Here's a situation I need some advice on....

 

It's my money league, which I'm commissioner of. We run it through Yahoo, and have trades set up to be commish approved. Before the start of the league I made it clear to all in the league that as long as the trade was agreed upon, I would approve it unless obvious collusion.

 

This week, a team traded Michael Turner for Larry Fitzgerald. The trade occured at 11:00 AM Sunday morning, and somehow went through without me being notified. The issue arises from the fact that both teams that played these teams lost. Both would've won had this trade not went through. I was not even made aware of the trade until after kickoff Sunday when lineups were set.

 

Both losing teams are asking that the trade be allowed, but that since I wasn't aware of it until after kickoff, that it be put into effect next week, which is what would've happened had I seen it when it occured. If both players are returned to their previous teams, the two teams involved in the trade would get loses.

 

What should I do?

 

I 100% would've approved the trade, however I wasn't aware of it until after kickoff, so I legitimately feel it shouldn't have taken place until after kickoff, thus reverting the players to the previous teams for this week.

Pretty tough one. This is the kind of thing that might end up ruffling feathers with other league members. If I were you I would leave it be, go the route of the least intervention. The more you get involved the more people might be inclined to complain or feel slighted, especially if it affects the playoffs/money. If they were worried about when the trade would go through they could have waited until after kickoff (what if you had approved it at 12?). I also doubt there would be any issue had both teams won. Which is maybe a good question to ask yourself, had both the trading teams won and the losing teams complained that the trade went through too quickly (under the exact same circumstance) would you reverse it then?

Pretty tough one. This is the kind of thing that might end up ruffling feathers with other league members. If I were you I would leave it be, go the route of the least intervention. If they were worried about when the trade would go through they could have waited until after kickoff (what if you had approved it at 12?). I also doubt there would be any issue had both teams won. Which is maybe a good question to ask yourself, had both the trading teams won and the losing teams complained that the trade went through too quickly (under the exact same circumstance) would you reverse it then?

 

What your asking is what happened. The two teams making the trade won because of the trade. The other teams are the ones complaining.

 

In all honesty if I had seen the trade Sunday morning, I would've waited until next week to approve it due to it being put through right against kickoff. Whatever I do, I have a feeling I'm going to have members threatening to quit the league.

What your asking is what happened. The two teams making the trade won because of the trade. The other teams are the ones complaining.

 

In all honesty if I had seen the trade Sunday morning, I would've waited until next week to approve it due to it being put through right against kickoff. Whatever I do, I have a feeling I'm going to have members threatening to quit the league.

 

Oh I see, I got that backwards. In that case, had they both lost and asked for the trade to go into effect next week so that they would have won this week would you change it? I edited my other post before you quoted, but I think I would still be inclined to let it be, unless there was some sort of agreement about when trades are to be approved by you or something (e.g. one full day before trades are approved/declined, etc.). Since everything was kosher with the trade I think it would cause more problems if you intervened and moved two wins to the loss column and two losses to the win column.

Oh I see, I got that backwards. In that case, had they both lost and asked for the trade to go into effect next week so that they would have won this week would you change it? I edited my other post before you quoted, but I think I would still be inclined to let it be, unless there was some sort of agreement about when trades are to be approved by you or something (e.g. one full day before trades are approved/declined, etc.). Since everything was kosher with the trade I think it would cause more problems if you intervened and moved two wins to the loss column and two losses to the win column.

 

I tend to agree, had I not told everyone explicitly before the year started that I had to approve every and all trades. When they texted me and asked when the trade went through (at around 3:00 PM Sunday is when I got the text) and I asked "what trade?", that sent them both off into tirades about how the trade needed to be postponed to after this week.

 

The other issue raised with this is we have 2 husband and wife pairs that are each managing seperate teams (4 teams total). The point raised is, if we allow this trade to go through, we're setting a precedent that would allow either or both of these two to collude a trade at the 11th hour when one team had no chance of winning the league and the other was still alive (i.e. trading Peterson for Blount at 12:30 right before kickoff).

 

This whole situation just reminds me of why I hate being commissoner of leagues. :ohbrother:

I tend to agree, had I not told everyone explicitly before the year started that I had to approve every and all trades. When they texted me and asked when the trade went through (at around 3:00 PM Sunday is when I got the text) and I asked "what trade?", that sent them both off into tirades about how the trade needed to be postponed to after this week.

 

The other issue raised with this is we have 2 husband and wife pairs that are each managing seperate teams (4 teams total). The point raised is, if we allow this trade to go through, we're setting a precedent that would allow either or both of these two to collude a trade at the 11th hour when one team had no chance of winning the league and the other was still alive (i.e. trading Peterson for Blount at 12:30 right before kickoff).

