Owner Complaints and Resolutions (1 Viewer)

[VTjkru]

Ive seen a lot of "is this collusion" or "is this fair" kind of threads so I figure we can compile them all in one thread.

Ill start. Our league plays on ESPN. We have a 24 hour trade review period after a trade has been accepted. The league runs a veto system of 5 votes to have a trade denied (out of 12 owners). Not once have we had a trade vetoed (I think maybe one time but it was because both owners did not want to do the trade anymore and insted of wasting there time to trade back everyone just vetoed it).

Saturday "Owner A" sends a trade to "Owner B". "A" gets Portis and Andre Johnson, "B" gets LJ and Housh. The trade is accepted and is not in the review period for the owners to evaluate. No one has a problem with it till Portis gets hurt. Now "A" doesnt want to do the trade anymore and wants it canceled. As commish, I dont have any option to do that and it has to be voted down. The only way it would be canceled is if both owners agreed and then everyone would veto.

It went through and "Owner A" is more than pissed. The rest of the league: tough cookies.

If I really wanted to I could manually move the players (I think I need permission from both teams still to do that). But that would open up a bigger can of worms. What's your take?

 

[Plainsman]

Tell that to owner A. If Portis didnt get hurt till next week would he still complain to have it undone? Owners like A dont deserve friends that try to reason with this insanity and allow them to play in their league. If I were you I hope this causes him to not play next year so you can find an owner with reason.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Ive seen a lot of "is this collusion" or "is this fair" kind of threads so I figure we can compile them all in one thread. Ill start. Our league plays on ESPN. We have a 24 hour trade review period after a trade has been accepted. The league runs a veto system of 5 votes to have a trade denied (out of 12 owners). Not once have we had a trade vetoed (I think maybe one time but it was because both owners did not want to do the trade anymore and insted of wasting there time to trade back everyone just vetoed it).Saturday "Owner A" sends a trade to "Owner B". "A" gets Portis and Andre Johnson, "B" gets LJ and Housh. The trade is accepted and is not in the review period for the owners to evaluate. No one has a problem with it till Portis gets hurt. Now "A" doesnt want to do the trade anymore and wants it canceled. As commish, I dont have any option to do that and it has to be voted down. The only way it would be canceled is if both owners agreed and then everyone would veto. It went through and "Owner A" is more than pissed. The rest of the league: tough cookies. If I really wanted to I could manually move the players (I think I need permission from both teams still to do that). But that would open up a bigger can of worms. What's your take?

My take is that if you have a review period than that review period should be for the players who made the trade as well (but your rules need to be clear). I think it is tough cookies though and the fact the guy who offered the trade is the one complaining even helps that case. Now if he didn't know Portis was injured before the offer, that is different. What I mean by that is if a guy offers a trade for Alexander after the news broke about his broken foot or a guy offered a trade with that knowledge I would consider that a no trade because technically a player would have to pass a physical. That is the one area your player may have a gripe. If he wanted out during the review period that should probably be allowed.

 

[VA Sundevil]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.

The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.

Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.

But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

 

[VTjkru]

Yeah, that explains it well enough. Im not looking to screw anybody here. Just want to use this to influence league in any decision that's made. I dont sit on my computer for games to watch stats (have sunday ticket) so I dont take any action till I do sit at my computer.

We dont have a written set of rules or bylaws cause the rules set forth on ESPN (and Yahoo in the past) have been sufficient enough. The only things that we have to address are dues/prize issues, tanking games, and filling a full roster.

ESPN states clearly what the review period is for:

"Trade Review Period: This is the length of time allowed where the league decides if a trade is fair. League managers can determine the span of time for the review. If one of the "hour" review periods is selected -- and the trade is not vetoed -- it will process within the hour (not the exact minute) when the period expires. "

And we do it by a five vote veto.

And like I said earlier, I cant cancel the trade nor can I manually edit anyone's roster unless they give me the option to.

 

[Yitbos69]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

I would be very sure that I wanted to make a trade before I offered it(or accepted it)!! If you offer the Trade and the other owner accepts the trade it's a done deal! If someone offers you a trade and you accept it it's a done deal.Simple

 

[turnit643]

Agree with Yit: You offered a trade, it was accepted, and it was submitted to the league.

I think at that point it's out of your hands.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm ok with one thread like this. Keep them all here. All others will be locked.

J

 

[Cunk]

I've got one.

This past weekend one of teams was down one running back going into the weekend thus giving him an illegal lineup intially with Sportsline. Before Monday night he inserted a rb (Lewis) on bye thus filling his roster and making it legal. He wasn't trying to be sneaky. He emailed me to let me know why he had an illegal lineup and didn't try to just slide this by.

Now I don't remember being able to switch players around after the first games started on Sunday until this year.

