Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Ok here's the jist of it, I'm sure someone else will step in with more detail.

In our 2+2 dynasty (deep keeper) league two teams agreed to a trade. I forget the exact details but the two key players were Frank Gore and Deangelo Williams. For whatever technical reason in the league the trade did not go through when it was expected to. (I believe this had something to do with a game on a thursday and yahoo messing up.)

The player trading for Gore wanted him because he has a shot at making the playoffs. He ended up losing and was thus eliminated from the playoffs. (I believe he would have lost even had the trade gone through.)

Now he no longer wants to do the trade, stating that the value of the trade has changed. The guy on the other end of the deal is a little pissed, and says that the first guy wouldn't be backing out if williams didn't have a big game.

The league is kinda divided on what to do here. Thoughts?

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

From the facts presented here, it sounds like the deal should go through. Problem is, is there any evidence that both people agreed to the deal?

Just because things have changed doesn't mean the deal shouldn't go through - it was agreed upon at that time.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Yeah both players agreed to the deal. Neither of them are denying that. (Btw I am not one of them.)

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

The trade was something like Gore + Keyshawn + junk player for Deangelo + Baltimore D + Random player + 1st round pick next year, which will now likely be around #4 overall(out of 12 teams).

edit to add: I am also not one of the two teams involved in this trade, but the argument being made by the guy who had traded gore was that had gore had a good game and deangelo tore his ACL he still would've been forced to take the trade.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Deal goes through. And FWIW, D. Williams will be losing carries since Foster is back.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Whether or not you force them to make the trade, and I personally don't think you should force the guy to trade since he is no longer able to get the same value he originally agreed to, you need to make sure that nobody is allowed to do this in the future. Otherwise "that guy" might figure out the error in the system and start trying to freeroll people.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

The exact situation went like this.

Team 1 has the Baltimore defense on Thursday. He then accepts a trade on Friday trading away BAL/DeAngelo/1st rounder for Gore/Keyshawn so that he can play those players on Sunday, kind of a 2 for 1. He does this because that week is a must win for him in order for him to have any shot of making the playoffs. Yahoo decides that since the BAL defense has already played that week they are ineligible to be traded and nullifies the trade. Team 1 loses and is eliminated from the playoffs. Now Team 2 is angry and thinks that the trade should be honored.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
The exact situation went like this.

Team 1 has the Baltimore defense on Thursday. He then accepts a trade on Friday trading away BAL/DeAngelo/1st rounder for Gore/Keyshawn so that he can play those players on Sunday, kind of a 2 for 1. He does this because that week is a must win for him in order for him to have any shot of making the playoffs. Yahoo decides that since the BAL defense has already played that week they are ineligible to be traded and nullifies the trade. Team 1 loses and is eliminated from the playoffs. Now Team 2 is angry and thinks that the trade should be honored.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't make an illegal trade (i.e., trading a player/defense that has already played while the others haven't). The trade was invalid and Player 2 made a mistake in not knowing this. (but who doesn't already know this?) His loss.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
The exact situation went like this.

Team 1 has the Baltimore defense on Thursday. He then accepts a trade on Friday trading away BAL/DeAngelo/1st rounder for Gore/Keyshawn so that he can play those players on Sunday, kind of a 2 for 1. He does this because that week is a must win for him in order for him to have any shot of making the playoffs. Yahoo decides that since the BAL defense has already played that week they are ineligible to be traded and nullifies the trade. Team 1 loses and is eliminated from the playoffs. Now Team 2 is angry and thinks that the trade should be honored.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect, the trade was made Wednesday night/Thursday morning, but didnt clear in time due to our league's 1 day review period.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

You left out an important fact. Team 1 would have scored 20 less points if the trade went through. If the trade would have helped him win, than he would have a real argument. Also that trade was accepted no later than thursday afternoon. I check the league every day and I am positive that it happened before the thursday night games. The fact that DeAngelo had a great game and Gore had a bad one is the real issue here. I am sure team 2 would have taken the trade if DeAngelo blew out his knee and Gore ran for 200. Thats how fantasy is, you deal with the moves you make. Team 1 should just deal with it. If gore has a great week this week, will team 1 now want to do the trade again? Cant just let a guy go back and forth whenever he wants.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Times, Dates, Wed. night/Thur. morning, Gore had a bad game, Team 1 was hungover and Team 2 has herpes are all irrelivent and only serving to cloud the issue.

You had two teams agree on a trade. What one or the other "thought" they were getting isn't part of the equation.

Trade stands - buyer beware.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

For those who think the trade stands.

Would you still say the trade stands in the following scenario. (Im not sure if this is quite the same)

A team who must win to make playoffs offers some player in exchange for Tiki Barber (who we know will retire at the end of the year)

For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs. Now Tiki is absoutely worthless to him and he didnt even get to use him.

