Hey guys, i'm sure my situation isnt unique but i still am not sure what to do.
this is the situation.
Player A made a trade with Player B involving Rich 'DL' Harden. Player A offered the trade that would bring Harden to his team. The two managers have been talking about the trade for a while, and Player A leaves the offer on the table with Yahoo overnight. The next day, Player B hears that Harden is heading back to the DL and with this info, accepts the trade, getting rid of Harden. Player A then complains that Player B only made the trade because Harden was going to the DL, which Player B denies.
how should i, as commish, solve this problem? i am not sure whether to let the trade through or whether to wipe it clean.
I would probably go ahead and veto the trade. As you say, the other owner wasn't trying to get Harden in light of his recent trip to the DL, he was trying to get a (relatively) healthy Harden. The player's value significantly changed, due to injury, and before the offering team had a chance to rescind the offer, the opportunistic other owner accepted a deal that the first wasn't really intending to offer.
Use your judgment and protect common sense. I would shoot the trade down. The use of a veto in exactly this type of situation is a pretty common practice really.
This is tricky. I am always against knowingly trading injured players before the other owner realizes this but there are other factors here. Player A offered the deal and, as such, he could have cancelled it at any time.
Lofunzo wrote:This is tricky. I am always against knowingly trading injured players before the other owner realizes this but there are other factors here. Player A offered the deal and, as such, he could have cancelled it at any time.
That is true, but in this case, if the owner giving Harden accepted it mere minutes after the announcement that Harden had a setback, then it's still pretty shady behavior by the accepting manager. It's hard to say for sure what happened when though, and Harden is a player with whom risks were always associated. I might not veto if the manager trading for Harden left his offer up for a long time after the injury announcement.
As a long time commissioner myself this is a tough one but since Team A left the offer out there to be executed then I would say that the trade still stands as it is their responsibility to take off the offer. It was no mystery that Harden was heading to the DL. That has been talked about for a little while.
It would appear that because the status of one of the players involed changed between the time the trade was offered and the time it was accepted, the player getting Harden should have been able to reconsider. I am typically against vetoeing trades, but I get the sense that this deal was not completed with fair intentions.
I believe if the ower giving up Harden was acting with good intentions, he might have sent a message to the other owner saying, "Harden just went on the DL, does the offer still stand?"
If Harden went on the DL immediately after the deal was accepted, then that's just bad luck. However because his status was changed while the offer was still out there, I think it has to be vetoed.
"I can't drive, so im going to walk all over you." - Soda Popinsky
Well I feel before every trade goes through every owner involved in the trade should have the right to cancel the trade for any reason, so if the player wants to cancel the trade, veto it right away or you will have one very dissatisfied owner
I am generally not in favor of trade vetoes (as I'm sure some of you have noticed), but I would definitely consider a veto here. This is a clear situation of using an injured player to get healthy guys in return. Granted, sometimes people will trade for guys on the DL, but Team A was clearly not thinking this way.
This situation relates very much to how things are handled in MLB. Say Oakland (Team B) and another MLB team (Team A) were in trade talks involving Harden. Everybody involved knows of Harden's injury past, but they also know he is on the road to recovery and should return to action soon. Suddenly, Harden has a major setback and completely blows out his arm in a rehab start, but Team A does not recieve this info. The next day, the trade is completed and Team A only finds out about the injury when Harden reports. If I understand correctly, Team A has every right to file a formal protest to MLB against Team B because they did not properly disclose the status of a player involved in the trade. See what I'm getting at here?
Now, I don't know exactly how MLB handles these situations, but I think they have the right to rescind trades. I know a situation like this has happened recently with the Reds and Nationals involving Mike Majewski (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02078.html). I think the protest in still pending.
Anyway, back to your situation. I think this was a "poor-sport" moves made by Team B and the trade should be vetoed because Team A did not know all of the info.