League controversy
There is a controversy happening in the Bulletin Fantasy Challenge which I would like to share with all of you. Last Friday, I accepted a trade from Joe Truman of Greg Jennings and Mike Bell in exchange for Lamont Jordan and Chad Jackson. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, you now know that Bell scored two touchdowns last week and Jordan is likely out for the remainder of the season.
The trade went through first thing Monday morning with no comments or vetoes from the league until Truman politely asked if he could veto his own trade. Being the commissioner, I responded that I would not mainly because I think trades should be evaluated based on fairness at the time of the trade. In other words, I think if someone gets injured or has a huge game that is tough luck for the other owner.
Below you will find responses from league owners and my response. Pick a side and let everyone know what you think.
Owner 1: “In all the leagues I'm in, a trade (always) has a (stipulation) that if a player or players get hurt over the weekend games the trade is null and void. Because trade was made when every player was healthy,it would not be the same trade if one or more players got hurt.”
Owner 2: “…In my personal opinion, the possibility of injury is always present and it's something you've got to deal with. It's tough to make a deal with someone if you know that there is an insurance policy, that in a way, keeps you from personally benefiting. I know how much it sucks first hand, I traded Portis away the weekend that he got hurt, and now I'm without Marvin Harrison and I am left with a running back on IR..”
Me: “Most importantly, this is the second issue we have had with completed deals going through and then owners being upset with things. As I stated before and after the Tomlinson trade, owners can send me vetos on here during the time when a deal is accepted and processed. Like the Tomlinson deal, none of the "complaints" happened until after that period. But like I keep stressing, even if I did get complaints I would need to hear arguments that didn't involve Jordan getting hurt because trades need to be evaluated on fairness at the time of the agreement. Also if the trade was proposed on a Monday we wouldn't be talking about this. Instead it was proposed on a Friday and I don't think I (or any other owner in this situation) should be punished for that.”
There is a controversy happening in the Bulletin Fantasy Challenge which I would like to share with all of you. Last Friday, I accepted a trade from Joe Truman of Greg Jennings and Mike Bell in exchange for Lamont Jordan and Chad Jackson. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, you now know that Bell scored two touchdowns last week and Jordan is likely out for the remainder of the season.
The trade went through first thing Monday morning with no comments or vetoes from the league until Truman politely asked if he could veto his own trade. Being the commissioner, I responded that I would not mainly because I think trades should be evaluated based on fairness at the time of the trade. In other words, I think if someone gets injured or has a huge game that is tough luck for the other owner.
Below you will find responses from league owners and my response. Pick a side and let everyone know what you think.
Owner 1: “In all the leagues I'm in, a trade (always) has a (stipulation) that if a player or players get hurt over the weekend games the trade is null and void. Because trade was made when every player was healthy,it would not be the same trade if one or more players got hurt.”
Owner 2: “…In my personal opinion, the possibility of injury is always present and it's something you've got to deal with. It's tough to make a deal with someone if you know that there is an insurance policy, that in a way, keeps you from personally benefiting. I know how much it sucks first hand, I traded Portis away the weekend that he got hurt, and now I'm without Marvin Harrison and I am left with a running back on IR..”
Me: “Most importantly, this is the second issue we have had with completed deals going through and then owners being upset with things. As I stated before and after the Tomlinson trade, owners can send me vetos on here during the time when a deal is accepted and processed. Like the Tomlinson deal, none of the "complaints" happened until after that period. But like I keep stressing, even if I did get complaints I would need to hear arguments that didn't involve Jordan getting hurt because trades need to be evaluated on fairness at the time of the agreement. Also if the trade was proposed on a Monday we wouldn't be talking about this. Instead it was proposed on a Friday and I don't think I (or any other owner in this situation) should be punished for that.”
posted by The Coach at 5:58 PM
2 Comments:
coach i am on your side,but those kind of issues reminds me why i prefer to play Salary type games where you dont need to deal with all those trading bobling issues.
it's the "tough shit rule"
Post a Comment
<< Home