FAAB Mistake Help (1 Viewer)

[lbouchard]

I apologize in advance if this is too specific to be a Shark Pool question, and if it is, please move it. That said, I wanted to get thoughts on this FAAB mistake.

In one of my leagues, FAAB just got processed. There is a $200 budget for the season. Team A, let's call him, bid $43 dollars on Chris Givens. However, he bid the money on the Saints one. Team B won Chris Givens, the St. Louis one, for $12 dollars. Team A said that they meant to bid on the STL one, but somehow messed up. What would you do in this situation?

Tell Team A tough luck? Refund Team A's money? Give Givens to Team A and refund Team B's money? TIA

 

[belljr]

Team a keeps his money and is sol

 

[shadyridr]

i think its pretty obvious a mistake was made and it should be fixed

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

take responsibility for yourself

maybe next week he'll tell you he meant to put some other guy in his active roster.

 

[shadyridr]

Team a keeps his money and is sol

this solution makes no sense. its causing two wrongs imo. if the other guy gets givens, why should team a keep his money

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

if this is a super competitive league for money then

i think its pretty obvious a mistake was made and it should be fixed

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

well, yeah, if the guy in question is the poster's wife or significant other, I'd fix teh mistake.

 

[footballnerd]

Our league would make him eat it. He'll be more careful next time.

 

[shadyridr]

Our league would make him eat it. He'll be more careful next time.

actually come to think of it someone did this in our league last year and he ate it and he never complained once.

 

[Not Sleeping]

Wait...over 20% of an annual FAAB budget on Chris Givens? Is this league based in St. Louis?

 

[SameSongNDance]

Lol I was actually staring at both of them today thinking someone might make this mistake. Anyway, I think he has to eat it.

 

[monkeysee]

i think its pretty obvious a mistake was made and it should be fixed

You can't fix dumb. Dumb will never learn if his dumb is always forgiven. No way the guy that won with the 12 bid and actually bid on the right Givens should be punished. It is just a tough luck situaion.12 bucks is a small price to pay for Amendola lite. I think this guy really helps some teams and becomes a sold WR3 or flex option.

 

[Sienna2012]

Stop fixing people's mistakes. It is irritating.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Reading comprehension and statistical analysis are part of the game,

 

[otb_lifer]

Our league would make him eat it. He'll be more careful next time.

Only solution worth considering. Ya know, we see a handful of similar posts every season on this board ... and my take is always the same ... each owner is responsible for his/her/their team. Mistakes are made; sure ... but in the final analysis it is incumbent on each guy to suck it the fudge up, apply more diligence next time, and move the eff on.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It depends on your style as commissioner. Are you the type of commissioner who tries to be reasonable and fair? Or are you the type who likes to be an ####### for no reason?

If you're the former, Team A gets Givens for $43. If you're the latter, he doesn't.

It's an obvious mistake and an easy fix.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Team a keeps his money and is sol

this solution makes no sense. its causing two wrongs imo. if the other guy gets givens, why should team a keep his money

There's no reason this couldn't be a reasonable solution. Say, "Team A, you obviously didn't mean to bid $43 on the Saints WR. He goes back in the pool and you get your $43 back. However, because it was your mistake, you don't get the Rams WR, he goes to Team B for $12."

 

[Deranged Hermit]

You don't punish team B by taking his player away. He did nothing wrong. I would, however, offer team A the chance to just drop his Givens and get his $43 back to help ease the mistake.

 

[JoeSteeler]

Team a keeps his money and is sol

this solution makes no sense. its causing two wrongs imo. if the other guy gets givens, why should team a keep his money

There's no reason this couldn't be a reasonable solution. Say, "Team A, you obviously didn't mean to bid $43 on the Saints WR. He goes back in the pool and you get your $43 back. However, because it was your mistake, you don't get the Rams WR, he goes to Team B for $12."

This is what I would do.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't punish team B by taking his player away. He did nothing wrong. I would, however, offer team A the chance to just drop his Givens and get his $43 back to help ease the mistake.

If you acknowledge that Team A obviously meant to bid $43 on the Rams WR, then you're not "punishing" Team B by taking "his" player away. Team B didn't bid enough.It's fine to decide that Team B should keep Givens and Team A is out of luck. It's not how I would rule in my own league, but some leagues are tougher on mistakes than others. But it's silly to characterize any decision as "punishing" Team B. Team B either ends up exactly where he was before waivers started, or (due to a mistake by another owner) he lucks into getting a player for cheaper than he should have been able to. In neither of those scenarios is he somehow worse off, which is what a "punishment" would imply.

