Fair Rule Interpretation? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Fair Rule Interpretation?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby WonderbatsTAL » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:16 am

We recently had an argument in our $10 friends league, and I'm hoping for an outsider's perspective on the situation. I will include background information as well as the message board conversation on the issue. I'm really interested in what you would do if this was a casual money league. Thanks! ;-D ;-D ;-D

Background information
We use Auction FA each Sunday. Each team starts with $100, the Commissioner has $2 left.
The Commissioner proposed a trade to another team of Matt Joyce & Alexi Ogando for Nelson Cruz.
The other team accepted the trade offer and dropped Ryan Dempster.
The Commissioner then asked the Deputy Commissioner to veto the trade, which he did.
Moments later, the Commissioner proposed a new trade: Matt Joyce & Alexi Ogando for Nelson Cruz & Ryan Dempster.
Earlier this year, we switched from a league-vote approval to Commissioner Approval to expedite a trade.
An earlier two-for-one trade was completed and the team was not asked if they would like the dropped player (Carlos Gomez).

Message Board Conversation
TEAM A
Props to (Commish) for altering the trade after it was accepted and acquiring Dempster for free. With only $2 left, adding Dempster was a great, illegal move.

COMMISSIONER
When I made the offer earlier in the week, Barney was still on the DL, so I didn't realize she'd have to cut someone, otherwise I would have asked then. Now I asked (other team in trade) if she would throw in Dempster. She said sure. I'd be happy to accomodate that for anyone else as well. They just have to ask.

TEAM A
It's frustrating that I made a trade with (another owner) that was 2-for-1 and I didn't get the player he dropped and now you have Dempster starting against me for this week who is scheduled to start Monday against the Nationals and later in the week against the Pirates.

COMMISSIONER
Cause you would have used Carlos Gomez! All you had to do was ask him to throw Gomez in. Not illegal, cause (the other team in trade) agreed to alter the trade before it was finalized. I see no problem with that. If I wasn't the Commishioner, I would have called & asked. In fact, your brother approved the trade. So, both parties & the Commishioner (in this case, your brother) agreed to it.

TEAM B
For the record I side with Team A on this one. Once you cut a player you can't trade that player. It's up to the two parties involved in a trade to figure out everything before the trade is accepted.

TEAM C
Whoa I would say I was more confused then anything when I approved the trade. I was told to approve it so both teams could have their players by monday morning and not wait the 24 hours. I talked to (the other deputy commish) with this as well and actually didn't know the trade was once already approved as a 2-1 deal. Technically that should have been the trade since both parties had agreed on it is what I would say. You shouldn't be able to go back and try to get the player the person you were going to trade with is cutting, this should have been worked out through calls or emails before the trade was accepted. I'm with Team A and B on this one.

COMMISSIONER
The two parties involved in the trade were in agreement. That's what matters. And I did call & ask her to amend the trade, which she did. Of course, the final trade has to be approved, which it was. And didn't tell you to do anything. Asked you to approve (or veto) the trade.

TEAM D
Yep, that is pretty crappy. If the trade is accepted, how can it be altered? Do your homework before hand not after.

COMMISSIONER
The two parties involved agreed to the parameters of the trade. Those parameters are irrelevant to anyone else unless it is a lopsided veto-able trade. The trade parties said hey we want to make an amendment before it is finalized. If I wasn't the commishioner, I would have called the commishioner & said this. The terms of the trade are up to the trade parties, whom were in agreement. Hence, completely above board & fine. This is not some way of trying to cheat or something.

TEAM A
So you have 24 hours to work on parameters of a trade, but once it's approved any teams (Teams A, B, C, D thus far) can not object and veto the trade? Within 4 hours, four of the eight other owners think this should not be accepted, and I would like to use the remaining 20 hours to give other owners the option of vetoing the proposed trade with Dempster included.

COMMISSIONER
When the season began, I asked for any opinions or complaints on the settings. (The Deputy Commissioners) gave me some opinions on things. But otherwise all I got from the entire league was one owner saying he would like the 2nd DL spot. Likewise, trade reviews never had more than a few votes. Believe it or not, I thought through a lot of things. And this is something I would have done & will do for any teams. This is not particular to me. "It's frustrating that I made a trade with Scott that was 2-for-1 and I didn't get the player he dropped and now you have Dempster starting against me for this week who is scheduled to start Monday against the Nationals and later in the week against the Pirates." This was only the 5th trade on the year. The only other time a player was going to be dropped is when you made your deal. But here's the thing, you did not have a roster spot open as Wright was traded from the DL. So you would not have had room for Gomez! Not quite the same situation. Perhaps I should have asked if you wanted him, my bad. In fact, you may now have him for free if you wish, but he is a 5 % owned backup OF who ended up hitting .200 w/ 2 R, 1 HR, 3 RBI & 2 SB in June. Hence, I didn't think I had to ask then. From now on, I will. And, I'm not starting Dempster against you. So don't fret.

