League rules for trading (1 Viewer)

[ffguru56]

I just completed successive trades that made me wonder if other leagues have a set of rules for this particular scenario.

I asked Team B if they would make a deal with me (I wanted Pitt D from them) if I had Matt Cassel on my team (he was currently on another team). Once he said yes I contacted the owner of Matt Cassel and made a deal to obtain him. Once the trade was passed I immediately sent a trade to the Pitt owner and another deal was struck.

I could have easily been screwed by the Pitt owner as I have no need for Cassel whatsoever. Is this merely the chance you take in a scenario like this, hoping the second owner stays true to his word, or do you (or should we) have rules set in place to prevent that from happening?

 

[GregR_2]

Ideally you should have rules in place.

In my own league, the rules say the trade has to be consumated on the website or via leaguewide email. In the case of a three-way trade as you did, in my league you'd email the exact details of the trade and the other two owners would also mail the league that they agree to it. At that point you'd be protected.

Otherwise, yes, you could get stuck with a player if the 2nd team backed out.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

To cover my butt I usually just tell both parties this is a three way trade and we'll email the commish the particulars (since I have yet to see a site that allows three way trades). If any party backs out, the deal is obviously voided.

 

[Instinctive]

I just make 3-team trades.

 

[ffguru56]

Ideally you should have rules in place.In my own league, the rules say the trade has to be consumated on the website or via leaguewide email. In the case of a three-way trade as you did, in my league you'd email the exact details of the trade and the other two owners would also mail the league that they agree to it. At that point you'd be protected.Otherwise, yes, you could get stuck with a player if the 2nd team backed out.

We did the email process in the past when our league was webleaguemanager but now that it was bought out by rtsports we can do the trades right over the website, very convenient. Unfortunately I don't believe it has the option to set a second trade up when it depends on an initial trade first. So email might be a necessity in that case but it would need to be added to our Constitution so people are bound to their email agreements.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I could have easily been screwed by the Pitt owner as I have no need for Cassel whatsoever. Is this merely the chance you take in a scenario like this, hoping the second owner stays true to his word, or do you (or should we) have rules set in place to prevent that from happening?

I think in a scenario like this, there isn't really a rule that should be in place to protect you. There is no real agreement since you didn't even own Cassel at the time - so you assume the risk that the second part falls through. Of course you could have a few words with the owner that backed out if he gave you a firm "yes" when you first approached him.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

it has to just be a 3 way deal....otherwise the other owner might change his mind based on what else was involved in your deal for Cassel and how that may have changed the dynamics of the teams....

depending on what else was involved in your deal for Cassel will change Cassel's value to your team...thus possibly chagning what the owner of PIT D may want in return or be willing to give up...

no protection is required for this stuff, nor should it be, make the deal in an email showing all owners agree and have the commish process if need be...

can't have your cake and eat it too...