I've already emailed the league letting them know that the team with the initial illegal lineup will keep his point and the win as it was. The team opposing this team has a gripe with this and perhaps deservedly so.

There are a few ways I'm looking at it. One, what difference does it make who is in your initial lineup if you can change it afterward. If I put Bledsoe in there and then swithched to Eli then Bledsoe would have been in the lineup on false pretenses, if you will, before the switch.

Another is that the owner putting in Lewis was at a distinct disadvantage.

In my view it makes no difference whether or not he put in Lewis on Sunday or Monday. He was still putting in someone who was going to get a zero.

I can't really think of any good reason to give this owner a zero and take away his win. It would give the other team an unearned win and could change a lot of things down the road for, what I think, is a trivial issue.

I hate the "illegal lineup' thing all together. On this board I hear about some people sitting their quarterbacks on Monday night because they had won their game and don't want to risk minus points. On Sportsline this would give you an illegal lineup and zero points. As long as you don't have too many people on your roster I don't see why you should have an illegal lineup.

I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks I am wrong in my mode of thinking and why.

 

[MrPack]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

So the trade wasn't accepted? Or was it, and then you backed out?

 

[Keg]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.

The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.

Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.

But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

what is ridiculous is that you cant see that if you have an option to veto your own deal that it is just poor programing...as for what i highlited in red...as a participant in a trade you have as much time as you ever want before you accept/propose a trade so why would you think it is logical for you to be able to rescind a trade within that 24 hour review period? Straws my friend you are grasping at STRAWS

 

[VTjkru]

I've got one. This past weekend one of teams was down one running back going into the weekend thus giving him an illegal lineup intially with Sportsline. Before Monday night he inserted a rb (Lewis) on bye thus filling his roster and making it legal. He wasn't trying to be sneaky. He emailed me to let me know why he had an illegal lineup and didn't try to just slide this by. Now I don't remember being able to switch players around after the first games started on Sunday until this year.I've already emailed the league letting them know that the team with the initial illegal lineup will keep his point and the win as it was. The team opposing this team has a gripe with this and perhaps deservedly so. There are a few ways I'm looking at it. One, what difference does it make who is in your initial lineup if you can change it afterward. If I put Bledsoe in there and then swithched to Eli then Bledsoe would have been in the lineup on false pretenses, if you will, before the switch.Another is that the owner putting in Lewis was at a distinct disadvantage. In my view it makes no difference whether or not he put in Lewis on Sunday or Monday. He was still putting in someone who was going to get a zero.I can't really think of any good reason to give this owner a zero and take away his win. It would give the other team an unearned win and could change a lot of things down the road for, what I think, is a trivial issue.I hate the "illegal lineup' thing all together. On this board I hear about some people sitting their quarterbacks on Monday night because they had won their game and don't want to risk minus points. On Sportsline this would give you an illegal lineup and zero points. As long as you don't have too many people on your roster I don't see why you should have an illegal lineup. I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks I am wrong in my mode of thinking and why.

I dont understand the issue of being able to switch players after the fact that they started? That shouldnt be allowed at all.And if your league requires you to have a full lineup and the guy initially didnt have a full lineup he should get penalized for it. And if you were trying to be leniant by letting him switch someone in but it was a guy on bye...that's just circumventing the issue. I dont like owners who try to stretch the rules just for the sake of stretching them. Unless you are completely out of the loop then the most basic rules are easy enough to follow.

 

[turnit643]

I've got one. This past weekend one of teams was down one running back going into the weekend thus giving him an illegal lineup intially with Sportsline. Before Monday night he inserted a rb (Lewis) on bye thus filling his roster and making it legal. He wasn't trying to be sneaky. He emailed me to let me know why he had an illegal lineup and didn't try to just slide this by. Now I don't remember being able to switch players around after the first games started on Sunday until this year.I've already emailed the league letting them know that the team with the initial illegal lineup will keep his point and the win as it was. The team opposing this team has a gripe with this and perhaps deservedly so. There are a few ways I'm looking at it. One, what difference does it make who is in your initial lineup if you can change it afterward. If I put Bledsoe in there and then swithched to Eli then Bledsoe would have been in the lineup on false pretenses, if you will, before the switch.Another is that the owner putting in Lewis was at a distinct disadvantage. In my view it makes no difference whether or not he put in Lewis on Sunday or Monday. He was still putting in someone who was going to get a zero.I can't really think of any good reason to give this owner a zero and take away his win. It would give the other team an unearned win and could change a lot of things down the road for, what I think, is a trivial issue.I hate the "illegal lineup' thing all together. On this board I hear about some people sitting their quarterbacks on Monday night because they had won their game and don't want to risk minus points. On Sportsline this would give you an illegal lineup and zero points. As long as you don't have too many people on your roster I don't see why you should have an illegal lineup. I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks I am wrong in my mode of thinking and why.

