Injuries While Trades In "League Approval" window (1 Viewer)

[ebsteelers]

For the record, if I was the guy getting Cruz in this deal, I would let the guy out of it. Maybe I'm too nice but stuff happens in leagues where there is a waiting period.

Thankfully I play in a league where it is simply a hobby and no one is making a career out of fantasy football. No way should the guy getting Cruz stick with him. The only decent thing is to send back Cruz. Of course, if you're not decent and you'd actually keep Cruz, then that is something different. It'd be a good lesson to learn if I was ever in a league with someone like that to get out immediately.

Edited to add: Personal preference only; I choose not to be in leagues where people take fantasy football a little too seriously.

Also edited to add: I'm not sure of the purpose of a two day league approval window. Can the league owners weigh in on other people's trades? If so, that's a rule that needs to be gotten rid of. Does it take 2 whole days for the commissioner to process a trade? If so, maybe the commish should hand over the duties to someone who can be more active with the league.

Trade should go through, but that sucks. I agree with the notion that the other owner probably could/should agree to trade being vacated (but he certainly doesn't have to).

I can certainly understand this point. For me it would depend on the league and the level of competition. But I'll ask both of you; if there was no review period and the players change rosters the instant the 'accept' button is hit, would you feel compelled to reverse the trade out of the goodness of your heart? Or is that a different situation?

I'm in some leagues which are more competitive than others (none of which have a 2 day review period). Circumstance dictate what I do. Last year in an extensive keeper league (but not a dynasty league), I traded Jahvid Best for a draft pick when it seemed like he was about 50/50 to be cleared to play. Two days later, news came out that his career was over. I discussed it with the guy I traded with and I agreed, without much prompting, to rescind the trade. We both bargained for the exchange of an injured player believing he would come back at some point; the only question was when. When his career was over (or at least it was apparently he would not be cleared at any real point in the future), I felt it appropriate to rescind because our mutual assumption was false.

On this trade, there is no reason for the league to overturn it. The trade was fair when made and when it was accepted, nothing had changed. That said, I think it's reasonable that the two owners get together and work it out. I think the league should approve (if the two involved agree) to either rescind the trade or approve a deal where something else is tendered for Cruz.

If they can't agree, I suspect that the rest of the league will see it as a jerk move by the guy getting Cruz.

My reputation as being fair to the people I play against is more important to me than getting over on someone else like that. To each his (or her) own.

Good post...

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm in some leagues which are more competitive than others (none of which have a 2 day review period). Circumstance dictate what I do. Last year in an extensive keeper league (but not a dynasty league), I traded Jahvid Best for a draft pick when it seemed like he was about 50/50 to be cleared to play. Two days later, news came out that his career was over. I discussed it with the guy I traded with and I agreed, without much prompting, to rescind the trade. We both bargained for the exchange of an injured player believing he would come back at some point; the only question was when. When his career was over (or at least it was apparently he would not be cleared at any real point in the future), I felt it appropriate to rescind because our mutual assumption was false.

On this trade, there is no reason for the league to overturn it. The trade was fair when made and when it was accepted, nothing had changed. That said, I think it's reasonable that the two owners get together and work it out. I think the league should approve (if the two involved agree) to either rescind the trade or approve a deal where something else is tendered for Cruz.

If they can't agree, I suspect that the rest of the league will see it as a jerk move by the guy getting Cruz.

My reputation as being fair to the people I play against is more important to me than getting over on someone else like that. To each his (or her) own.

This being a work league is a case where I'm more likely to work something out. My work league is the only one I play in that has a 2-day commish review. Its not a win-at-all-costs league. We have a few inexperienced owners who only play because they hear everyone else in the office talking about their teams.

My other leagues however are competitive and the owners are expected to know what they're doing. There are no commish reviews or league votes on trades. No one in those leagues would care about the tough-luck owner. We all know each other and all are highly competitive with their FFL. In fact, I'm not even sure rescinding a trade would be allowed if both owners agreed to it. Trade is done, and you can't trade players back to their original team. I've seen trades go down this year where a traded player is out for the year minutes after hitting the accept button. If that owner asked for a take back, I'm pretty sure what the reaction would be. And being the experienced owner he is, asking is out of the question.

