What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is my Assistant Commish being an ###? (1 Viewer)

Andrew74

Footballguy
I'm the commish in a league. There are two assistant commissioners. All trades have to be approved by the commish or an assistant commish if the commish is a party. The rules state a trade can only be vetoed if there is collusion. They also prohibit the borrowing of players.

I made a trade last week with one of the assistant commissioners that had a conditional pick (2nd rounder) based on a player's performance. I made a trade today with the same guy where I traded the 2nd to him outright and voided the condition in the original trade. The other assistant commissioner said he wouldn't approve it and that what I was doing was "dirty". I wasn't allowed to change terms of an earlier trade and that this broke the borrowing rule since players and picks aren't the same.

I assumed that the other guy and I can change any terms we want, since they don't involve anyone else. Similar to how I can write a contract that voids a previous contract.

What's does the Shark Pool say?

 
So you traded the same pick twice? Im confused. Seems a bit shady to me but maybe if you lay out the two trades exactly I can better understand

 
The way I read it, you made a trade a week ago and then changed the conditions of that trade a week later. Sounds like BS to me. I wouldve rejected too

 
Maybe you should provide the full details, players and everything because based on your OP, I would veto it too. Now if you want to do another trade that involves the pick you traded previously, that would be something to consider but how you mentioned the 1st trade should remain open because we are the only ones involved is BS. A trade once completed is finalized.

 
hmm...something seems fishy here....How can you trade a pick that is involved in another trade....does not work for me...i would have voided as well. can you tell us the players and the conditions?

 
The first trade said he would get a 2nd if Hopkins wasn't a top 24 WR. Today I outright gave him the 2nd in another trade, which makes the condition void (since he now gets the pick). I guess I didn't see anything wrong with it.

 
I am so excited to see the "BS trade" threads before a game has even been played this year. Usually you would have at least gotten to next Wednesday or so before you saw one of these.

 
Ya, I still think that i void the trade. This is why you should not be able to make "conditional" trades if the bylaws don't address how they are to be handled.

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.

 
The first trade said he would get a 2nd if Hopkins wasn't a top 24 WR. Today I outright gave him the 2nd in another trade, which makes the condition void (since he now gets the pick). I guess I didn't see anything wrong with it.
sounds ok to me if both trades stand on their own. i think if you want to lay out exactly what both trades were, it would be easier to provide an opinion.

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
I could see this if I traded it to a 3rd party, but if the guy on the receiving end of the condition says he'll take it firm now, should he not be able to do that?
 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
:yes:

seems to me if you allow conditional trades that pick should be set aside and "locked"

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
I could see this if I traded it to a 3rd party, but if the guy on the receiving end of the condition says he'll take it firm now, should he not be able to do that?
so he would end up getting nothing for hopkins???

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
I think the pick is in limbo for the entire season, pending the performance of "Player Y1".

 
I'm in a league where we've put in a conditional clause in many trades based on a player's performance. There have even been a few instances of exactly what describe - the two owners then agreeing to void the conditional in favor of the other owner getting the pick outright in another trade later on.

That being said, I can see why the assistant commish didn't allow it. Because once you involve a pick potentially being traded based on certain conditions you've traded away your rights (or at least suspended your rights) to that pick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm in a league where we've put in a conditional clause in many trades based on a player's performance. There have even been a few instances of exactly what describe - the two owners then agreeing to void the conditional in favor of the other owner getting the pick outright in another trade later on.

That being said, I can see why the assistant commish didn't allow it. Because once you involve a pick potentially being traded based on certain conditions you've traded away your rights (or at least suspended your rights) to that pick.
That doesn't make sense. Of course he's traded away rights to the pick, but both trades are consensual from both parties. Again, i'm assuming both trades stand alone in which case these trades sound fine.

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
Agreed.

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
He didn't trade the 2nd round pick. He converted the conditional 2nd round pick designation to a guaranteed 2nd round pick designation for a player.