I think you are correct in your thinking.1. Apparently it's OK to adjust line-ups up until gametime in your league, not unusual.2. Also it sounds like starting a player that is on bye has no penalty associated with it in your league, also not unusual.So, I'd say it sounds like he was within the rules of your league to insert the RB on bye into that previously empty spot. He was still trying to win (by fulfilling his line-up requirements) despite being down a player for the week. If it hadn't been addressed prior to the situation, it would be hard to go back and penalize him now by taking away his win and points. I understand the other owner not being happy, but punishing owners that are trying to win is a dangerous road to go down. If he was trying to lose the game by not starting enough players or by starting bye week players, you'd have an issue.

 

[Keg]

I've got one.

This past weekend one of teams was down one running back going into the weekend thus giving him an illegal lineup intially with Sportsline. Before Monday night he inserted a rb (Lewis) on bye thus filling his roster and making it legal. He wasn't trying to be sneaky. He emailed me to let me know why he had an illegal lineup and didn't try to just slide this by.

Now I don't remember being able to switch players around after the first games started on Sunday until this year.

I've already emailed the league letting them know that the team with the initial illegal lineup will keep his point and the win as it was. The team opposing this team has a gripe with this and perhaps deservedly so.

There are a few ways I'm looking at it. One, what difference does it make who is in your initial lineup if you can change it afterward. If I put Bledsoe in there and then swithched to Eli then Bledsoe would have been in the lineup on false pretenses, if you will, before the switch.

Another is that the owner putting in Lewis was at a distinct disadvantage.

In my view it makes no difference whether or not he put in Lewis on Sunday or Monday. He was still putting in someone who was going to get a zero.

I can't really think of any good reason to give this owner a zero and take away his win. It would give the other team an unearned win and could change a lot of things down the road for, what I think, is a trivial issue.

I hate the "illegal lineup' thing all together. On this board I hear about some people sitting their quarterbacks on Monday night because they had won their game and don't want to risk minus points. On Sportsline this would give you an illegal lineup and zero points. As long as you don't have too many people on your roster I don't see why you should have an illegal lineup.

I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks I am wrong in my mode of thinking and why.

fwiw we had an issue with being able to switch out a bye player in a league this past week(we had a setting incorrect at MFL)...anyway an email to support to ask MFL when are BYE players considered to be lockedhere is that exchange:

--- Original Question --- 10/23/2006 1:09:27 PM ---

Sirs:

Could you please let me know exactly when bye week players are considered to be 'locked' and have 'played' in the MFL software. Is it the first game on Sunday or kickoff Monday night?

Thank you.

MR. SIR

XXXXXXX MFL ID: XXXXX

--- Reply ---

Hi SIR -

Bye week players are not locked until after the final game is played. So you can still remove a bye week player up until kickoff of the final game of the week.

- Julie

 

[GoBears84]

I've got one.

Our ESPN league has no review time, all trades are approved by the commissioner. There have been three trades this year, all involving the commissioner, all of which he has immediately approved.

In week 6, he had Peyton Manning on a BYE and A. Smith going against SD. Owner A had Grossman and Bledsoe as QB's. The commish trades Smith and a WR for Bledsoe (going against Houston) and a WR. Neither owner notices owner A now has two QB's, Smith and Grossman, with a BYE in the upcoming week 7.

To me, this puts Owner A at a disadvantage and the trade should be reversed. The commish doesn't see a problem, in his opinion, it's not his responsibility to check BYE weeks. Owner A deals with it by dropping Grossman to pick up Leinart.

My issue is with the big picture: The commish should be the one checking trades to ensure they are fair. If you can't count on the commish to ensure the integrity of the league and the trades, there is no integrity.

Thoughts?

 

[Cunk]

Fair and stupid are 2 different things. I agree with the commish. That's what coaching is all about. It's not up to him to make sure the owners aren't making a bonehead move.

Perhaps picking up Leinart will benifit team A in the long run.

Don't like trades having to be ok'd by the commish first though. The only time the commish should step in would be due to collusion.

 

[bjabrad]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

that is ridiculous. you want trade cancel powers after accepting the trade? forget it, you had your chance and made your decision. if leagues allow that then teams involved in trades can jack with each other and yank the rug out after approving the trade and trades are hard enough to pull off as it is. You do get one vote of veto though and if you can convince enough other league mates that the trade that you accepted should be veto'd then try to do it but you can't take a trade off the table after you shook hands on the deal. Honor your agreement or convince others in the league to veto it for you. Better yet,,,show some character next time.

