FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Fri 10.24.2014, 19:33

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 00:45 
Offline
Blue Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 10.19.2006, 21:55
Posts: 342
Sand$: 1126
Donate
Location: San Diego, CA
atl.gif
I'm co-commish in a 14 team league with roster restrictions that require 1 reserve at each position with 1 additional flex bench spot. This makes trades more complex and quit frequently never exactly even.

Anyway, I'm running with McNabb and Hasselback as my two QBs and Gates and Cooley as my two TE's. As luck would have it, I missed my opportunity to snag Vick on waivers as, although I had high priority, I couldn't access my account. After Vick was named starting QB, the team that did get him has Peyton Manning as his other QB and Heath Miller/Kevin Boss as his TEs. Obviously, a trade was meant to be as my strength was his weakness and vice versa.

I sent him a trade offer when he posts league-wide that Vick was up for sale. I offered him Hass/Cooley for Vick/Miller. A few days go bye and he calls me and wants to work a deal. He proposes me the same deal but Boss instead of Miller. I'm thinking, okay, but then he says he wants more. He then points out we play head to head this week. I ask him, half jokingly, "What, not start Vick against you?" He says no, He wants me to swap Cincy's D with Dallas' D as well.

I know Cincy has a sweet matchup this week, but my other D is Atl and they are up against NO. Yeah, not a good fit there with Dallas also at Houston. Basically, I tell him that's out of the Question. Long story short, he goes back now and starts saying if I don't start Vick he would do the trade. I tell him that McNabb's matchup is good and I might just right the QB carosel as I planned when I drafted. I mentioned that even with the trade I "might" not start Vick, but I couldn't agree to it. As co-commish, we only veto trades with collusion, and that's collusion.

He tries, as he had been the entire time, to put a "sell" on me and tell me that he'll put the trade up for 24 hours and after that it's off the board. We hang up and the trade is sitting there....essentially Vick for Cooley. It's a done deal in my mind as I talked him off asking for more and got what I wanted. He, in my opinion, jokingly writes on the message board..."okay, remember our deal and you can't start Vick this week...LOL!" Basically announcing to the league collusion, but seemingly making it clear that he knows he can't expect that. He also said when we talked by phone that he couldn't expect that as he was going to play Cooley.

So, today I throw Vick in my lineup and send out a little trash talk of Vick lighting up the Jags and Cooley being lost to Portis...I can only hope!

Almost immediately this guy jumps on the boards, calls me names, throws a tantrum, and claims we had an agreement in place. I've already said we can renig the trade if he wants. But this, to me, is a guy who is clearly experiencing some buyers remorse because he got sold when he thought he was selling me.

Long story, but to all you sharks out there...was I in the wrong here for posting my smack or am I somehow obligated to follow this agreement I never had? Should the trade be reversed on the basis of misunderstanding? Thanks!

(Oh, and I don't know if this belongs in the Commish folder or not, feel free to move it)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 01:05 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08.31.2004, 21:06
Posts: 4279
Sand$: 693
Donate
nfllogo.gif
http://www.fantasysharks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=243859

It does belong in the commissioner corner, and is already being discussed there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 08:16 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 38862
Sand$: 36536
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Not sure why you didn't think it was for Commish, but anyway.

Let's look at it from another angle: Team A doesn't play his best lineup and loses a game, allowing Team B to pass YOUR team for the last playoff spot.

Are you feeling cheated?

Even the kidding around portion of not playing someone shoulda been shot down, ESPECIALLY if you are Co-Commish. You have to be the one to always be setting the standard and an example of not doing anything shady.

The only recourse you have here is to post on the website that "Agreeing to not play your best players is an attempt to throw a game and hurts the overall integrity of the league. Teams cannot KNOWINGLY worsen their lineup as Win/Loss records affect the ENTIRE LEAGUE." I'd also post that I thought he was joking and that any type of agreement like this would be viewed as collusion.

You should have clearly slapped it down at the beginning of the talks.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 08:30 
Offline
Whale Shark

Joined: Sat 09.26.2009, 11:40
Posts: 1246
Sand$: 3441
Donate
kcinca2003 wrote:
was I in the wrong here for posting my smack
No, you were wrong to "half jokingly" offer to sit Vick. As a commish why are you half seriously/half jokingly offering to cheat? That's where this whole thing started to go bad. Then it got worse when you started discussing whether you'd bench your defense. You said it was out of the question based on expected points, not based on the fact that it is cheating.