 

[Sarnoff]

Seems a lot of the posters in the Shart Pool favor changing or complaining about rules after the season has already started. A lot of Stupid in this thread.

 

[Warhogs]

I didn't read through the thread. Only the poll and the OP posting.

My view is that the purpose of the league veto period is to allow owners to block a trade that looks like collusion. When evaluating this I would evaluate the trade based on where the players were at when the trade was accepted. My evaluation would be a healthy Victor Cruz for a healthy Mike James.

I think it was a bad trade anyway but not to the point of veto. I would let it go through.

 

[jackdubl]

From a legal perspective, a trade is a contract. Once there is offer and acceptance, there is a binding contract. The waiting period is just a safety net where the league can veto for cheating or for "public policy" reasons, such as a newbie not knowing what they are doing. In my only league, which is between law school classmates, only one trade has ever been vetoed in ten years. It was when a first time ever player made a ridiculous trade because he didn't know any better. And since we have all stayed together the situation can't even occur again.

But between the trading parties, the contract is binding once someone hits accept. Just this season, I traded Jermichael Finley, MJD, and Fred Jackson to get Julius Thomas. Finley was hurt before he made it to the other guys roster. Nobody complained. In fact, the other owner felt he had caused the injury by trading for Finley.

 

[Chaka]

Seems a lot of the posters in the Shart Pool favor changing or complaining about rules after the season has already started. A lot of Stupid in this thread.

There is no rule for this situation in place. There is an as yet unclarified two-day review period and the trade doesn't process until after that period.

So until we get clarification it seems like a situation with open ended issues..

 

[Chaka]

Is there anyone in this league other than [icon] posting in this thread?

 

[Sarnoff]

Seems a lot of the posters in the Shart Pool favor changing or complaining about rules after the season has already started. A lot of Stupid in this thread.

There is no rule for this situation in place. There is an as yet unclarified two-day review period and the trade doesn't process until after that period.

So until we get clarification it seems like a situation with open ended issues..

No, the rule is there's a 2-day voting period, and half the replies in this thread suggest that should be thrown out the window. Instead of constructive replies about how to interpret the rules, there's a bunch of whining that the rules already in place are stupid.

Sharts indeed.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

So I guess the NFL should have the same policy and do away with physical exams after trades are agreed upon.

they should also probably do away with their 2 day league approval window

 

[PainTrain]

The guy trading James away still had the privilege of starting him on Monday Night while the trade was pending, right? "Trade is Final" that seems like an awful big gift without compensation. If the trade were final, then the party receiving James should have had that privilege if he is to assume the risk. If the original James owner retains the right to sit/start him while the other guy waits for the trade to be approved, then he should be on the hook for the risk as well. If he isn't willing to assume that risk, the deal needs to be completed (approved) before the game starts, which would mean submitting it two days prior. IMO, if he waits to submit the trade such that the players play during the approval period, the player is his to start this week, and for that privilege, he should also carry the risk of injury. You can't take the points and trade the injury from the same game. If the trade wasn't completed, it wasn't completed, and the circumstances that transpired changed the trade that was agreed upon significantly (from the one the league is asked to approve) while the players stayed on their original rosters. I think the other owners would be fair to reject the offer on the other side of the game to honor the spirit of the transaction.

 

[Amused to Death]

Seems a lot of the posters in the Shart Pool favor changing or complaining about rules after the season has already started. A lot of Stupid in this thread.

There is no rule for this situation in place. There is an as yet unclarified two-day review period and the trade doesn't process until after that period.

So until we get clarification it seems like a situation with open ended issues..

No, the rule is there's a 2-day voting period, and half the replies in this thread suggest that should be thrown out the window. Instead of constructive replies about how to interpret the rules, there's a bunch of whining that the rules already in place are stupid.

Sharts indeed.

You mean the "collusion veto vote" window? Was it collusion?

 

[DirtyCashDylan]

Injuries are apart of the game and you take on that risk as soon as you click the "accept" button.

 

[PainTrain]

Injuries are apart of the game and you take on that risk as soon as you click the "accept" button.

You accept it when the player joins your roster. If you are still able to start/sit the player he is still yours. If the risk of injury is transferred during a pending trade, then that team should also have the right to start him during that period as well. Whomever holds the rights to start a player should assume the risks of owning him and vice versa.