Should he still have to honor the trade?

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
For those who think the trade stands.

Would you still say the trade stands in the following scenario. (Im not sure if this is quite the same)

A team who must win to make playoffs offers some player in exchange for Tiki Barber (who we know will retire at the end of the year)

For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs. Now Tiki is absoutely worthless to him and he didnt even get to use him.

Should he still have to honor the trade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. He should still honor the trade. Once both owners agree to the conditions of a trade, it has been completed.

Tiki Barber's usefullness to the owner is irrelivent.

Let's think about this in another way...take the following statement in your post, "For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs".

Replace it with "For whatever reason, the owner drank a fifth of Jack and didn't wake up in time to insert Tiki into his starting lineup" OR "Tiki Barber trips over his dog and snaps his fibula later that evening".

They are all equivilant to one another as it pertains to the owners responsibility of honoring this trade. After both parties agreed - that's it. You can end the story there because what happens beyond that doesn't pertain to the trade.

Just my take.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

But in one case it is the owners fault and in the other case it is the websites fault or leagues fault.

assuming the trade was made at a time in which it SHOULD have gone through like they wanted it to.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
But in one case it is the owners fault and in the other case it is the websites fault or leagues fault.

assuming the trade was made at a time in which it SHOULD have gone through like they wanted it to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya'. That's the rub. Personally I think owner A got shafted. The website screwed up. But there's really nothing that can be done. Owner B shouldn't have this deal pulled out from underneath him just because the website messed up. It's neither owner's fault, but the deal was done.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

I am having a little difficulty understanding the timing of the trade being accepted, but if they both agreed to it before Thursday's game and were under the impression that they would have those players being traded for in time for Thursday's game, then why not have the trade implemented and retroactively substitute the appropriate players in (not sure if this is possible)?

Force the trade through, and appropriately change a win to a loss or vice versa to both teams if necessary.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

The real issue is how do I get some guy in a deep keeper league for money who thinks that Williams has better value than Gore at this point after one good game against Philly. I mean, Gore looks like and has been an absolute stud and Williams is totally unproven, that the trade was agreed to and then later reversed by someone trying to keep Williams is beyond belief.

-Michael

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

By the way, having read the way this went down, this is clearly a non-trade. If the league has a one-day review policy, and Thursday player cannot be involved in a trade this late. Clearly the owner who did not get to use Baltimore's defense has a legitimate gripe and the trade was illegal from the getgo, so no trade before it even gets to the issue of someone complaining.

-Michael

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

You don't have a league rule to cover this?
Assume no Thursday game.
Trade "agreed to" noon Saturday.
League review delays it past the website's deadline.
No rule to cover it? No rule that says "to be valid, a trade must be submitted 24 hours [review period] before any game with the players involved"?

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am having a little difficulty understanding the timing of the trade being accepted, but if they both agreed to it before Thursday's game and were under the impression that they would have those players being traded for in time for Thursday's game, then why not have the trade implemented and retroactively substitute the appropriate players in (not sure if this is possible)?

Force the trade through, and appropriately change a win to a loss or vice versa to both teams if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're on Yahoo, it is possible. I have done it for players in my league.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real issue is how do I get some guy in a deep keeper league for money who thinks that Williams has better value than Gore at this point after one good game against Philly. I mean, Gore looks like and has been an absolute stud and Williams is totally unproven, that the trade was agreed to and then later reversed by someone trying to keep Williams is beyond belief.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't just Williams. It was Gore and 2 old bench warmers for Williams, Deion Branch, Baltimore D, and a top 5 pick next year.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

seems like it shouldnt be a trade.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

I don't understand why being unaware of the effects of a rule would be grounds for altering an agreement. When they agreed to trade whoever was playing the Thursday game it was publicly available knowledge that the trade couldn't go through until this week's games were over.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Keeper league or no, there should be a trading freeze from Thanksgiving through the end of the regular season. This is how my 11-year keeper league has done it; no problems.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, having read the way this went down, this is clearly a non-trade. If the league has a one-day review policy, and Thursday player cannot be involved in a trade this late. Clearly the owner who did not get to use Baltimore's defense has a legitimate gripe and the trade was illegal from the getgo, so no trade before it even gets to the issue of someone complaining.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my point of view, as well.

-McGee

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Just because website timing holds up a trade is no reason that the trade shouldn't go through. If there was no website and you did it all by hand, this trade would have happened instantly.

How can you guys be so tied to arbitrary rules setup by some website which flies in the face of the intentions of the two parties at the time the deal was consummated?

Unless the teams not involved have a huge beef with the trade and would otherwise object to it, this trade should happen.

