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)

Trade was fine.

Conditional pick in the first trade means:

  • IF Hopkins is tops, THEN he gets 2nd round as part of this trade
  • IF Hopkins is not tops, THEN he doesn't get 2nd round as part of this trade
Firm pick in second trade means:

  • IF Hopkins is tops, THEN he gets 2nd round
  • IF Hopkins is not tops, THEN he gets 2nd round
So there's clear value in the second trade. Both parties gave up some rights for some value in the first trade, and both parties gave up some rights for some value in the second trade.

 
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.
So roll this forward and assume Hopkins finishes outside top 24. So he has your second round pick.

So what does the second trade look like if we take the second round pick out?

 
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.

 
what were the exact terms of BOTH trades and BOTH sides....

it sounds like if hopkins was WR24 or better, he would have gotten a second... if not, he got nothing (the conditional part)... with the new trade superseding earlier one, he would now get nothing even if hopkins is WR24 or better...

other party now definitely gets the 2nd, whereas before it was a maybe, contingent... but what is being left out in above as far as I can tell... the hidden aspect is he has to part with something for that second that he might have been getting anyways...

this is the tricky part that may have confused asst. commish...

but from your viewpoint, you are characterizing it as he may not have gotten that second earlier, now he definitely does...

others are wondering if he could have gotten the second anyways (hopkins meets condition - but there is some risk if he doesn't), than he could have gotten ADDITIONAL pick/s or player/s for whatever he gave up on SECOND trade (but we haven't been told what transpired on this?)...

 
It seems like the fact that you're referring to it as voiding part of the earlier trade is the issue, and that shouldn't be allowed. However, if you put it in terms of trading the conditional rights back to you, then it's not you voiding the earlier contract, it's the other guy trading the rights back to you, for example:

Trade 1:

Player A gives Player W

Player B gives Player X and a conditional 2nd rounder

Trade 2:

Player A gives Player Y and conditional 2nd rounder

Player B gives Player Z and 2nd rounder

If you frame it like that, you're not modifying the earlier trade, which seems to be the issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
what were the exact terms of BOTH trades and BOTH sides....

it sounds like if hopkins was WR24 or better, he would have gotten a second... if not, he got nothing (the conditional part)... with the new trade superseding earlier one, he would now get nothing even if hopkins is WR24 or better...

other party now definitely gets the 2nd, whereas before it was a maybe, contingent... but what is being left out in above as far as I can tell... the hidden aspect is he has to part with something for that second that he might have been getting anyways...

this is the tricky part that may have confused asst. commish...

but from your viewpoint, you are characterizing it as he may not have gotten that second earlier, now he definitely does...

others are wondering if he could have gotten the second anyways (hopkins meets condition - but there is some risk if he doesn't), than he could have gotten ADDITIONAL pick/s or player/s for whatever he gave up on SECOND trade (but we haven't been told what transpired on this?)...
No, you have that backwards: he'd get the pick if Hopkins isn't a top 24 WR. And lets be realistic here; Hopkins is very unlikely to crack the top 24, so the other owner was almost certainly going to get that pick. That means that the second trade was almost worthless, yet it's worthlessness might not be readily apparent. I'm very curious who the OP received in the 2nd trade.

Based on what I know at this time I think the assistant commish made the right call.

 
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
I agree with this. I act as the asst commish in one of my leagues and a similar situation to this. The commish had the rights to a conditional pick and was trying to use it in another deal. Without going in to detail, it would have looked bad. The good thing is that the commish called me and asked for my opinion. I told him not to do it, that it could make him look bad. Why upset the perceived integrity of your league over a second round pick? If there's any hesistancy at all, as a commish, you should err on the side of caution.

 
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
I agree with this. I act as the asst commish in one of my leagues and a similar situation to this. The commish had the rights to a conditional pick and was trying to use it in another deal. Without going in to detail, it would have looked bad. The good thing is that the commish called me and asked for my opinion. I told him not to do it, that it could make him look bad. Why upset the perceived integrity of your league over a second round pick? If there's any hesistancy at all, as a commish, you should err on the side of caution.
Me and the other guy had several long conversations about this but the Assist. Commish never got on board. I decided to just drop the whole thing for this reason - didn't want to put this to the league and seem like I was abusing any power. The other guy is really pissed at the Assist. Commish, but agreed not to make a stink about it. The trade is in the offseason dynasty trade thread (since we did agree to the trade). IIRC, I gave a 2nd in '15, guaranteed the conditional 2nd in '14 from the earlier trade and Vereen. Received a '14 1st and a '15 3rd.

 
what were the exact terms of BOTH trades and BOTH sides....