 

[Mungo]

It's a risk all parties accept when games are played during review period. Some values go up (Tate, right after Foster got hurt) and some values go down. #####ing about it is poor form IMO.

 

[GregR]

If the league overturns the trade, how exactly do you handle it going forward then? What are the clear guidelines for how to apply this?

What if it isn't clear by the time the review finishes how serious the injury is? Does the review extend indefinitely until it is known?

If a traded player's NFL team's depth chart changes, whether a demotion/promotion, adding a player at his position which hurts his value, or some other player gets injured that helps his value, is that also going to negate a trade?

If it's a team defense who was slated to soon play the Packers twice when Aaron Rodgers was expected to be out, but during the review it is reported he's going to play, will the trade be overturned because now the values are not the same as they were at the time the trade was agreed?

 

[PainTrain]

It's a risk all parties accept when games are played during review period. Some values go up (Tate, right after Foster got hurt) and some values go down. #####ing about it is poor form IMO.

That the guy they are trading away could still get hurt and torpedo the transaction? Or that the other guy gets to start his without consequence as a one week exemption for agreeing to deal him to you--but only after he gets the option to start him?

If you can still start him, he is yours. If he is still yours the trade isn't finalized. If the trade is not equal to the offer that was agreed upon, the owners should feel a responsibility to vote it down.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

No, the rule is there's a 2-day voting period

You mean the "collusion veto vote" window? Was it collusion?

No, pretty sure he meant the 2-day voting period.

There is a 2 day "league review vote" window

 

[Amused to Death]

No, the rule is there's a 2-day voting period

You mean the "collusion veto vote" window? Was it collusion?

No, pretty sure he meant the 2-day voting period.

There is a 2 day "league review vote" window

Or the actual poll question:

If someone is injured after trade is accepted, but while in "Collusion Veto Vote Window", do you...

 

[PainTrain]

If the league overturns the trade, how exactly do you handle it going forward then? What are the clear guidelines for how to apply this?

What if it isn't clear by the time the review finishes how serious the injury is? Does the review extend indefinitely until it is known?

If a traded player's NFL team's depth chart changes, whether a demotion/promotion, adding a player at his position which hurts his value, or some other player gets injured that helps his value, is that also going to negate a trade?

If it's a team defense who was slated to soon play the Packers twice when Aaron Rodgers was expected to be out, but during the review it is reported he's going to play, will the trade be overturned because now the values are not the same as they were at the time the trade was agreed?

I would think an appropriate bylaw would be that if a player in a trade plays a game during the pending period, either owner can veto the deal. Just don't trade players during that period. If they are injured any other time, then too bad, because the owners weren't free to start their outgoing players during that period. That would also cover trading for Ben Tate when Foster gets injured.The correct answer is "what do your by laws say?" So this debate is "what should they say?"

 

[CalBear]

An analogy here is being in escrow on a house. The agreement to purchase has been made, subject to fund availability and other restrictions. The deal can still be rescinded based on the contractual language each party signed up for. The sale contract, in that case, will have specific provisions for damage; if the house burns down while in escrow, the deal's off. But the protection for the purchaser is limited to what's in the contract; they can't back out just because they got cold feet, or they didn't know the house was in an airport flight path, or whatever. The seller is protected against the buyer backing out for reasons not specified in the contract.

Our fantasy contracts, unfortunately, usually aren't so specific. Is the buyer protected against a one-game injury, or just a season-ending one? Surely it can't be the case that the buyer gets to choose whether to let the trade go through or not based on the severity of the injury; that wouldn't be fair to the seller. And the seller shouldn't be able to kibosh the trade just because the guy pulled a Marvin Jones during the review period. League vote as a deciding factor doesn't seem like a great option, either; what if half the league voted before the injury/blowup, and half voted after?

I'll concur with the large number of "league review sucks" comments here, but amend with, "...and if you are stuck with having league reviews, you need to specify explicitly what happens if player values change between owner acceptance date and league review date.

Absent an explicit rule, I'd let the trade go through. Our league has a commish review, which is basically a rubber-stamp, and if an injury happened after the teams accepted but before I'd gotten around to approving it, I'd still approve it. [Now that I think about it, I should make that explicit in our rules.]

