Ethics question concerning a trade (1 Viewer)

[Beef Ravioli]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

 

[gandalas]

What were the technicalities that were violated?

What was different between the first offer and the second offer?

All in all, if a trade was cancelled/vetoed for any reason, the involved teams are under no obligation to re-do the deal a second time.

I am guessing that you are team B, and were putting one over on Team A, who possibly was informed of the bad trade, and now does not want to do it. Is this near the mark?

 

[dagwood]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B. The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through. Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed. Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

 

[Beef Ravioli]

What were the technicalities that were violated?What was different between the first offer and the second offer?All in all, if a trade was cancelled/vetoed for any reason, the involved teams are under no obligation to re-do the deal a second time.I am guessing that you are team B, and were putting one over on Team A, who possibly was informed of the bad trade, and now does not want to do it. Is this near the mark?

The technicalities had to do with a 2 for 1 type deal that would cause team B to have to many on his roster. So team B re-offered with the same three players in the original deal and then added a fourth to make it work.

 

[Godsbrother]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B. The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through. Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed. Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?Thank you fantasy friends

I think we need some details. Exactly what did Team B do to tweak the trade so that it would be accepted? If it involved changing any of the players involved in the trade then I don't think Team A is under any obligation to accept the new trade.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B. The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through. Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed. Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?Thank you fantasy friends

I think we need some details. Exactly what did Team B do to tweak the trade so that it would be accepted? If it involved changing any of the players involved in the trade then I don't think Team A is under any obligation to accept the new trade.

I gave more details up a few comments.

 

[CB31]

Can we have some names or scoring or roster settings or something? If not, it seems totally fine. It's a guy agreeing to one deal and not agreeing to a DIFFERENT deal. No problem in that.

 

[Godsbrother]

The technicalities had to do with a 2 for 1 type deal that would cause team B to have to many on his roster. So team B re-offered with the same three players in the original deal and then added a fourth to make it work.

In our league adding the 4th player would cause Team A to accrue an additional transaction fee. If that is not the case in your league then I am guessing that Team A just decided he didn't like the original deal and the fourth guy added wasn't enough of a sweetner to seal the deal.

 

[dagwood]

And I assume you are Mr B

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

 

[dagwood]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

So you are not player B?

 

[Godsbrother]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

I agree with Beef. His posts have been generic enough that it is clear he is not seeking advice for a specific trade. He is just asking a question on the ethic or morals of trading.

 

[rizzler]

out of line?

no.

and no.

and 3rd time, no.

he can choose whatever he wants to do. end of discussion.

trade has changed. he has ZERO obligation after it was denied once.

 

[Captain Hook]

Not the same trade = Team A's right to reject the new trade.....simple as that (unless there was collusion, ie a third team offering him a trade for the same player(s) after the first trade accepted but before the new trade rejected.....this assumes there was nothing in the new trade costing Team A in any way)

 

[MDSkinner]

I don't personally see Player A as being out of line at all. Once the original deal did not go through, this becomes a separate deal all together and one that Player A has every right to reject, even if in your mind he is getting a better deal this time around (which is undoubtedly arguable, since sometimes an extra player is NOT desirable).

 

[dagwood]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

I agree with Beef. His posts have been generic enough that it is clear he is not seeking advice for a specific trade. He is just asking a question on the ethic or morals of trading.

My bad. I thought we were talking about a specific trade between Player A and Player B.I did not realize it was about the general trading practices of Player A.

If I talk about the general potential for Hines Ward to outscore Hakeem Nicks in week 1 in a 1 pt per reception / .1 point per yard / 6 pt per TD format, would you consider that a WDIS question?

No offense intended to anyone and the great thing about America is we can all have opinions and they don't have to be the same.

Still wondering if Beef is Mr B though.

 

[Creed Bratton]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

So, if I get this right, it's just a deal that was proposed and agreed upon and then tweaked to make sure the rosters even out. I would think a trade is finalized when you get the transaction processed on the league website. Agreeing to something in principle and then backing out isn't "wrong" in my view. An owner can change his mind anytime he wants before it's official, but it doesn't do your credibility any good to give your word on something and then take it back.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Thanks for the replies - I will forward the opinion on to those involved.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

I agree with Beef. His posts have been generic enough that it is clear he is not seeking advice for a specific trade. He is just asking a question on the ethic or morals of trading.