it sounds like if hopkins was WR24 or better, he would have gotten a second... if not, he got nothing (the conditional part)... with the new trade superseding earlier one, he would now get nothing even if hopkins is WR24 or better...

other party now definitely gets the 2nd, whereas before it was a maybe, contingent... but what is being left out in above as far as I can tell... the hidden aspect is he has to part with something for that second that he might have been getting anyways...

this is the tricky part that may have confused asst. commish...

but from your viewpoint, you are characterizing it as he may not have gotten that second earlier, now he definitely does...

others are wondering if he could have gotten the second anyways (hopkins meets condition - but there is some risk if he doesn't), than he could have gotten ADDITIONAL pick/s or player/s for whatever he gave up on SECOND trade (but we haven't been told what transpired on this?)...
No, you have that backwards: he'd get the pick if Hopkins isn't a top 24 WR. And lets be realistic here; Hopkins is very unlikely to crack the top 24, so the other owner was almost certainly going to get that pick. That means that the second trade was almost worthless, yet it's worthlessness might not be readily apparent. I'm very curious who the OP received in the 2nd trade.

Based on what I know at this time I think the assistant commish made the right call.
depending on format, hilton and blackmon were in the ballpark of top 24 last year...so maybe less than 50% chance, but I'll be far from surprised if he does it...

austin and hopkins seem like the most likely to do it from class of '13...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.

 
Only a couple others have mentioned it but the conditional pick is held in limbo until the condition is met/not met. The first trade with the condition loses value now and may not have been done at the time unless that condition was put in place.

The commish made the right call here because of the value loss and revoking of the condition. Two separate trades cannot involve pieces from one another, IMO.

 
Dude, you're being really shady as the commish. 'Conditional' trades are fine in the NFL. They're very shady in fantasy.

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook

 
Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook
Sorry the "conditional" aspect of a trade is too hard to follow... but a league has the right to it own conventions.

The first trade gave team "X" the conditional right to a draft pick (some value)

The second trade gave team "X" the draft pick outright (additional value)

What is so hard to understand?

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...

 
Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
You smoke a lot of dope? Pass me that thing, will ya?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook
Sorry the "conditional" aspect of a trade is too hard to follow... but a league has the right to it own conventions.

The first trade gave team "X" the conditional right to a draft pick (some value)

The second trade gave team "X" the draft pick outright (additional value)

What is so hard to understand?
Nothing. But the appearance of a commish being involved in something that even just looks a little off could destroy a league down the road.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook
Sorry the "conditional" aspect of a trade is too hard to follow... but a league has the right to it own conventions.

The first trade gave team "X" the conditional right to a draft pick (some value)

The second trade gave team "X" the draft pick outright (additional value)

What is so hard to understand?
Nothing. But the appearance of a commish being involved in something that even just looks a little off could destroy a league down the road.
So you think the commish shouldn't ever make a trade because, God forbid, he gets the better end of one and gives the aura of improper behavior.

OK, gotcha.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook
Sorry the "conditional" aspect of a trade is too hard to follow... but a league has the right to it own conventions.

The first trade gave team "X" the conditional right to a draft pick (some value)

The second trade gave team "X" the draft pick outright (additional value)

What is so hard to understand?
Nothing. But the appearance of a commish being involved in something that even just looks a little off could destroy a league down the road.
So you think the commish shouldn't ever make a trade because, God forbid, he gets the better end of one and gives the aura of improper behavior.

OK, gotcha.
No. I think that making a deal involving a conditional pick that has already been traded could set a bad precedent for the league. Even though the terms seem to be fine the commish should follow the extreme letter of the rules/law and leave no room for gray area.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.
As I said earlier, I can't trade for AJ Green with anyone but the AJ Green owner. That's kind of a given, right?

He gave the conditional right to a pick to a team.

He then gave the pick (without conditions) to the SAME team. (You understand it is the SAME trade partner, right?)

The fact that he couldn't do that deal with anyone else means absolutely zilch, except to you who has this weird notion that doesn't make any sense...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.
As I said earlier, I can't trade for AJ Green with anyone but the AJ Green owner. That's kind of a given, right?

He gave the conditional right to a pick to a team.

He then gave the pick (without conditions) to the SAME team. (You understand it is the SAME trade partner, right?)

The fact that he couldn't do that deal with anyone else means absolutely zilch, except to you who has this weird notion that doesn't make any sense...
My mistake...carry on.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.
As I said earlier, I can't trade for AJ Green with anyone but the AJ Green owner. That's kind of a given, right?

He gave the conditional right to a pick to a team.

He then gave the pick (without conditions) to the SAME team. (You understand it is the SAME trade partner, right?)

