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!

Interesting sidebet situation (1 Viewer)

L

larking13

Footballguy
Hi, most of the leagues I'm involved in usually contain side bets along the way, as I'm sure a lot of you do as well.

The bet in question here was made early in the season, $20 that TEAM FOSTER finishes in the top 3 at the end of the regular season. Only stipulation is bet is void if Foster is traded at some point.

After week 13 (14 week season,10 teams,Top 4 playoffs), the standings were:

1. ALPHA 9-4

2. BETA 9-4

3. CHARLIE 8-5

4. DELTA 7-6

5. ECHO 7-6

6. FOSTER 6-7

and so on...

TEAM FOSTER trades Foster on Tuesday of week 14 in an effort to make the playoffs. Ends up 6th.

After week 14, the bettor asks to collect the $20. Team Foster argues the bet is void since he traded Foster. Bettor argues Team Foster could not achieve 3rd place at the time of the trade.

Who is in the right here?

 
what a dumb bet...why wouldn't the team with Foster automatically void it by trading Foster as soon as he's about to lose the bet?

Looks like that's what happened.

 
Looks like the person (non-foster owner) didn't think the bet all the way through when he made it and the other guy found a cop out. Douchey? Yes. But he doesn't owe the other guy $20.

 
'Warrior said:
what a dumb bet...why wouldn't the team with Foster automatically void it by trading Foster as soon as he's about to lose the bet?Looks like that's what happened.
Click to expand...
Both parties have agreed that this is not what occurred. It was a legit trade in an attempt to make the playoffs (worth way more than $20).
 
how do they handle this in the real world - say you make a bet in Vegas that the Texans will win their division - do they pay as soon as they have clinched the division or at the end of the season? If the former I think the bet is due, if the latter I think it's not.

 
Would Team Foster had made top 3 with Foster in Week 14? If the answer is No, I think it's pretty clear Team Foster should pay up, unless he's completely acknowledging that he used the stipulation as a loophole to prevent payment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'nb009 said:
Would Team Foster had made top 3 with Foster in Week 14? If the answer is No, I think it's pretty clear Team Foster should pay up, unless he's completely acknowledging that he used the stipulation as a loophole to prevent payment.
Click to expand...
Who cares if he's completely acknowledging that's why he made the trade? Even if that's true (which is probably isn't), it's not his fault the other guy made a stupid bet with an out clause.
 
'Warrior said:
why wouldn't the team with Foster automatically void it by trading Foster as soon as he's about to lose the bet?
Click to expand...
Why would the team with Foster rush to trade away one of the best players in fantasy football just to win $20 avoid losing $20?
'donkshow said:
the trade was made just to void the bet. Kind of lame.
Click to expand...
'larking13 said:
TEAM FOSTER trades Foster on Tuesday of week 14 in an effort to make the playoffs.
Click to expand...
:shrug: This is what happens when you make stupid bets. It sounds like the terms of the bet were pretty clearly stipulated, and the bet has been voided.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trade was made in bad faith--(who trades Foster to try to make the playoffs anyway? wouldn't he help in that endeavor?).

I'd cite error and fraud as cause to uphold the bet (any other law students out there going through finals right now?).

bet stands.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You agreed to his easy exit of the bet. Learn to make better bets or learn how to add your own stipulations?

 
'Proximo said:
Trade was made in bad faith--(who trades Foster to try to make the playoffs anyway? wouldn't he help in that endeavor?).
Click to expand...
Maybe the guy also had Adrian Peterson, Doug Martin, and Alfred Morris on his roster, and was desperate for a QB and some WRs. You have no idea why he made the trade; in the absence of additional evidence, I'll take OPs word for it that he made it to try and make a run at the playoffs. It's not unrealistic. It's not like we're talking about three racks here. It's $20. Why would a guy in playoff contention trade away Foster just to save $20?
 
Clearly, the only way to resolve this is to raise a huge scimitar and threaten to cleave Foster in half.

The owner who cries out, "No! Let Arian live on for another roster, if only so that team will have a shot at the playoffs!" wins the $20.

 
Prior to reading the responses, I was under the impression that a trade involving Foster would have been traded away from Houston.

 
I agree with most of the others. Team Foster is a loser and should pay. But the way the bet is worded he doesn't have to pay.

 
'Ryan99 said:
Is $20 worth the reputation as a weasel?
Click to expand...
Sometimes people have to pay for their stupid mistakes. How else will they learn? The non-Foster owner made a poorly thought-out bet. He doesn't deserve to collect.Do people here really think that the Foster owner just traded away Foster to avoid losing $20? As you say, it's not that much money. Meanwhile, it appears he was still in playoff contention at the time he made the trade, and prseumably there's a possibility of winning more than $20 (maybe significantly more) in the playoffs. Obviously we have very few details here and none of us can read his mind, but why would someone fighting for a playoff spot trade away one of the best players in the game just to avoid losing a measly $20? The other guy's the one trying to collect on a bet that, by a condition he agreed to at the outset, has been voided. Who's the weasel?
 
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
'Ryan99 said:
Is $20 worth the reputation as a weasel?
Click to expand...
Sometimes people have to pay for their stupid mistakes. How else will they learn? The non-Foster owner made a poorly thought-out bet. He doesn't deserve to collect.Do people here really think that the Foster owner just traded away Foster to avoid losing $20? As you say, it's not that much money. Meanwhile, it appears he was still in playoff contention at the time he made the trade, and prseumably there's a possibility of winning more than $20 (maybe significantly more) in the playoffs. Obviously we have very few details here and none of us can read his mind, but why would someone fighting for a playoff spot trade away one of the best players in the game just to avoid losing a measly $20? The other guy's the one trying to collect on a bet that, by a condition he agreed to at the outset, has been voided. Who's the weasel?
Click to expand...
The obvious premise of the bet was that if Foster was traded, then he would not be on the team to help him finish in 3rd place. So if there was a chance the guy could finish in 3rd and he traded Foster, then the bet would be voided. But with Foster on his team, there was no way the guy could finish in 3rd, so yes, a good argument could be made that the Foster guy lost the bet.But the way the bet was worded gave the Foster guy an out and he took it. But if we are having a weasel competition here, I'd give it to the Foster owner.
 
We implemented no trading after week 12, to avoid these sidebet controversies.

Is Team Foster still named Team Foster even though they traded Foster?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joey
All-The-Same-Bye-Week Team (by ADP)
Replies
10
Views
258
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy
Scoresman
2024 SoS Analysis - Why this metric is not very useful
Replies
1
Views
194
TheWinz
TheWinz
socrates
Early 2026 Dynasty Rookie Draft Rankings
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
socrates
socrates

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top