 

[jackdubl]

An analogy here is being in escrow on a house. The agreement to purchase has been made, subject to fund availability and other restrictions. The deal can still be rescinded based on the contractual language each party signed up for. The sale contract, in that case, will have specific provisions for damage; if the house burns down while in escrow, the deal's off. But the protection for the purchaser is limited to what's in the contract; they can't back out just because they got cold feet, or they didn't know the house was in an airport flight path, or whatever. The seller is protected against the buyer backing out for reasons not specified in the contract.

This is incorrect. Once the sales contract is signed, the deal is done. Hence the word "contract". If the house burns down during escrow, it's the buyer's problem. That's why you get insurance before closing.

 

[CalBear]

An analogy here is being in escrow on a house. The agreement to purchase has been made, subject to fund availability and other restrictions. The deal can still be rescinded based on the contractual language each party signed up for. The sale contract, in that case, will have specific provisions for damage; if the house burns down while in escrow, the deal's off. But the protection for the purchaser is limited to what's in the contract; they can't back out just because they got cold feet, or they didn't know the house was in an airport flight path, or whatever. The seller is protected against the buyer backing out for reasons not specified in the contract.

This is incorrect. Once the sales contract is signed, the deal is done. Hence the word "contract". If the house burns down during escrow, it's the buyer's problem. That's why you get insurance before closing.

Both parties have contingencies at the point the contract is signed; one of those is usually a home inspection. Obviously if the home burns down before the inspection the buyer can back out on the inspection contingency.

 

[bagger]

the bigger issue is that there is a league approval window at all.

 

[bagger]

An analogy here is being in escrow on a house. The agreement to purchase has been made, subject to fund availability and other restrictions. The deal can still be rescinded based on the contractual language each party signed up for. The sale contract, in that case, will have specific provisions for damage; if the house burns down while in escrow, the deal's off. But the protection for the purchaser is limited to what's in the contract; they can't back out just because they got cold feet, or they didn't know the house was in an airport flight path, or whatever. The seller is protected against the buyer backing out for reasons not specified in the contract.

This is incorrect. Once the sales contract is signed, the deal is done. Hence the word "contract". If the house burns down during escrow, it's the buyer's problem. That's why you get insurance before closing.

lol no.the buyer will likely lose his money in escrow as the deposit, but a seller cannot compel a buyer to buy the house even after the contract is signed.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

If the league overturns the trade, how exactly do you handle it going forward then? What are the clear guidelines for how to apply this?

What if it isn't clear by the time the review finishes how serious the injury is? Does the review extend indefinitely until it is known?

If a traded player's NFL team's depth chart changes, whether a demotion/promotion, adding a player at his position which hurts his value, or some other player gets injured that helps his value, is that also going to negate a trade?

If it's a team defense who was slated to soon play the Packers twice when Aaron Rodgers was expected to be out, but during the review it is reported he's going to play, will the trade be overturned because now the values are not the same as they were at the time the trade was agreed?

The above is exactly why you have to let the trade go through, and why you should set a precedent of judging the trade at value during acceptance or only veto if you suspect collusion. Most leagues with a league vote review are casual or mid-stakes at best. Owners should not have to taken an online course in contract law to figure out whether or not to veto a trade. Make it as simple as possible for them. They'll still find ways to screw it up, but at least you've eliminated as much of the gray area as possible.

 

[fbelange]

Trade should stand. It was made in good faith with a common understnading at the time of acceptance.

Does it suck for the guy getting James? Sure does, but hey, its up to the two of them what they wish to do. From a rules perspective, its compeltely Kosher.


...the real question is, why would you trade V. Cruz for Mike James? I gave James the straight drop after those 2 poor performances. His good game had to be an outlier

 

[Amused to Death]

I made a call but curious how fellow FBG commissioners would handle this. Vote above in how you'd handle this...

Over 80% say trade stands, what was your choice and how was it received by the league?

 

[RUSF18]

I made a call but curious how fellow FBG commissioners would handle this. Vote above in how you'd handle this...

Over 80% say trade stands, what was your choice and how was it received by the league?

Yeah he's a pretty frequent poster, what's with the hit and run?

 

[Deranged Hermit]

This happened to me a few weeks ago when I traded Bush for Julio Jones. It sucks, but it never even crossed my mind to cry and whine to the commish to overturn it.