The fact that he couldn't do that deal with anyone else means absolutely zilch, except to you who has this weird notion that doesn't make any sense...
My mistake...carry on.
For what it's worth, I've never made a "conditional" draft pick... but if it's good for professional sports then so be it...

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.
As I said earlier, I can't trade for AJ Green with anyone but the AJ Green owner. That's kind of a given, right?

He gave the conditional right to a pick to a team.

He then gave the pick (without conditions) to the SAME team. (You understand it is the SAME trade partner, right?)

The fact that he couldn't do that deal with anyone else means absolutely zilch, except to you who has this weird notion that doesn't make any sense...
My mistake...carry on.
For what it's worth, I've never made a "conditional" draft pick... but if it's good for professional sports then so be it...
My mistake...carry on.

 
I agree with assistant commish. The 2 trades do not stand on their own merits and the 2nd trade is one that could not have been made with any other owner in the league. Add the fact the it was done by the commish and the AC is correct.
Ummm.. I couldn't trade for AJ Green with anybody but the Green owner... Reason to veto? I didn't think so...
He couldn't include his pick with any other owner. Again, the 2 deals do not stand on their own merits. Just my opinion....
What, in God's name, do you mean by the deals do not stand my their own merits? Two teams understood and accepted them...
The are 2 deals that could not be made with 2 different teams. He could not trade the pick to another team. I'm done. You can disagree.
As I said earlier, I can't trade for AJ Green with anyone but the AJ Green owner. That's kind of a given, right?

He gave the conditional right to a pick to a team.

He then gave the pick (without conditions) to the SAME team. (You understand it is the SAME trade partner, right?)

The fact that he couldn't do that deal with anyone else means absolutely zilch, except to you who has this weird notion that doesn't make any sense...
My mistake...carry on.
For what it's worth, I've never made a "conditional" draft pick... but if it's good for professional sports then so be it...
My mistake...carry on.
Must be an echo in here...

 
Trade is good. 2nd trade included negotiations to relieve the conditions of the first trade. Pro teams have done this in real life, not that complicated. Approved.

 
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
So glad you came to clear this all up, just wish you got here earlier you could have saved us all a lot of time. Thanks again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiStefano said:
The only problem is, as the Commish you have the obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. From that standpoint, I would rule as your Assistant Commish did.
Best advice in the entire thread.
To anyone with average intelligence, there wasn't an appearance of impropriety... Commish has a right to play the game too.

Deal was fine.
Great material in this thread for the "Never play in a league commish'd by ____" notebook
Sorry the "conditional" aspect of a trade is too hard to follow... but a league has the right to it own conventions.

The first trade gave team "X" the conditional right to a draft pick (some value)

The second trade gave team "X" the draft pick outright (additional value)

What is so hard to understand?
Nothing. But the appearance of a commish being involved in something that even just looks a little off could destroy a league down the road.
So you think the commish shouldn't ever make a trade because, God forbid, he gets the better end of one and gives the aura of improper behavior. OK, gotcha.
I'm not the only one who has done a conditional trade, so I guess I am in a league of shady owners.
 
He's trading his share of the gamble on hopkins. There is value there being exchanged. The first part is not being voided, he's just trading his future rights. I don't see the problem.

 
The fact that there are over 80 responses in here that either request more of an explanation, or have a different take on it, is the reason I absolutely hate conditional trades. In my experience, most conditional trades are usually quashed or reworked by the two parties before they even come to fruition.

That being said, sometimes it's the easiest way to finalize a deal. I've made them myself and guys in my league make them as well. We do it as a separate email to each other for record. If it ends up having to be enforced, we tell the commish about it at that time. Saves a lot of confusion and trade voids up front. Always easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

I don't see anything wrong with the OPs trades. I just think they could have saved themselves some aggrevation if they had gone about it differently. Maybe my way isn't the most appropriate, but it sure saves a lot of time and childish arguing.

 
Am I reading it right that the second offer included a pick that isn't even officially "in the books" until after the season (conditional on the player's season stats)? How can that be legal then?

 
Trade was fine.

Conditional pick in the first trade means:

  • IF Hopkins is tops, THEN he gets 2nd round as part of this trade
  • IF Hopkins is not tops, THEN he doesn't get 2nd round as part of this trade
Firm pick in second trade means:

  • IF Hopkins is tops, THEN he gets 2nd round
  • IF Hopkins is not tops, THEN he gets 2nd round
So there's clear value in the second trade. Both parties gave up some rights for some value in the first trade, and both parties gave up some rights for some value in the second trade.
Winner. Winner chicken dinner. This is the correct answer.I think most would agree if the details had been explained better from the start.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a bigger problem with the first trade. I'd never allow for a trade where one side only gets a potential asset.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top