None of those conversations should have happened. It's not just a conditional trade, it's collusion. It doesn't really matter that he is playing you. Suppose there are two playoff spots left to be determined and you are playing his friend whom he wants to help get into the playoffs. Is it cool for him to require you to sit Vick? It's no different than this.

However, since you explicitly said later that you wouldn't agree to not start Vick, I see no reason to reverse the trade.


Last edited by Johnny Blood on Sun 09.26.2010, 09:00, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 08:39 
Offline
Whale Shark

Joined: Sat 09.26.2009, 11:40
Posts: 1246
Sand$: 3441
Donate
pwbowen wrote:
"Agreeing to not play your best players is an attempt to throw a game and hurts the overall integrity of the league. Teams cannot KNOWINGLY worsen their lineup as Win/Loss records affect the ENTIRE LEAGUE."
This is good if you force people to always fill every position. It's the easiest way to go. My only problem with it is that I don't think people should be forced to cover bye weeks if they don't think it is in their best interest. E.G., someone with a great bench and a really good defense shouldn't be forced to drop anyone to cover the defense's bye week. or a TE, or whatever...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 08:40 
Offline
Whale Shark

Joined: Sat 09.26.2009, 11:40
Posts: 1246
Sand$: 3441
Donate
pwbowen wrote:
I'd also post that I thought he was joking
Well he certainly didn't think this guy was joking about trying to put roster restrictions on the deal, since he explicitly requested that the defenses be switched.

So really that approach seems a little misleading, because what the OP said he thought was a joke was just the comment made AFTER the trade. These guys DID talk about collusion and nobody thought it was a joke. The commish was "half joking" when he brought up benching Vick, and then he considered the defense thing in terms of matchups and points. Remember each side in this trade brought up a particular plan for collusion and then talked it over.

So really if he posts what you say on the board he's being a hypocrite IMO. Maybe the trade should be reversed. If you want to post that stuff you should void the deal. (I see you offered to reverse it, maybe that's good enough. Leave it up to the other guy.) You can't as a commish talk over two distinct plans for collusion and then right when the deal is done post that your own behavior is completely prohibited!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 10:28 
Offline
Tiger Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.01.2010, 10:31
Posts: 237
Sand$: 610
Donate
oak.gif
Johnny Blood wrote:
kcinca2003 wrote:
was I in the wrong here for posting my smack
No, you were wrong to "half jokingly" offer to sit Vick. As a commish why are you half seriously/half jokingly offering to cheat? That's where this whole thing started to go bad. Then it got worse when you started discussing whether you'd bench your defense. You said it was out of the question based on expected points, not based on the fact that it is cheating.

None of those conversations should have happened. It's not just a conditional trade, it's collusion. It doesn't really matter that he is playing you. Suppose there are two playoff spots left to be determined and you are playing his friend whom he wants to help get into the playoffs. Is it cool for him to require you to sit Vick? It's no different than this.

However, since you explicitly said later that you wouldn't agree to not start Vick, I see no reason to reverse the trade.

110%

As a commishioner or owner, you should never have gone down this road. In fact, I would suggest that you teased him with the suggestion of collusion in order to persuade him on the deal. That is deceptive which is why he may feel slighted in the trade. Discussing possible terms of collusion IS collusion, despite it being "half-jokingly" and something you didn't follow thru with. Plus, you as a commishioner is setting the precedent that it is OK to discuss collusion as part of of trades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 11:30 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 38862
Sand$: 36536
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Johnny Blood wrote:
pwbowen wrote:
"Agreeing to not play your best players is an attempt to throw a game and hurts the overall integrity of the league. Teams cannot KNOWINGLY worsen their lineup as Win/Loss records affect the ENTIRE LEAGUE."
This is good if you force people to always fill every position. It's the easiest way to go. My only problem with it is that I don't think people should be forced to cover bye weeks if they don't think it is in their best interest. E.G., someone with a great bench and a really good defense shouldn't be forced to drop anyone to cover the defense's bye week. or a TE, or whatever...


It's something that you post but it is not enforceable unless someone lobbies someone else to do it or admits to doing it.

Lineups are subjectable and as Commish I wouldn't even yell collusion if someone started Clausen over Peyton Manning this week if they were simply playing a hunch, even a terrible one.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 09.26.2010, 13:42 
Offline
Blue Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 10.19.2006, 21:55
Posts: 342
Sand$: 1126
Donate
Location: San Diego, CA
atl.gif
Just to clarify, I NEVER half jokingly offered to sit Vick...I asked him if that was what he wanted, because it IS collusion and would have turned him away.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group