 

[bjabrad]

I've got one. This past weekend one of teams was down one running back going into the weekend thus giving him an illegal lineup intially with Sportsline. Before Monday night he inserted a rb (Lewis) on bye thus filling his roster and making it legal. He wasn't trying to be sneaky. He emailed me to let me know why he had an illegal lineup and didn't try to just slide this by. Now I don't remember being able to switch players around after the first games started on Sunday until this year.I've already emailed the league letting them know that the team with the initial illegal lineup will keep his point and the win as it was. The team opposing this team has a gripe with this and perhaps deservedly so. There are a few ways I'm looking at it. One, what difference does it make who is in your initial lineup if you can change it afterward. If I put Bledsoe in there and then swithched to Eli then Bledsoe would have been in the lineup on false pretenses, if you will, before the switch.Another is that the owner putting in Lewis was at a distinct disadvantage. In my view it makes no difference whether or not he put in Lewis on Sunday or Monday. He was still putting in someone who was going to get a zero.I can't really think of any good reason to give this owner a zero and take away his win. It would give the other team an unearned win and could change a lot of things down the road for, what I think, is a trivial issue.I hate the "illegal lineup' thing all together. On this board I hear about some people sitting their quarterbacks on Monday night because they had won their game and don't want to risk minus points. On Sportsline this would give you an illegal lineup and zero points. As long as you don't have too many people on your roster I don't see why you should have an illegal lineup. I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks I am wrong in my mode of thinking and why.

I agree that the illegal lineup setting is stupid, so why don't you just put it up for league vote and change it. I think it all comes down to league expectations and your league rules. If the league expects teams to get punished for not having a complete lineup then you have to do it and if it's just an oversight because the league was set up incorrectly then see if you can get it changed.

 

[bjabrad]

I've got one. Our ESPN league has no review time, all trades are approved by the commissioner. There have been three trades this year, all involving the commissioner, all of which he has immediately approved.In week 6, he had Peyton Manning on a BYE and A. Smith going against SD. Owner A had Grossman and Bledsoe as QB's. The commish trades Smith and a WR for Bledsoe (going against Houston) and a WR. Neither owner notices owner A now has two QB's, Smith and Grossman, with a BYE in the upcoming week 7. To me, this puts Owner A at a disadvantage and the trade should be reversed. The commish doesn't see a problem, in his opinion, it's not his responsibility to check BYE weeks. Owner A deals with it by dropping Grossman to pick up Leinart.My issue is with the big picture: The commish should be the one checking trades to ensure they are fair. If you can't count on the commish to ensure the integrity of the league and the trades, there is no integrity. Thoughts?

there was nothing unfair about that trade, just stupid on the part of owner A and he didn't have to drop Grossman since he could have made another trade to gain a QB to play for that week. It's not the commish's job to run owner A's team and make sure that he has a QB to play. I can't believe you are calling his integrity into play since it's his job to make sure that collusion hasn't occurred in trades and that teams are trading in an effort at improving each team. The commish also has to try to wn by taking off his commish hat and making trades to improve his team. I would have a problem if he veto'd other people's trades while appoving his own but that is not the case here.

 

[turnit643]

I've got one. Our ESPN league has no review time, all trades are approved by the commissioner. There have been three trades this year, all involving the commissioner, all of which he has immediately approved.In week 6, he had Peyton Manning on a BYE and A. Smith going against SD. Owner A had Grossman and Bledsoe as QB's. The commish trades Smith and a WR for Bledsoe (going against Houston) and a WR. Neither owner notices owner A now has two QB's, Smith and Grossman, with a BYE in the upcoming week 7. To me, this puts Owner A at a disadvantage and the trade should be reversed. The commish doesn't see a problem, in his opinion, it's not his responsibility to check BYE weeks. Owner A deals with it by dropping Grossman to pick up Leinart.My issue is with the big picture: The commish should be the one checking trades to ensure they are fair. If you can't count on the commish to ensure the integrity of the league and the trades, there is no integrity. Thoughts?

You don't think Owner A should be responsible for his team and the moves he makes? The commish, in this case, is acting as an owner and working to build/improve his own team. He is not repsonsible for watching out for his trading partner's possible future bye week problems. The real problem seems to be the absence of a check to approve trades the commish is involved in. You may want to consider electing a second owner - someone that is experienced, fair-minded, and clear on the rules - and have them rule on trades that involve the commish.

 

[GoBears84]

I've got one. Our ESPN league has no review time, all trades are approved by the commissioner. There have been three trades this year, all involving the commissioner, all of which he has immediately approved.In week 6, he had Peyton Manning on a BYE and A. Smith going against SD. Owner A had Grossman and Bledsoe as QB's. The commish trades Smith and a WR for Bledsoe (going against Houston) and a WR. Neither owner notices owner A now has two QB's, Smith and Grossman, with a BYE in the upcoming week 7. To me, this puts Owner A at a disadvantage and the trade should be reversed. The commish doesn't see a problem, in his opinion, it's not his responsibility to check BYE weeks. Owner A deals with it by dropping Grossman to pick up Leinart.My issue is with the big picture: The commish should be the one checking trades to ensure they are fair. If you can't count on the commish to ensure the integrity of the league and the trades, there is no integrity. Thoughts?

