shady commish move (1 Viewer)

[Jon_Moore]

Dynasty league

We had one owner above and beyond inactive, and another that quit over a disagreement with the commish. The rules say if you play someone that's OUT or on a BYE then you're 1st round pick is moved to the back of the round. Well, one guy started Brandon Jacobs when he was OUT. So the other guy said something, there was an argument, and the other guy left.

Now, we have our 2 replacements. The season ended week 16--today 2 trades happen, so shortly after the commish has the replacements.

The trades:

Wes Welker for Jay Cutler AND 1.5

Then:

New England Def, Mason Crosby, 1.5 for 1.1, Carolina, and Stover

Am I overrreacting, or is that system of trades totally...wrong

 

[blenderfrog]

Seems like the guy that traded Welcker, NE D/ST, and Crosby for Cutler, 1.1, Carolina, and Stover pretty much raped someone.

The Welker trade looks like someone took advantage of an owner that didn't understand dynasty leagues... That was a pretty miserable trade.

The second trade is bad... but we'd have to know how Defenses score for the league. The NE defense was dominant in one of my leagues and could be worth an early pick.

 

[[scooter]]

If your league is lame enough to penalize owners for starting injured players, then you deserve to have these trades undermine everything.

The point of a dynasty league is to let owners do whatever they want with their teams.

 

[Kyzersosik]

 

[tribecalledjeff]

Dynasty league

We had one owner above and beyond inactive, and another that quit over a disagreement with the commish. The rules say if you play someone that's OUT or on a BYE then you're 1st round pick is moved to the back of the round. Well, one guy started Brandon Jacobs when he was OUT. So the other guy said something, there was an argument, and the other guy left.

Now, we have our 2 replacements. The season ended week 16--today 2 trades happen, so shortly after the commish has the replacements.

The trades:

Wes Welker for Jay Cutler AND 1.5

Then:

New England Def, Mason Crosby, 1.5 for 1.1, Carolina, and Stover

Am I overrreacting, or is that system of trades totally...wrong

So if someone is declared inactive at 12 noon for a 1pm game, the owner HAS to be aware of it in that time and change his lineup? Or do you only enforce the rule if they were ruled OUT prior to game day? What if they were ruled OUT, tried it out game day and things looked promising, then they couldn't go? This seems like a very odd rule to me. I understand it's intent, but you could be punishing the wrong people for the wrong things here.

 

[Topes]

Dynasty league

We had one owner above and beyond inactive, and another that quit over a disagreement with the commish. The rules say if you play someone that's OUT or on a BYE then you're 1st round pick is moved to the back of the round. Well, one guy started Brandon Jacobs when he was OUT. So the other guy said something, there was an argument, and the other guy left.

So if someone is declared inactive at 12 noon for a 1pm game, the owner HAS to be aware of it in that time and change his lineup? Or do you only enforce the rule if they were ruled OUT prior to game day? What if they were ruled OUT, tried it out game day and things looked promising, then they couldn't go? This seems like a very odd rule to me. I understand it's intent, but you could be punishing the wrong people for the wrong things here.

Exactly.

 

[Topes]

Am I overrreacting, or is that system of trades totally...wrong

I've not touched your original post, because I don't know what you mean by "system of trades" here.In fact, the entire backstory seems irrelevant.There were two trades involving new owners.You don't say who the other parties int he trades were. Was the commish involved? Did the moving of picks have anything at all to do with this?For that matter, WHEN do the picks get moved to the end of the first round? What if three owners become eligible for the pick drop during a season? How are their picks dropped? In order of their original draft position? In the order in which they made their bad starts? What if two had a bad start in one week?On top of that, your rule (obviously) doesn't work very well with traded picks. An owner could actually penalize another team by deliberately starting an OUUT player late in the season.Rule seems very hard to administer and doomed to failure.

 

[GregR_2]

Dynasty leagueWe had one owner above and beyond inactive, and another that quit over a disagreement with the commish. The rules say if you play someone that's OUT or on a BYE then you're 1st round pick is moved to the back of the round. Well, one guy started Brandon Jacobs when he was OUT. So the other guy said something, there was an argument, and the other guy left.Now, we have our 2 replacements. The season ended week 16--today 2 trades happen, so shortly after the commish has the replacements. The trades:Wes Welker for Jay Cutler AND 1.5Then:New England Def, Mason Crosby, 1.5 for 1.1, Carolina, and StoverAm I overrreacting, or is that system of trades totally...wrong

First, I don't think the trades are 'wrong' as in something that should obviously not be allowed whether the rules state anything or not.But under some situations I think trading right away like that can be bad form, while in other situations it's perfectly fine. For instance, the more experienced that the new owners are and the more that existing owners in the league already know them, the less I'd consider it to be bad form.If, however, the commish is good friends with both replacement owners and no one else knows them, and both are inexperienced at FF, then I'd really consider it extremely bad form for him to start dealing with them before other owners have really had much chance to talk to them and get to know them enough that negotiating over FF is a comfortable thing for them when they are already unsure what they are doing.You don't really give any indication on those kind of details, so I'll just kind of shrug and say, it's not "wrong" but it may not be ideal behavior depending on the situation.

 

[Topes]

If, however, the commish is good friends with both replacement owners and no one else knows them, and both are inexperienced at FF, then I'd really consider it extremely bad form for him to start dealing with them before other owners have really had much chance to talk to them and get to know them enough that negotiating over FF is a comfortable thing for them when they are already unsure what they are doing.

You don't really give any indication on those kind of details, so I'll just kind of shrug and say, it's not "wrong" but it may not be ideal behavior depending on the situation.

He doesn't even state that the commish is involved in these trades.

 

[GregR_2]

If, however, the commish is good friends with both replacement owners and no one else knows them, and both are inexperienced at FF, then I'd really consider it extremely bad form for him to start dealing with them before other owners have really had much chance to talk to them and get to know them enough that negotiating over FF is a comfortable thing for them when they are already unsure what they are doing.

You don't really give any indication on those kind of details, so I'll just kind of shrug and say, it's not "wrong" but it may not be ideal behavior depending on the situation.

He doesn't even state that the commish is involved in these trades.

True, though it doesn't matter (much) to me if it's the commish or not. If it's one owner who is the only guy who knows the replacement owners and he immediately trades, it's nearly as bad as if the commish does it. A thorough commish might send out a mail that says, "Since we have a few new owners and a lot of us don't know them well, let's have a couple of weeks for people to talk and for them to be able to digest the rules and rosters before we start hitting them with trade offers."

Though I won't blame a commish for not thinking of it. I certainly didn't think of it a few times during my commishing years, though hopefully now I would.