Two items:

1. The guy backing out should be considered for removal from the league. That is an asshat move.
2. Put in a trade deadline earlier in the season. Trades made this late typically reek, much as this one did.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because website timing holds up a trade is no reason that the trade shouldn't go through. If there was no website and you did it all by hand, this trade would have happened instantly

[/ QUOTE ]

You can set it up so that trades go through instantly (at least, on Yahoo! you can, and what you can do on Yahoo!, you should be able to do most other places). This league was set up under certain rules, and this trade didn't adhere to the rules. They aren't arbitrary, they are what was agreed to.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The guy backing out should be considered for removal from the league. That is an asshat move.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is harsh. Absent some information that the guy won't obey the commissioner's ruling, he isn't out of line at all. He's just asking.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Put in a trade deadline earlier in the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

-McGee

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

To all those discussing the trade deadline, this is irrelevant. We as a league chose to have no trade deadline so saying now OMG you guys shoulda had a trade deadline has nothing to do with this ruling.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deal goes through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If it was already agreed to, there's no turning back.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
To all those discussing the trade deadline, this is irrelevant. We as a league chose to have no trade deadline so saying now OMG you guys shoulda had a trade deadline has nothing to do with this ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to help with your ruling. I'm pointing out that this mess was assisted by a lack of a deadline.

As for a ruling, duh. The parties agreed. It is a done deal.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deal goes through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If it was already agreed to, there's no turning back.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the TO to the Ravens deal? I'm more wondering than anything cause if the 9ers could back off from that then why can't he back off from his trade? Unless they didn't actually agree to the trade, then I have no basis and it should go through.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Although Owens was eager to leave the 49ers, the 49ers asserted that Owens's previous agent, David Joseph, had missed the deadline to void the final years of his contract with the 49ers. Owens and Joseph disputed this assertion, contending that the deadline referred to by the 49ers was not the applicable deadline. On March 4th, 2004, San Francisco, believing it still held Owens' rights, attempted to trade Owens to the Baltimore Ravens for a second round pick in the 2004 draft. However, Owens challenged the 49ers' right to make the deal. Owens assumed that he would become a free agent on March 3, and did not believe that the earlier deadline was applicable. So he had negotiated with other teams in advance of his expected free agency, and had reached a contract agreement with the Philadelphia Eagles, whose fan base strongly supported Owens in his desire to play for the team. The NFL Players Union filed a grievance on his behalf.

Before an arbitrator could make a ruling on Owens's grievance, the NFL and the three teams involved in the controversy reached a settlement on March 16, 2004. The Ravens got their second-round pick back from the Niners, and the Niners in turn received a conditional fifth-round pick and defensive end Brandon Whiting from the Eagles in exchange for the rights to Owens. Owens's contract with the Eagles was reported to be worth $49 million for seven years, including a $10 million signing bonus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_Owens

I think this is a different issue. They aren't anywhere near the same issue. Fantasy Football and real Football, especially something involving Terrell Owens shouldn't be brought up in a FF thread.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a different issue. They aren't anywhere near the same issue. Fantasy Football and real Football, especially something involving Terrell Owens shouldn't be brought up in a FF thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just got owned. Sorry, just thought maybe it was close.

Anyway, I believe the trade should go through, as it has been said before, they both agreed to it.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Just to get opinions on this part of the argument:

The owner who is trying to back out of the trade has said he will likely quit if the trade is forced to go through, and the discussion came up of if people think it will be harder to get a new owner to take over a team that doesnt have a 1st round pick next year. One owner suggested giving a compensation 1st round pick to a new owner. Personally, I think this idea is BS. If we are forcing through this trade by saying it is a fair trade, then that means that the team who is giving up its 1st round pick gained enough value from the trade to make up for the loss of a 1st round pick. By giving a compensation 1st round pick it implies that the trade was unfair that you are having to institute an extra 1st round pick to make up for it. And if the trade is unfair in that way, then it should be rejected. Also, adding an extra 1st round pick hurts every team in the league other than the 2 teams involved in the trade, so it seems stupid to have to hurt all the other teams in the league because of the screw up caused by a trade between 2 teams.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

It never went through. It was up as pending and then disappeared without anyone knowing why. As of yet no decision has been made as to what to do.

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

Now that you say this, the guy should be kicked out of the league. Who wants to play with a guy who will welch on a trade, then threaten to leave the league if the trade he agreed to goes through?

Get rid of the guy. Why waste time with somebody like this?

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

It never went through. It was up as pending and then disappeared without anyone knowing why. As of yet no decision has been made as to what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it never went through, then it appears that the rules of the site you play at handle such issues in this way. Absent a separate league constitution that amends the site rules, play by the site rules -- they are what everyone signed up for. I say it doesn't have to forced through.

-McGee

Re: Fantasy Football Ruling Issue
 

The trade should have gone through today if the website knew what they were doing. I can see that maybe the trade should not be in effect for the past week since it didn't meet the deadline. The parties agreed to the trade and as repeatedly stated, there is no trade deadline. The trade should stand.