You don't think Owner A should be responsible for his team and the moves he makes? The commish, in this case, is acting as an owner and working to build/improve his own team. He is not repsonsible for watching out for his trading partner's possible future bye week problems. The real problem seems to be the absence of a check to approve trades the commish is involved in. You may want to consider electing a second owner - someone that is experienced, fair-minded, and clear on the rules - and have them rule on trades that involve the commish.

I appreciate all the input. While I still believe that the commish needs to wear two hats when trading, it seems fair to to request that trades by the commissioner get checked through another owner.

 

[GregR_2]

...

You don't think Owner A should be responsible for his team and the moves he makes? The commish, in this case, is acting as an owner and working to build/improve his own team. He is not repsonsible for watching out for his trading partner's possible future bye week problems. The real problem seems to be the absence of a check to approve trades the commish is involved in. You may want to consider electing a second owner - someone that is experienced, fair-minded, and clear on the rules - and have them rule on trades that involve the commish.

I appreciate all the input. While I still believe that the commish needs to wear two hats when trading, it seems fair to to request that trades by the commissioner get checked through another owner.

You should have rules for who makes a ruling when the commish is involved, but you also need to keep in mind that just having 1 alternate isn't enough. What if the commish and the second owner are trading with each other?As for your original situation, I think you need to ask your league, if it isn't already spelled out in the rules, just what is the commish "checking" these trades for? What's the question he has to answer? Is it, "Is this a trade you would make?" Is it, "is this a trade that a reasonable person could think would improve their team?" Is it, "Does it appear collusion has taken place?"If you have done nothing to define what the trade is being reviewed for, then on face value I'd say you have nothing to complain about. It's Owner A's decision on whether the WR improvement he got is worth having to get a QB off waivers for a week. Barring your rules giving guidance as to what the review is about, as long as the trade isn't collusive or ridiculously lopsided it should go through. And a bye week conflict is far from ridiculously lopsided.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

We had a slight crisis in my league this past week. It's an 18 year redraft made of of friends who all used to work together. It's not really a cutthroat, win-at-all-costs type of league, but just as much of an excuse for all of us to keep in touch since we scattered. I'd trust just about every one of these guys with my life. I'm the commish & have two other owners who have commish access to our website.

We have a rule in place that a player dropped cannot be picked up that same week. There's a transaction report that's a click away from viewing all transactions sorted by date. Still, some have tried to put in for players dropped the same week & I've rejected them. I then sent an e-mail out two weeks ago explicitly reminding everyone to check before putting in for a player. We don't have a specific written penalty for something like this.

This past week, I sent an e-m ail out to the league that I wouldn't be around Sunday a.m. to process any last minute add/drops. One of the other owners with commish powers said he'd be able to cover for me. Tuesday, I get a call from an owner saying that a team picked up a player illegally & played him (the "snitch" owner noticed because he was the one who dropped the player earlier in the week, but he was not the opponent). The player picked up illegally was Kevan Barlow, who scored 10.9 pts. His new owner won his game by 7 pts. On top of that, the new Barlow owner was the guy who offered to process the add/drops for me.

Before deciding what to do, I contacted the offending owner & asked him what he thought. He said his partner called him last-minute after seeing Barlow sitting there as a FA & liked his matchup. he then ran through the pick up without thinking to check to see when Barlow was dropped. He replaced McGahee with Barlow in his starting lineup. All of this happened before game time. McGahee actually outscored Barlow. I asked him what he thought the penalty should be. He said he probably should get a zero for Barlow's spot, but wouldn't object if I gave him McGahee's pts instead .

Here's what I did: I reversed the transaction, then gave him a zero for Barlow's spot causing him to lose the game. I know he would have played McGahee if he hadn't picked up Barlow & so would have won anyway, but to me that's overidden by the fact that his lineup was illegal (& also the fact that I had made a stink of this very thing the week before). I know he wasn't trying to be dishonest (no one else thought so either) & I don't think anyone would try this same thing in the future in an underhanded way, but rules are rules (even though no penalty had ever been discussed prior).

My question:

Do you agree or disagree with the way I handled it? If not, what would you have done?