 
I'm in a league where we've put in a conditional clause in many trades based on a player's performance. There have even been a few instances of exactly what describe - the two owners then agreeing to void the conditional in favor of the other owner getting the pick outright in another trade later on.

That being said, I can see why the assistant commish didn't allow it. Because once you involve a pick potentially being traded based on certain conditions you've traded away your rights (or at least suspended your rights) to that pick.
That doesn't make sense. Of course he's traded away rights to the pick, but both trades are consensual from both parties. Again, i'm assuming both trades stand alone in which case these trades sound fine.
You're preaching to the choir - I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the reasoning for the 2nd trade being voided is because you're changing the conditions of the 1st trade in order to do it.

 
The assistant commish was definitely not being an ###.

I would want some rules in place before allowing after-the-fact amending of trades. I imagine if I thought about it for a bit I could come up with ways to abuse it. So I'd want to think it all through on what to allow or not before opening the door on it.

 
The first trade said he would get a 2nd if Hopkins wasn't a top 24 WR. Today I outright gave him the 2nd in another trade, which makes the condition void (since he now gets the pick). I guess I didn't see anything wrong with it.
R u really a commish? Is that you taco?

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
He didn't trade the 2nd round pick. He converted the conditional 2nd round pick designation to a guaranteed 2nd round pick designation for a player.
So he traded the pick.

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
He didn't trade the 2nd round pick. He converted the conditional 2nd round pick designation to a guaranteed 2nd round pick designation for a player.
So he traded the pick.
No, the trade was voided. He was trying to guarantee the pick.

Andrew74 What would the other team receive is Hopkins does finish top 24?

 
I don't see a major issue here. The second trade was not for a 2nd round pick but another conditional trade for a 2nd round pick if Hopkins (a player not involved in the second deal) is a top 24 player.

 
The first trade said he would get a 2nd if Hopkins wasn't a top 24 WR. Today I outright gave him the 2nd in another trade, which makes the condition void (since he now gets the pick). I guess I didn't see anything wrong with it.
If you gave the same guy a 2nd rounder, then he is an idiot for taking that 2nd rounder knowing it was a conditional part of a different deal you made with HIM.

But, if you are ok voiding it, and HE is ok voiding it (that is the key part), then it should be fine

 
So if I get this right you trade Player X plus conditional 2nd rounder based on player x performance this year for Player Y1. Later, you trade firm second rounder for Player Y2.

So really the trade was Player X plus 2nd rounder next year (firm) for Player Y1 and Player Y2.

Don't see a problem with it but woul dhave been better doing it in one trade instead of two.
This is it.
as i see it the second round pick was no longer yours to trade
He didn't trade the 2nd round pick. He converted the conditional 2nd round pick designation to a guaranteed 2nd round pick designation for a player.
So he traded the pick.
No, the trade was voided. He was trying to guarantee the pick. Andrew74 What would the other team receive is Hopkins does finish top 24?
In the original trade, he would get nothing if Hopkins finished in the top 24.
 
The first trade said he would get a 2nd if Hopkins wasn't a top 24 WR. Today I outright gave him the 2nd in another trade, which makes the condition void (since he now gets the pick). I guess I didn't see anything wrong with it.
If you gave the same guy a 2nd rounder, then he is an idiot for taking that 2nd rounder knowing it was a conditional part of a different deal you made with HIM.

But, if you are ok voiding it, and HE is ok voiding it (that is the key part), then it should be fine
Yes, he was okay voiding.
 
Since the same two parties are involved in both trades, it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with this.

It definitely doesn't break the borrowing of players rule.

 
Since the same two parties are involved in both trades, it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with this.

It definitely doesn't break the borrowing of players rule.
you can make an argument that the second player traded (to remove the conditional pick stipulation) was borrowed for a week as no other players/picks changed hands. Whats to stop people from doing this during the season? Say i have bye week issues and i trade a conditional pick and player A to another team for player B. the team also wants player C but i need him to fill the bye week. So i say lets make this trade this week and then next week ill remove the conditional stipulation and trade you player C so it doesnt look like borrowing.
 