My bad. I thought we were talking about a specific trade between Player A and Player B.I did not realize it was about the general trading practices of Player A.

If I talk about the general potential for Hines Ward to outscore Hakeem Nicks in week 1 in a 1 pt per reception / .1 point per yard / 6 pt per TD format, would you consider that a WDIS question?

No offense intended to anyone and the great thing about America is we can all have opinions and they don't have to be the same.

Still wondering if Beef is Mr B though.

Perhaps I should have started by saying "Team A and Team B" rather than "Player A, etc."Thanks for your help and I will keep you wondering about A or B

 

[FavreCo]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk clueless?

Thank you fantasy friends

Fixed.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Trade was proposed by player A to player B.

The trade was accepted by player B, but because of some league technicalities did not go through.

Player B tweaks the trade (within a few days) so it will be accepted and now player A will not do the trade all though he is getting a better deal than the original offer he proposed.

Is this ok or is player A being a jerk?

Thank you fantasy friends

Player A is fine; its not the same trade. Therefore its a new trade and one he did not agree to. You may think he is getting a better deal. He may not. The two of them need to negotiate and you need to remember what the AC forum is for.Have a great day!

Sorry if this was an offence to you. This really is not a question about managing one of my teams or a draft, so I figured this would be the place to get some opinions if there is an ethical problem. I know the rules are not being broken, but is player A "out of line"?Have a great day as well!

So, if I get this right, it's just a deal that was proposed and agreed upon and then tweaked to make sure the rosters even out. I would think a trade is finalized when you get the transaction processed on the league website. Agreeing to something in principle and then backing out isn't "wrong" in my view. An owner can change his mind anytime he wants before it's official, but it doesn't do your credibility any good to give your word on something and then take it back.

 

[SSOG]

I don't personally see Player A as being out of line at all. Once the original deal did not go through, this becomes a separate deal all together and one that Player A has every right to reject, even if in your mind he is getting a better deal this time around (which is undoubtedly arguable, since sometimes an extra player is NOT desirable).

How on earth is it arguable? If the extra player isn't desirable, then Team A can cut him immediately upon his arrival and you're back to the original trade again.Trading Player A, Player B, Player C, and some throw-in player is *ALWAYS* an equal or superior deal to just trading players A, B, and C unless your league has some really wacky rules (like, for instance, if you can't cut players that you traded for).As for the hypothetical... no trade is final until it's processed on the website. What Team A did is really no different than if you'd had trade discussions, he'd agreed to the trade, you'd offered it, and he changed his mind and hit the reject button. The unique circumstances might make it sting more for Team B (since he thought the trade WAS finalized), but it's really no different.

 

[John 14:6]

Did any other circumstances change? I recently went through something similar in a fantasy basketball league. I accepted a trade but it got rejected because the players involved weren't eligilble to be traded yet. (There's a rule that newly signed players can't be traded within so many days of them signing.) We said we'd discuss the trade later again when those players were eligible.

Some time passed and I signed several free agents. The other owner asked me if I was still interested in the exact same trade, but I declined. Because of the free agents I signed, there was no more need for the players I was getting that would have justified the cost. The other owner had no problem with me declining.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't personally see Player A as being out of line at all. Once the original deal did not go through, this becomes a separate deal all together and one that Player A has every right to reject, even if in your mind he is getting a better deal this time around (which is undoubtedly arguable, since sometimes an extra player is NOT desirable).

How on earth is it arguable? If the extra player isn't desirable, then Team A can cut him immediately upon his arrival and you're back to the original trade again.Trading Player A, Player B, Player C, and some throw-in player is *ALWAYS* an equal or superior deal to just trading players A, B, and C unless your league has some really wacky rules (like, for instance, if you can't cut players that you traded for).

In my league you incur no transaction fee for cutting a player, only by acquiring a player. In this case when Team B throws in an additional player Team A now has to pay a transaction fee for a player he did not want.

 

[Warhogs]

I can't believe this is even being asked. Any time a proposed trade is altered it is a new offer so team A has every right to say no. Who would even question this?

 

[MDSkinner]

I don't personally see Player A as being out of line at all. Once the original deal did not go through, this becomes a separate deal all together and one that Player A has every right to reject, even if in your mind he is getting a better deal this time around (which is undoubtedly arguable, since sometimes an extra player is NOT desirable).