 

[Cunk]

We had a slight crisis in my league this past week. It's an 18 year redraft made of of friends who all used to work together. It's not really a cutthroat, win-at-all-costs type of league, but just as much of an excuse for all of us to keep in touch since we scattered. I'd trust just about every one of these guys with my life. I'm the commish & have two other owners who have commish access to our website.We have a rule in place that a player dropped cannot be picked up that same week. There's a transaction report that's a click away from viewing all transactions sorted by date. Still, some have tried to put in for players dropped the same week & I've rejected them. I then sent an e-mail out two weeks ago explicitly reminding everyone to check before putting in for a player. We don't have a specific written penalty for something like this.This past week, I sent an e-m ail out to the league that I wouldn't be around Sunday a.m. to process any last minute add/drops. One of the other owners with commish powers said he'd be able to cover for me. Tuesday, I get a call from an owner saying that a team picked up a player illegally & played him (the "snitch" owner noticed because he was the one who dropped the player earlier in the week, but he was not the opponent). The player picked up illegally was Kevan Barlow, who scored 10.9 pts. His new owner won his game by 7 pts. On top of that, the new Barlow owner was the guy who offered to process the add/drops for me.Before deciding what to do, I contacted the offending owner & asked him what he thought. He said his partner called him last-minute after seeing Barlow sitting there as a FA & liked his matchup. he then ran through the pick up without thinking to check to see when Barlow was dropped. He replaced McGahee with Barlow in his starting lineup. All of this happened before game time. McGahee actually outscored Barlow. I asked him what he thought the penalty should be. He said he probably should get a zero for Barlow's spot, but wouldn't object if I gave him McGahee's pts instead . Here's what I did: I reversed the transaction, then gave him a zero for Barlow's spot causing him to lose the game. I know he would have played McGahee if he hadn't picked up Barlow & so would have won anyway, but to me that's overidden by the fact that his lineup was illegal (& also the fact that I had made a stink of this very thing the week before). I know he wasn't trying to be dishonest (no one else thought so either) & I don't think anyone would try this same thing in the future in an underhanded way, but rules are rules (even though no penalty had ever been discussed prior).My questiono you agree or disagree with the way I handled it? If not, what would you have done?

You did the right thing. Unfortunately the owner made a mistake and he knew the rule. And I am glad you let him keep the rest of his lineup's score as opposed to getting a goose-egg.

 

[turnit643]

Uruk, you handled it perfectly IMO. He slipped-up and he was the one that was supposed to watching out for slip-ups, so, the zero for Barlow's spot is best. It'll also give you another great example to show the rest of the league.

You might want to finish off that rule about signing free agents that were dropped in the same week with the consequences - if it is caught by the commish before the games start, the player is just tossed back into the pool, if it slips by somehow, the player will receive a zero for the week and tossed back. Something like that.

Anyway, good job.

 

[GregR_2]

We have a rule in place that a player dropped cannot be picked up that same week...

Food for thought... if you are using a website to run the league on and it can't handle enforcing this for you, you might want to consider other sites. Supporting that kind of rule is pretty standard functionality for a site not to have. For example at MFL you have options like:Once a player is dropped, he is "locked" until: * The player is not locked - owners may immediately pick up or request that player, subject to standard waiver rules. * The next time waivers are processed. * ___ days later. * On (day) at (time).

 

[turnit643]

For example at MFL you have options like:Once a player is dropped, he is "locked" until: * The player is not locked - owners may immediately pick up or request that player, subject to standard waiver rules. * The next time waivers are processed. * ___ days later. * On (day) at (time).

Just to add to that ... RTSports has similar options available ...* Available immediately.* Locked until the next waiver wire.* Locked for 1 day (up to 180 days).

 

[Uruk-Hai]

For example at MFL you have options like:Once a player is dropped, he is "locked" until: * The player is not locked - owners may immediately pick up or request that player, subject to standard waiver rules. * The next time waivers are processed. * ___ days later. * On (day) at (time).

Just to add to that ... RTSports has similar options available ...* Available immediately.* Locked until the next waiver wire.* Locked for 1 day (up to 180 days).

We use CBS. There's probably an option for this that I missed. I'll have to do some digging around, but I get a little nervous poking around in the "setup" area in-season

 

[BrentBlack]

 

[Texas Horn Fan]

Uruk, you handled it perfectly IMO. He slipped-up and he was the one that was supposed to watching out for slip-ups, so, the zero for Barlow's spot is best. It'll also give you another great example to show the rest of the league.You might want to finish off that rule about signing free agents that were dropped in the same week with the consequences - if it is caught by the commish before the games start, the player is just tossed back into the pool, if it slips by somehow, the player will receive a zero for the week and tossed back. Something like that.Anyway, good job.

I agree that was the correct way to handle that issue. As a nOOb I hope this will get responses but here goes.We are in a 12 team redraft league in which one player is a Broncos homer. He has almost the entire team and refuses to trade any of them. Consequently he is in last place. He has been sitting Droughns for 3 weeks now and just agreed to trade him to the 1st place team for Jason Elam. His current kicker is Kaeding. He is currently starting tatum bell and Michael Turner at running back.We have 1 kicker 2 rb's and a wr/rb flex as well as the usual qb, wr, Def + 5 bench spaces. The trade was vetoed and basically the half the league feels this was proper use of veto and the two parties involved in the trade feel we are overstepping our bounds. The rest of the teams dont seem to care. We also try not to veto trades unless it seems particularily egredious. In this case we felt a kicker for a starting running back (underperforming though he is) was to much.Were we right?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Uruk, you handled it perfectly IMO. He slipped-up and he was the one that was supposed to watching out for slip-ups, so, the zero for Barlow's spot is best. It'll also give you another great example to show the rest of the league.You might want to finish off that rule about signing free agents that were dropped in the same week with the consequences - if it is caught by the commish before the games start, the player is just tossed back into the pool, if it slips by somehow, the player will receive a zero for the week and tossed back. Something like that.Anyway, good job.

Thanks. And you can bet this rule & its penalty will be written from here on out

 

[turnit643]

We are in a 12 team redraft league in which one player is a Broncos homer. He has almost the entire team and refuses to trade any of them. Consequently he is in last place. He has been sitting Droughns for 3 weeks now and just agreed to trade him to the 1st place team for Jason Elam. His current kicker is Kaeding. He is currently starting tatum bell and Michael Turner at running back.We have 1 kicker 2 rb's and a wr/rb flex as well as the usual qb, wr, Def + 5 bench spaces. The trade was vetoed and basically the half the league feels this was proper use of veto and the two parties involved in the trade feel we are overstepping our bounds. The rest of the teams dont seem to care. We also try not to veto trades unless it seems particularily egredious. In this case we felt a kicker for a starting running back (underperforming though he is) was to much.Were we right?

Texas, 1. I would strongly suggest not having that particular individual (the DEN fan) as part of your league next year.2. It was a bad trade, vetoable? I guess, since you vetoed it.Two questions: Was it a league vote to veto? and do you have guidelines in place to suggest what a veto-able trade might look like?Overall, it sounds to me like this owner just doesn't know/care what's going on, isn't competing, and just may not fully understand what fantasy football is - maybe he thinks the object is to gather all of your favorite team's players. (in which case, he'd be doing really well!)Were you right? Well, your league apparently allows vetoes with less than a unanimous vote, so yes, you were right according to your rules. Would I have vetoed? Probably not. I'd probably fall into that group of owners that didn't really care about the move enough to vote it down.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Uruk, you handled it perfectly IMO. He slipped-up and he was the one that was supposed to watching out for slip-ups, so, the zero for Barlow's spot is best. It'll also give you another great example to show the rest of the league.You might want to finish off that rule about signing free agents that were dropped in the same week with the consequences - if it is caught by the commish before the games start, the player is just tossed back into the pool, if it slips by somehow, the player will receive a zero for the week and tossed back. Something like that.Anyway, good job.

I agree that was the correct way to handle that issue. As a nOOb I hope this will get responses but here goes.We are in a 12 team redraft league in which one player is a Broncos homer. He has almost the entire team and refuses to trade any of them. Consequently he is in last place. He has been sitting Droughns for 3 weeks now and just agreed to trade him to the 1st place team for Jason Elam. His current kicker is Kaeding. He is currently starting tatum bell and Michael Turner at running back.We have 1 kicker 2 rb's and a wr/rb flex as well as the usual qb, wr, Def + 5 bench spaces. The trade was vetoed and basically the half the league feels this was proper use of veto and the two parties involved in the trade feel we are overstepping our bounds. The rest of the teams dont seem to care. We also try not to veto trades unless it seems particularily egredious. In this case we felt a kicker for a starting running back (underperforming though he is) was to much.Were we right?

Is this the first year the Broncos guy has played FF?If so, I'd give him plenty of rope (i.e. let the trade stand) & hope he learns.If it's not his first time or you think his blind homerism may continue, I think I'd look into replacing him next season. He might be a great guy, but stuff like this ruins leagues.As for the veto itself, reading between the lines it seems as if you guys have either used it or thought about using it in the past so you've set some sort of precedent. I don't like trade vetos, but it's really up to your league on if/how to use them.

 

[turnit643]

Texas, you might also want to check out the FBGs article Unfair Trade by Davies/DeSimone in the articles achive from 2005. It was recently referenced in a similar thread and it provides some good thoughts and guidelines for trading situations and vetoes, etc.

 

[Topes]

My take is that if you have a review period than that review period should be for the players who made the trade as well (but your rules need to be clear).

Your take is wrong. That is developmentally disabled. A trade is a trade. Thers is NO review period after a trade has been agreed upon by all parties involved. That would be dumb. I can't imagine such a structure. It's just plain silly. Think what you're saying here. Everyone on this board has felt buyer's remorse at some juncture about a trade. So what. Heck. The 24-hour review period is bad enough. It truly inhibots those who'd like to acquire players, and immediately flip part of what was received.Review period for parties involved in a trade? Bollocks! The review period is before the trade, a period in which each owner has as much review time as he'd like.