If you decide, as I would, that Team A should get the Rams WR, then you're not taking anything away from B. Givens was never his to begin with. He did do something wrong, in the sense that he didn't bid enough money to win the Rams WR this week.

 

[steveski]

You don't punish team B by taking his player away. He did nothing wrong. I would, however, offer team A the chance to just drop his Givens and get his $43 back to help ease the mistake.

If you acknowledge that Team A obviously meant to bid $43 on the Rams WR, then you're not "punishing" Team B by taking "his" player away. Team B didn't bid enough.It's fine to decide that Team B should keep Givens and Team A is out of luck. It's not how I would rule in my own league, but some leagues are tougher on mistakes than others. But it's silly to characterize any decision as "punishing" Team B. Team B either ends up exactly where he was before waivers started, or (due to a mistake by another owner) he lucks into getting a player for cheaper than he should have been able to. In neither of those scenarios is he somehow worse off, which is what a "punishment" would imply.

If you decide, as I would, that Team A should get the Rams WR, then you're not taking anything away from B. Givens was never his to begin with. He did do something wrong, in the sense that he didn't bid enough money to win the Rams WR this week.

I disagree. I think doing the nice thing and helping out Team A by giving him his money back is nice enough. No need to go and upset another owner over this and make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. Giving him his money back should please Team A and if it doesn't then screw him and never help him out again.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't punish team B by taking his player away. He did nothing wrong. I would, however, offer team A the chance to just drop his Givens and get his $43 back to help ease the mistake.

If you acknowledge that Team A obviously meant to bid $43 on the Rams WR, then you're not "punishing" Team B by taking "his" player away. Team B didn't bid enough.It's fine to decide that Team B should keep Givens and Team A is out of luck. It's not how I would rule in my own league, but some leagues are tougher on mistakes than others. But it's silly to characterize any decision as "punishing" Team B. Team B either ends up exactly where he was before waivers started, or (due to a mistake by another owner) he lucks into getting a player for cheaper than he should have been able to. In neither of those scenarios is he somehow worse off, which is what a "punishment" would imply.

If you decide, as I would, that Team A should get the Rams WR, then you're not taking anything away from B. Givens was never his to begin with. He did do something wrong, in the sense that he didn't bid enough money to win the Rams WR this week.

I disagree. I think doing the nice thing and helping out Team A by giving him his money back is nice enough. No need to go and upset another owner over this and make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. Giving him his money back should please Team A and if it doesn't then screw him and never help him out again.

Not sure which part you're disagreeing with. I said above that it's a reasonable solution to simply give Team A his money back and let Team B keep the player.I would personally give the player to Team A for $43, but I know the guys in my league are all reasonable fellows, and I know Team B would agree that Team A obviously made a mistake and should get the player he meant to bid on. If you think my solution would upset Team B in your league and would make this a "bigger deal than it needs to be" then your solution is fine as well, though in that case I'd suggest Owner B is a bigger problem than Owner A in your league.

 

[Cunk]

But wouldnt giving the correct givens to team A perhaps have a ripple effect as far as the auction went? Perhaps if the correct givens went to team A then team B may now have missed out on his second choice which is now on team C. I guess asking team B if that may be the case would solve that problem if he admits it wouldn't have effected him in this ripple effect way.

 

[Jetdoc]

I believe the non-confrontational, lazy approach is to make Team A eat it. This is appropriate for confrontational leagues, or if the commissioner doesn't want to deal with the hassle of figuring everything out and fixing it.

I believe the "right" thing to do is manually process waivers based on the priority and give Team A the player everyone knows they intended to pick up.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But wouldnt giving the correct givens to team A perhaps have a ripple effect as far as the auction went? Perhaps if the correct givens went to team A then team B may now have missed out on his second choice which is now on team C. I guess asking team B if that may be the case would solve that problem if he admits it wouldn't have effected him in this ripple effect way.

Correct, it could certainly have impacted more than just this one pickup. I should've been more clear that I'm not simply suggesting to move the player from Team B to Team A, but to re-run the waivers as if Team A had placed his bid on the correct WR.

 

[cracKer]

Why get involved at all? Both owners have equal access to the system put in place, the commish isn't around to amend brain farts