for long periods of time.

The egregious-ness of accepting it varies with the amount of time the offer had been left open. I don't feel to bad for the initiating owner if the trade had been out there for several days. But if he offered the trade 15 minutes before the news broke, and he didn't have time to go rescind the offer because he was in the car, at work, in class, whatever - that's another perspective.

If you want, you could look at adding a "cool off" clause into your league bylaws, stating that either owner can undo a trade within X hours or the start of the next weeks' games, whichever is earlier to prevent late-breaking news interfere with the intended value of a trade.

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Hilarious. Is this your league? Law student drafts appellate brief over this same issue (Bradshaw trade)

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/law-student-prepares-appellate-brief-after-his-fantasy-football-trade-gets-vetoed/

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/law-student-prepares-appellate-brief-after-his-fantasy-football-trade-gets-vetoed/2/

Link to the brief.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

In the end, the trade was vetoed by half the league, so the trade was revoked. I stand by my argument (which I had with people in my league, not on here) that there is no basis for veto. The trade should be graded based on the value proposed

Seriously?

The value at the time of the trade, especially any changes in value in-between the time the offer was sent and the offer was accepted, are extremely relevant.

It's one thing where a trade is completed, and then something happens. That's just tough luck. But for someone to take advantage of breaking news to accept an offer which no longer really is open is just being a #####.

The part you said in bold answers the question I put forth in the OP. I'm not questioning the fact that it's a d*** move to accept the trade right when the news breaks. What I'm questioning is when you're evaluating whether to vote to allow or veto, what are you taking into consideration? For me, it's the value at time of proposal. That is why, as LM, I did not veto a trade that was accepted when an owner left a trade out when the games started, and a player involved got seriously injured.

Based on the responses above saying basically "if you propose a trade, you assume the risk, and tough luck if something happens while it's out there," more people agree with my assessment then don't. But I've begun to question my perspective on it, which is why I started the thread.

What I don't agree with is people who say it should be vetoed because it is a shady move. Get rid of the owner next season, try and get them to work a compromise, put rules in place to prevent this situation, those are solutions I agree with. But I still think the trade itself has to be judged on the values of the players involved. My question was how do you evaluate the value of the players involved in a situation like this? I got sufficient answers, and it was interesting to see how the responses were divided, and people's arguments for each side.