I think any type of trade that has a conditional stipulations around it puts that asset into an "un-tradeable" state until the condition is met.

Reading thru this a bit

Owner A trades Player Z and a conditional 2014 2nd if Player X is in the top 24

Owner B trades Player X

By season's end, if Player X doesn't finish in the top 24, owner A keeps their draft pick. Owner B doesn't ever have full control of the draft pick until the end of the season, so I don't know how Owner B can trade away it's rights?

What it comes down to is that you need to solidify your league's rules around trades with conditions

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds to me like you traded your 2nd rounder next year twice. If the conditional 2nd was to the same guy and he allowed the condition to be dropped then I see no problem. Since the season hasn't started you may want to rescind the entire 2 trades and just put it together as a single trade.

 
So in the first trade, you are trading the possibility of giving up a 2 next year.

In the 2nd trade, you are essentially just removing the conditional aspect of the 2 and guaranteeing it.

I see where there is value obtained in both trades in that 2.

I personally do think that is over complicated and could lead to messy situations further down the line.

 
Nothing wrong with this trade. The ast.Commish was just confused with the deal, as were many who posted in this thread

 
Since the same two parties are involved in both trades, it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with this.

It definitely doesn't break the borrowing of players rule.
you can make an argument that the second player traded (to remove the conditional pick stipulation) was borrowed for a week as no other players/picks changed hands. Whats to stop people from doing this during the season? Say i have bye week issues and i trade a conditional pick and player A to another team for player B. the team also wants player C but i need him to fill the bye week. So i say lets make this trade this week and then next week ill remove the conditional stipulation and trade you player C so it doesnt look like borrowing.
but that's not truly borrowing...

 
Nothing wrong with this trade. The ast.Commish was just confused with the deal, as were many who posted in this thread
This is correct not sure of the source of confusion.

A team could trade player A for player B, with a conditional draft pick (based on player A's performance).

Then, the same team could trade player X to the same trade partner for player Y, and remove the conditional aspect of the first trade.

In the first deal, the trade partner acquired the conditional right to a draft pick.

In the second deal, the trade partner received the draft pick (free of conditions).

The terminology "voided the first trade" is poor semantics.

 
I think it ultimately probably is OK, but conditional trades are playing with fire. They're a terrible idea in general and I highly recommend not allowing them in any league. Do you even have any rule governing them? What if I trade you a guy for a pick and there is a condition attached where if I beat you in a game of golf it's a 4th but if you beat me it's a 2nd? Do your rules prevent that? I bet they don't. Or what if that player gets traded again? Or what if the condition is based on someone making the playoffs and the team tanks it on purpose because he doesn't think he'll win the playoffs anyway?

 
Andrew74 said:
I'm the commish in a league. There are two assistant commissioners. All trades have to be approved by the commish or an assistant commish if the commish is a party. The rules state a trade can only be vetoed if there is collusion. They also prohibit the borrowing of players.

I made a trade last week with one of the assistant commissioners that had a conditional pick (2nd rounder) based on a player's performance. I made a trade today with the same guy where I traded the 2nd to him outright and voided the condition in the original trade. The other assistant commissioner said he wouldn't approve it and that what I was doing was "dirty". I wasn't allowed to change terms of an earlier trade and that this broke the borrowing rule since players and picks aren't the same.

I assumed that the other guy and I can change any terms we want, since they don't involve anyone else. Similar to how I can write a contract that voids a previous contract.

What's does the Shark Pool say?
You're the .
 
You need to think of the conditional pick as a contract. Part of the compensation provided in the 2nd trade is to agree to null and void the contract. Trade's are ok imo.

I run a dynasty league and as much as I like the idea of being creative with conditional trading I think it's far outweighed by the headache it would create.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top