 

[rolliehouliranson]

In our league, when I do free agents on Wed morning, we do worst team has first rights and after they get the first pick, they become the best team, like I'm sure alot of you do. When I have always done this, I have eliminate all picks that were only asked for by one person, giving everyone who they wanted, THEN I start with worst team, only with picks that have been double requested. The guys in my league think that your first pick should be your first pick, regardless of whetheer it was asked for or not. I disagree, but I try to be as democratic as possible. Which way does everyone else do it?

 

[turnit643]

In our league, when I do free agents on Wed morning, we do worst team has first rights and after they get the first pick, they become the best team, like I'm sure alot of you do. When I have always done this, I have eliminate all picks that were only asked for by one person, giving everyone who they wanted, THEN I start with worst team, only with picks that have been double requested. The guys in my league think that your first pick should be your first pick, regardless of whetheer it was asked for or not. I disagree, but I try to be as democratic as possible.

rollie, not sure I exactly understand what you are saying.

Which way does everyone else do it?

We use blind bidding, so no waiver wire order issues.

 

[GregR_2]

In our league, when I do free agents on Wed morning, we do worst team has first rights and after they get the first pick, they become the best team, like I'm sure alot of you do. When I have always done this, I have eliminate all picks that were only asked for by one person, giving everyone who they wanted, THEN I start with worst team, only with picks that have been double requested. The guys in my league think that your first pick should be your first pick, regardless of whetheer it was asked for or not. I disagree, but I try to be as democratic as possible. Which way does everyone else do it?

I agree with your leaguemates. Part of the purpose of having multiple "rounds" of waivers is to provide a way that owners can have a "do this if possible, if not do that" scenario. You are taking that away from them if you don't honor their wishes on their rounds.My first suggestion would be that you let a website do it for you. But if you're committed to doing it by hand, the way I think most people expect it is that you go to the team with highest priority and give him the earliest player in his earliest round that hasn't been taken yet. Then go to the next team in priority and repeat.

 

[Topes]

In our league, when I do free agents on Wed morning, we do worst team has first rights and after they get the first pick, they become the best team, like I'm sure alot of you do. When I have always done this, I have eliminate all picks that were only asked for by one person, giving everyone who they wanted, THEN I start with worst team, only with picks that have been double requested. The guys in my league think that your first pick should be your first pick, regardless of whetheer it was asked for or not. I disagree, but I try to be as democratic as possible. Which way does everyone else do it?

The right way. You do it the wrong way. All those players only requested by one team could just as easily be processed at the end. Also, what if the worst team requested a longshot player that nobody else wanted, specifying a player to be dropped which he also specified for a move that was requested by more than one team? Would he not get that guy, because the dropee is already off his roster? Waiver requests need be entered ordinally, in order of preference, by owners. Owners are responsible for ordering them in the way that will maximize their potential to get the most players they want/need. Thopse requests need to be processed in the waiver order, so that owners will know in which way they will be processed.Processing all requests for players only requested by one team could (and should) just as easily be done within the structure of the waiver order system.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I'm the fortunate owner of team A, and don't really like the way this was phrased so I figured I'd address a couple points.The key issue is that I agree with Liquid Tension in that the waiting time between the trade being processed should be for both other owners of the team's involved in the trade, and also for the owners of the other teams. Why it gives me the option to veto my own trade but not cancel it is pretty ridiculous. The long standing commish, vtjkru, has stated that since there is no option for espn to cancel the trade I'm sol, but he can change it manually so thats fairly irrelevant. What may be a larger looming issue is that we've been doing a league for 5+ years together and we've never had a written set of rules and bylaws.Now I decided I wanted out before the games began and mentioned it to our commisioner at the beginnings of the games, NOT just after Portis got hurt. The other owners I talked to about vetoing it happened to be in my division, and bluntly told me that since it would hurt me and their division rivals, that they were happy it happened.But yea, like I said, I think the review time should have been for the owners also. As soon as I went to our commisioner, he should have made an announcement, and said that since ESPN doesnt give the option for the owners to cancel the trade, that he would manually be inserting the players back into the orignial rosters. Now he is worried about opening a larger can of worms, and understandably so, but if this simple approach had been taken before it could have been a non point.

Why offer a trade that you don't want accepted? Makes no sense.Unless there is a rule specifying otherwise, and like you said there isn't, the review period is not for the review of the owners in the trade - the review period for you and Team B happens when 1) you offer the trade, and 2) Team B accepts it. Offering a trade, having it accepted, and then backing out is toally and should not be allowe irregardless of whether or not there is a review period for league vetoes.SOL buddy.