A scenario for you, need an opinion

[ABA316]

In a league I was once in, this situation played out.

5 team AL only, had a VERY deep FA pool.

Owner A drops player 1 while he was in a slump. Commissioner speaks to owner A to insure this is not collusive and is satisfied it is not. The player picked up escapes me at the moment, but at that particular time was doing better on the field.

Following this conversation, Commissioner puts in a waiver claim for player 1 and gets him. Owner B also has a waiver claim for player 1 and is not happy about this. Owner B lets commissioner know he has issues with player 1 being dropped.

Now..with those facts, what is the thought on this?

My particular thought is, had something been said while player 1 is on waivers regarding the drop, this would be a valid concern. Had it been worded by owner B as "it's not right for the commissioner to add player 1" that would also be the case. That said, I honestly feel that the issue is not the player being dropped if owner B did try to claim player 1 and said nothing until after being unable to do so.

What say you?

[Kodiak]

Hi ABA316,

Based on what you've written, I don't think there was a problem with you picking up Player 1.

You're the commissioner of the league, and you fulfilled those responsibilities by talking to Owner A about his decision to drop Player 1. It wasn't anyone else's "job" to call Owner A and ask about this; I think you did the right thing by doing so.

But remember, you're also an owner, and you're in the league to win just like everyone else. So naturally, as an owner, you saw a player performing well and picked him up. It's sour grapes from Owner B; he should have jumped on Player 1 faster. Would he have had an issue if, say, Owner C picked up Player 1 first?

Well that's my two cents. Plink plink!

Later,
Kodiak

[Diamond Miners]

Agreed! He's just angry he couldn't pick him up. It's not the commish's job to police/protect the owners of a league, just to ensure of no collusion. There was none so everybody was able to pick him up. Something should have been said before he went off waivers. The fact that the commish picked him up has nothing to do with it, unless of course the commish changed the waiver order to get him first. Which I know wasn't the case.

[Born Slippy]

player "that escapes memory" was Carl Crawford and it didnt escape your memory come on

and no cafe people I wasnt the owner or in the league but im familiar with the situation just saw details being left out

i still , as an objective outsider, feel that a player like that should be just zipped off into oblivion so no one can have him if someone is insistent on cutting him (usually the main reason people use the cant cut list as well)

carl crawford had no slump that was that that bad to be cut in a league with deep rosters especially AL only..an easy common 1st round mixed leaguer

and as players in the league people have the right to put in for him without qualms..commish (seperate from his own player instincts) shoudl do whats right

same as when a team announces they are having a firesale or something team is making such an ill-advised move that it will effect the league..there grey areas and all but gotta make those judgement calls and hold to a higher standard and all

a team owner has NO obligation to pipe up and say hey he shouldnt have dropped this guy and all cause why should you hurt yourself that badly as a player only...as commish can make sure no one benefits

as kodiak pointed out you are an owner too and might have felt miffed just as much if someone else got him

[Born Slippy]

how about this:

guy with Crawford trades him to someone else for Omar Infante

you talk to crawford owner and he explains how he hates crawford..just thinks he sucks and hes in a "dry spell"

hey seems like no collusion right cause he told you he sucks

so you allow this trade????? or are saying the guy getting Crawford should pipe up before he does the trade saying its not right..

cause that will never happen

[ABA316]

Slippy, go read the top again. I specifically said "The player picked up escapes me at the moment"

What I mean is, the player that the first owner wanted to add I do not recall.

RIF..reading is fundamental.

[luckygehrig]

Isn't this exactly what the waiver system is for? Just because you're the commish doesn't mean you're not allowed to try to improve your team. If the first manager was hell-bent on dropping Crawford, and there was no can't cut list in use, it sounds like he was fair game to me. Too bad for Owner B that he didn't have higher waiver priority.

[ABA316]

I see the comparison, but not the same thing..

Trades do have the veto option (which was set to league review in this league).

[lsommerer]

In my experience, you gain a lot of good will from other owners if you tell them what you're doing as commissioner as you do it. If you have questions about a move (is this collusionary dumping) then chances are other players will have questions about it too.

Find out the answers and them post the potential problem and what you found out. This also (1) makes it absolutely clear that you're not letting something go through so that you can take advantage of it and (2) lets other owners chime in on the situation. Sometimes they will have legitimate things to say about the transaction, but even if they don't they still feel like you've heard what they think.

It seems to me that lots of the problems I read about commissioners having comes from treating the things a commissioner has to do to keep a league running smoothly as state secrets.

[The Natural]

Isn't this exactly what the waiver system is for? Just because you're the commish doesn't mean you're not allowed to try to improve your team. If the first manager was hell-bent on dropping Crawford, and there was no can't cut list in use, it sounds like he was fair game to me. Too bad for Owner B that he didn't have higher waiver priority.

I agree