 

This whole situation just reminds me of why I hate being commissoner of leagues. :ohbrother:

 

Yea that definitely adds another layer of difficulty to it. If you leave it be, then these two managers are going to be mad that a trade was approved too quickly. If you change it, then the other two managers will probably be mad, and I would think the other people would feel like you are jumping in to help certain people. And you would definitely have to make a clear policy on trades so there wouldn't be any confusion in the future, which some might see as making up rules as you go along.

 

As far as collusion goes, I think you would be completely in the clear with enforcing a trade veto retroactively if yahoo allowed one to sneak through without your approval minutes before kickoff.

The fantasy football player in me says that you should allow the trade.

 

However the commissioner in me feels like it sounds like you set the rules and you then should follow the rules you set, meaning the trade should be reflected until after.

 

I would personally ask Godot his advice and take it as gold haha!

We've already established that you're probably going to make someone mad no matter how you handle this one... So with that in mind, just go with what your instincts tell you to do.

 

For me personally, I'd probably let it stand. Late or not, it seems that the players making the trade were following the proper guidelines and made a fair trade. They had no way of knowing that it would go through without requiring the commish approval. Unless they did know, and that's another story altogether.

 

What if the team that got Turner won and the team that got Fitzgerald lost, but those results would've been flip-flopped had the trade not gone through? What would you do then?

I tend to agree, had I not told everyone explicitly before the year started that I had to approve every and all trades. When they texted me and asked when the trade went through (at around 3:00 PM Sunday is when I got the text) and I asked "what trade?", that sent them both off into tirades about how the trade needed to be postponed to after this week.

 

The other issue raised with this is we have 2 husband and wife pairs that are each managing seperate teams (4 teams total). The point raised is, if we allow this trade to go through, we're setting a precedent that would allow either or both of these two to collude a trade at the 11th hour when one team had no chance of winning the league and the other was still alive (i.e. trading Peterson for Blount at 12:30 right before kickoff).

 

This whole situation just reminds me of why I hate being commissoner of leagues. :ohbrother:

 

You should have made it a 3 day voting period where owners could veto the trade and it takes the responsibly and power away from you to be in a situation like this and eliminate last second trades.

 

I'm thinking you should leave it how it is honestly but it's a tough call.

I would reverse it. You made the rule the that you had to approve trades before they would go through. These two teams shouldn't benefit from a system error. IMO, they have no right to get mad because they waited until the last min to put the trade in. I don't think you have a choice but to reverse it.

 

We have trades set up so that everyone in the league has 24 hours to vote on the trade. Whether or not everyone has voted, in 24 hours the trade goes through. It's the commish's job to weed out the obvious collusion.

You should have made it a 3 day voting period where owners could veto the trade and it takes the responsibly and power away from you to be in a situation like this and eliminate last second trades.

 

I'm thinking you should leave it how it is honestly but it's a tough call.

 

We have a 2 day voting period I believe (whatever the default is by ESPN). As the Commissioner though, I usually push them threw unless it seems like a one-sided trade, then I wait to see what the owners are going to vote. Helps keeps ya out of situations like this for sure.

You should have made it a 3 day voting period where owners could veto the trade and it takes the responsibly and power away from you to be in a situation like this and eliminate last second trades.

 

I'm thinking you should leave it how it is honestly but it's a tough call.

 

I'd go this route in the future.

 

And I agree with HT, leave it be. The teams that made the trade were probably under the assumption that the trade got reviewed. It would be completely unfair to them.

Why did the trade get processed without your approval?

As commissioner you should be checking everything between 11am-1pm EST. You should have caught this.

 

It's your fault:D:lol:

 

 

I think you let it stand. The trade was offered and accepted prior to the start of the games. It also took place prior to the rosters being locked for the start of the first game. It has no appearance of collusion, so you probably would've approved it. What case can you make for not allowing it until the next week? I see nothing that should have prevented the trade from going through and the results should stand.

 

I think you let it stand. The trade was offered and accepted prior to the start of the games. It also took place prior to the rosters being locked for the start of the first game. It has no appearance of collusion, so you probably would've approved it. What case can you make for not allowing it until the next week? I see nothing that should have prevented the trade from going through and the results should stand.

 

That was my line of thinking. In my league it's established that it's a 3 day wait for trades so if you don't get it in early in the week you know it's not going to process till next week. Doing it your current way it leaves way to much open for debate as far as how fast you approve a trade.