How on earth is it arguable? If the extra player isn't desirable, then Team A can cut him immediately upon his arrival and you're back to the original trade again.Trading Player A, Player B, Player C, and some throw-in player is *ALWAYS* an equal or superior deal to just trading players A, B, and C unless your league has some really wacky rules (like, for instance, if you can't cut players that you traded for).As for the hypothetical... no trade is final until it's processed on the website. What Team A did is really no different than if you'd had trade discussions, he'd agreed to the trade, you'd offered it, and he changed his mind and hit the reject button. The unique circumstances might make it sting more for Team B (since he thought the trade WAS finalized), but it's really no different.

In my eyes, it just depends on the situation, league rules, etc... Extra players can cost extra money in certain leagues even if they are immediately cut. Sometimes cutting players can even be costly. It really just depends on the league, and the individuals perspective on the throw in player. Maybe I am wrong in my own thinking, but I am not a fan of junk throw in players. It seems to me that if the person wants to rid themself of the roster spot they can drop the player, offer the trade up as it was originally and life is good. There are always other ways around things and a throw in player TO ME is not always desirable. Obviously to you it is.

 

[Pickle Rody]

If Team B would have had too many players on his roster after the original trade, couldn't he have just dropped a player currently on his roster just prior to the trade going through? Or even while the trade went through? You seem to have some odd trading parameters within your league, but I'm not knocking them, just commenting that they seem odd. There must be a way to get around these "technicalities" you mentioned without Team B having to offer a throw-in player to get a "new" trade done.

 

[lynx4ben]

What were the technicalities that were violated?What was different between the first offer and the second offer?All in all, if a trade was cancelled/vetoed for any reason, the involved teams are under no obligation to re-do the deal a second time.I am guessing that you are team B, and were putting one over on Team A, who possibly was informed of the bad trade, and now does not want to do it. Is this near the mark?

The technicalities had to do with a 2 for 1 type deal that would cause team B to have to many on his roster. So team B re-offered with the same three players in the original deal and then added a fourth to make it work.

I handle this the same way in all my leagues. If a trade is accepted it is accepted. If the trade violates roster requirements I will not put it through until the team receiving the extra player makes room. I will push the trade through after that. "I didn't know I had to drop a guy" does not get someone out of a trade.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Even if it's the exact same trade, it didn't go through so either party can back out. Totally legal to do so.

Now, this was an "ethics" question, and I think it might be considered toolish to go back on a deal that you actually tried to get put through. It's somewhat unethical to allow a glitch to give you an out if you had a change of heart.

I would say that either team can back out, even if it wasn't a "diffeent" trade. If it didn't go through, it didn't go through. But there will be a cost for the team backing out. Their reputation as a trading partner will take a hit, and bad blood will be created between the two teams. But hey, those are the dynamics of any league, including the NFL.

 

[DropKick]

But what if they crossed the international date line?

Seriously, let this be a lesson. Instead of using abstracts like "Team A" and "Player B" and "some technicalities", things would be much easier (on everyone) just to clearly state the issue.

 

[notdarkyet]

Why do your league rules not allow you to adjust your roster after a trade is made? Or why couldnt the team with too many players drop one right before the trade goes through?

 

[ZWK]

So, if I get this right, it's just a deal that was proposed and agreed upon and then tweaked to make sure the rosters even out. I would think a trade is finalized when you get the transaction processed on the league website. Agreeing to something in principle and then backing out isn't "wrong" in my view. An owner can change his mind anytime he wants before it's official, but it doesn't do your credibility any good to give your word on something and then take it back.

Even if it's the exact same trade, it didn't go through so either party can back out. Totally legal to do so. Now, this was an "ethics" question, and I think it might be considered toolish to go back on a deal that you actually tried to get put through. It's somewhat unethical to allow a glitch to give you an out if you had a change of heart.I would say that either team can back out, even if it wasn't a "diffeent" trade. If it didn't go through, it didn't go through. But there will be a cost for the team backing out. Their reputation as a trading partner will take a hit, and bad blood will be created between the two teams. But hey, those are the dynamics of any league, including the NFL.

Agreed. It's not a trade until it's official - until it's been officially offered & accepted on the league website. Before that happens anyone is free to back out, after it has happened there is no going back. Depending on the details, backing out at the last minute could be an annoying/impolite/bad-for-your-reputation thing to do, or it could be fine on those grounds too. But it's up to each owner to decide how they feel about the other owners, not part of official league business.