TEAM A
(Commish), I have no problem with you starting Dempster against me if he's a part of your team. The issue that I have with the situation is I don't think Dempster should have been allowed to be included in the trade. I think a loophole was found in the current setup, and I think we need to be clear moving forward whether or not we push trades through during the 24-hour Commish Approval (as we did for our Hudson/Hanrahan trade) or we wait 24 hours for owners to amend aspects of the trade (as happened today). I think I've made my opinion clear that I think the former is the fair way to go about things, but as long as we clear up the rule one way or the other, I'm fine playing within those rules as long as all 10 of us understand them the same way.

TEAM C
Alright as deputy commish and the one that pushed this through thinks we should clarify things. We can all agree this is just a fantasy league between some friends and I just think what happened today was a misunderstanding in the rule between different teams. I'm not going to say anyone was right or wrong we just need to clarify what the trade rule really is. There are two ways to look at the 24 hour trade wait. One way is to look at is the 24 hour trade window is just that and it still allows team to work on trades with each other and just puts in principle what the teams are talking about. You can make a trade with someone and have 24 hours to work out the kinks and have teams approve or veto, if someone gets hurt in the 24 trade window they can be removed from the offer and reworked things. This is what occured today and if we decide this is the definition of the rule then we would not be able to push through trades early as both teams would have to be allowed the 24 hours to work on the deal. The other way to look at the 24 hour trade window is when both teams approve the trade and it goes to the 24 hour window it is what both teams agreed on cannot be changed. This would be like when trades happen in professional sports and they go to the commisoner's office to be approved, the teams don't change what they have offered each other it is just being looked at by the commisoner. I hope this somewhat made sense as it's harder to express by typing and not just saying but basically we as a league I feel need to clarify for future trades in leagues. We can't one time say let's push this trade through so teams have their players by the start time and then on the other hand say trades can be altered once they are submitted. Just a catch-22 is all.

COMMISSIONER
Can't sleep, so I will clear this up now. I do aplogize for any confusion. I think we're overcomplicating things here, as it is pretty simple. Here is how it will be: I will approve a trade immediately if it is fair (doubt we'll ever have what I would consider to be a vetoeable trade) & no one is being released. If someone is being released, I will ask the other team if they wish to have that guy. If they do & the releasing team is okay with it (why wouldn't they be), the trade will be amended. It will be simple & consistent. And, I don't want to start Dempster because he's not that good!

TEAM E
Dempster has a 4.99 ERA and 1.41 WHIP. The reasoning makes sense and it doesn't involve a player who will make much, if any, impact. Dempster is owned in 46% of leagues for a reason. I understand the concept of not altering an approved trade, but the reasoning behind it is understandable and fair. Just my opinion. If the player at hand was one which had more of an impact, I may feel different. Arguing over a Canadian on July 4th is almost blasphemy!!
WonderbatsTAL
T-Ball Trainer


Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby lane_anasazi2 » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:37 pm

I read until here:

"Technically that should have been the trade since both parties had agreed on it is what I would say. You shouldn't be able to go back and try to get the player the person you were going to trade with is cutting, this should have been worked out through calls or emails before the trade was accepted."

This is correct. I didn't read past it because honestly I got a little bored, but I'm going to assume everything to comish did after this point was backpedal.

If you agree to a trade, THAT IS THE TRADE. No take-backs. If you offer 2 for 1 and you realize you wanted the dropped player, you're welcome to put in a WW request. You're NOT welcome to use comish powers to alter the deal ex post facto. The comish trying to logic his way out of this one just isn't going to fly, nor will altering the rules to make this some kind of special case where in 2 for 1 trades you can always get the dropped player if you ask.... nope. (I just did a 3 for 1; Jurrjins, J-Zimmerman, and Pena for Joey Votto) and the guy dropped Bud Norris. Of course I want him. So I put in a wavier request.)

Here's what you do - if you propose a trade, that's the trade. If you want a potential dropped player, you have to negotiate that before hand. If you send an IM saying, "how about Player X and Z for your A and whoever you'd drop?", that would work. Anything else is overcomplicating it to make the comish look like they weren't trying something underhanded. Not malicious, just a little scheme-y.
lane_anasazi2
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 2152
(Past Year: 99)
Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby bigmck » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:24 pm

I agree with the above post. What the Commish did was wrong. When a trade is made, that is the end of it. The Deputy Commish should have his hand slapped also.
bigmck
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1027
(Past Year: 64)
Joined: 9 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Houston

Re: Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby WonderbatsTAL » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:04 am

Thanks guys. I figured this was the consensus. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for next year, and I wanted to get some outside opinions to support my original understanding of the rule.

I kinda like this place. ;-D
WonderbatsTAL
T-Ball Trainer


Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby AHF » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:21 pm

I like the logic here. Dempster is so important that the Commish will force this through even though multiple players object but so unimportant that it really doesn't matter that some of the league doesn't think it is fair. The Commish should err on the side of not benefiting his own team when there is a gray area.
AHF
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 231
(Past Year: 78)
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Fair Rule Interpretation?

Postby hockeykidb3 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:45 am

The trade waa vetoed even though it was fair, thats where you draw the line, thats not right
hockeykidb3
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 200
Joined: 30 May 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Apr. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(1:05 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Seattle at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Atlanta at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(1:35 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Minnesota at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(3:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact