Dances With Rules
It was a drama-filled week in my patron league Dynasty To Be Named Later (DTBNL). Last Friday, I penned a blow-by-blow account of the events leading up to and immediately following a Christian Yelich blockbuster trade in this 25-team, keep 30, roster 45 league. Now it’s time to tell episode two of the tale. It’s Dances With Rules, starring Kevin Costner.
First, for those who didn’t click the linky-link above, the trade was Yelich and some throw-ins for Luis Urias, Taylor Trammell, Ke’Bryan Hayes, and Cristian Pache. Uproar ensued. I was to receive Yelich in the swap, and I still believe it to have been a fair trade. It accomplished exactly what my trading partner requested in a Yelich deal – a quantity of quality near-majors, long-term assets. Moreover, the deal did not affect competitive balance. An update to the projected standings showed literally no change (my team also entirely lacks a pitching staff and thus cannot contend).
I am both the commissioner and a participant in this league. My dual role adds to the confusion of this saga. Our constitution includes a clause which allows participants in a trade to revoke the deal within 24 hours. To wit:
“24 Hour Revocability” any party to a trade may back out for any reason within 24 hours. This is done by contacting the commissioner. The owner(s) who back out may not trade the players involved for a period of 14 days from the original trade. For example, if I trade Max Muncy for Kevin Kiermaier and change my mind, I cannot trade Max Muncy for two weeks. This penalty is waived in the event of major injury during the 24-hour period. “Major injury” to be defined on a case-by-case basis at the commissioner’s discretion. These shall be listed in this document to ensure consistency. Note: It is poor form to back out of a trade. To clarify, this does not apply to verbal or written agreements – only those accepted through the FanTrax trade tool.
There’s a lot baked into this. The “for any reason” clause is to protect the commissioner from needing to make judgment calls about the validity of revoked deal. The “Note” is basically a goodwill appeal for owners to actually have a damned good reason even if it’s not explicitly required.
In any case, the deal was revoked. The owner cited “better offers.” League pressure certainly played a role. Here’s where things take an M. Night twist. Early in the process, my trade partner said in our league Discord channel:
I probably should invoke the 24 hr backout clause. But I certainly don’t want to offend. Not clear on what the “it’s poor form” means.
I immediately responded with…
Hey, take some time to digest. I’ll honor it up to next Saturday.
And he did… a full 26 hours from the time the trade was consummated. And that put us in an interesting spot because the 24-hour rule no longer applied. The commissioner (me) can only shrug and say y’all have to work this out between yourselves. The party to the trade (also me) then has to work it out.
The answer is to return Yelich via a standard trade. Technically, the 14-day waiting period won’t apply (the owner has promised to honor it anyway). Also technically, I could burn some bridges and try keep Yelich. Our constitution isn’t 100 percent clear on handshake agreements (it will be very soon), but the spirit when referenced is that they are not binding. My intent has always been that they are not binding. Whether or not an individual keeps their word is up to them. If you want to be a shitty shyster, be a shitty shyster.
To emphasize, I would never try to forcibly keep Yelich. I’m just pointing out that we’ve escaped the comfy confines of the rules. It’s Wild Wild West with guns and giant steampunk spiders. Also, I’m not above trying to squeeze a little advantage out of an unclear situation. And so, I’m currently holding Yelich hostage for at least part of the 14 days as I attempt to complete our trade.
There are pros and cons to this approach. It’s created more uproar as some bystanders don’t understand why I’m complicating matters by not immediately returning Yelich. I still think it’s possible I’ll walk away with him when the dust clears. At present, there’s no question I’m the only owner with which a deal can be completed. Perhaps most importantly, if we do agree to something like the original deal, it would immediately stand. The Yelich trade occurred on January 10 and would not be subject to revocability. Given events to date, that small consideration is… attractive. The most pressing downside is I can’t immediately trade Urias, Trammell, Pache, or Hayes if an opportunity arises.
Thankfully, the other owner is perfectly comfortable with this temporary settlement. I’ve assured him Yelich will be returned within 14 days if we cannot work out an accommodation. It’s good that we’re on the same page because there is some disagreement as to the legality of my actions. My reading of the constitution suggests I can do pretty much whatever I feel like in this situation. As the author of the constitution, I also know that was my intent. I enjoy leaving some gray area for creativity.
However, some third parties believe that when I offered to accept a revoked deal for up to a week after the trade, I did so while wearing my commissioner’s hat – namely that the rule should be immediately enforced as written via commissioner controls. I contend that it is not possible for me to extend or alter rules in this manner regardless of whether I’m speaking as commissioner or participant. Further, as the deal involved me, it should have been understood that I was speaking in my role as participant.
And so here we are. Yelich is taking a temporary vacation on our team while I dicker over details and warp rules to my nefarious purposes. The episode ensures I’ll need to update and clarify the constitution. The 24-hour clause will have additional language added to clarify the spirit of the rule. I’m also considering increasing the penalty for revoking a deal in the offseason. A 14-day cooling off period isn’t much of a deterrent in mid-January. Additionally, I’ll add a clause explicitly detailing that handshake agreements, while allowed, are not binding.
Meanwhile, my co-owner and I found a pleasant consolation prize last night – Ozzie Albies in exchange for Noelvi Marte and Slapdick Edwards. And, strangely, there was no uproar over this one.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
LOL @ no uproar over albies trade. IMO that one is more lopsided, tho more acceptable
meant to say *still* acceptable
What’s annoying about this 24 hour thing is that people had a chance to trade for Yelich beforehand, but now that they don’t like the offer that you sent for him now that it’s visibly on the table, they get to one-up it to try to make up for their earlier inactivity/ineptitude. However, it’s still not clear what those ‘better’ deals are at this point, and what if they’re not actually considered better? Will you be accused of sour grapes if you think the new deal is inferior?
I hope, for your sake, a deal goes down one way or another. If the manager just repeals the trade and keeps Yelich, with no new trade getting done, that’d be an obnoxious example of peer pressure and certainly not helpful to the idea of free, unencumbered trade in your league.
I tend to agree with this. I’d consider changing the 24hr back-out rule to be applicable only if one side of the deal receives a better offer in that time … and then that trade will execute (or go into its own 24hr review period).
Value is not objective. It changes from league to league and from day to day within a single league. If someone thinks Yelich is worth more than those four prospects, let them make an offer. If no one can beat it then guess what? Yelich is NOT worth more than that!
Allowing peer pressure to screw a trade only incentivizes teams to bitch and moan rather than make deals of their own.
Here’s an idea for a change to the offseason rule, it’s harsh, but it takes away the uselessness of the 14-day waiting period:
Make the 14-days, regardless of the trade, take place DURING the baseball season. In other words, if you revoke a trade in January, you cannot trade any of the players involved again until 14 days into the MLB season (or April 8, 2020). In other words, none of the players can be traded for the remainder of the offseason.
The rule, as it’s currently written, offers no punishment for the revocation of a trade. It should be (and seems like this is the case) to prevent someone from receiving other offers (“Hey, I would have given more for Yelich had I known he was available”) and backing out to complete a different trade for the same player.
In the offseason, I can wait 14 days to make such a trade, because nothing of note is happening to any of the players. I’m also not as much on the clock to make a trade because nothing is happening. Owners should be expected to think longer and do more research about trade in January as opposed to June. I wouldn’t give them an easy out of a trade.
One of the two options I’ve put on the table is to lock the involved players until the start of the next draft phase (we have 2 offseason drafts). The 14-day rule would still apply in-season.
The other option is to lock all trading for that owner for 14 days.
“I’ll honor it until next Saturday”
Or not. From the cheap seats, it looks like you’re being an ass.
Why? He’s going to get Yelich back. It’s operationally equivalent which is why he’s on board.
Because you are still using the situation as leverage to gain an advantage. I still do not comprehend the concept that using the provision the rule to revoke a trade is “poor form” but it is completely okay to fail to honor a handshake agreement. It is one thing to try to recreate the Wild West, but when you are the commissioner, you are the sheriff, not the gunslinger.
I am honoring the agreement. Why shouldn’t I do so in the way I consider most advantageous to me? It would be crazy to do otherwise. It’s allowable under our rules and the owner involved agreed to it as an acceptable workaround. I then informed the league – which I didn’t have to do – just so all the cards were laid out.
Because you do have a greater responsibility for fair dealing than a normal league member because you are the commissioner. You convinced him to miss the 24-hour window based upon an assertion that you would honor the revocation if made within one week. You didn’t say that you would honor it sort of kind of in a way that is most advantageous to you. Saying it “would be crazy to do otherwise” when doing otherwise is honoring the agreement as your trade partner understood it basically indicates that you are of the “anything for an advantage” type rather one who puts fair dealing first and personal advantage second. Here’s a hint, one of those two types of people is better than the other. There are volumes and volumes written about ethics. They are easy to find–or ignore.
As for taking credit for informing the league when you assert you did not have to do so, that is just doing the minimum a decent commissioner would do. If you aren’t being forthright about your dealings when you are acting on a matter as both the commissioner and a team owner (when you inevitably have a conflict of interest) would be incredibly poor form. So, yes, it was good you did so, but to claim you did not have to do so is just claiming that you could be a really crappy commissioner.
I confirmed he was ok with this. How many times do I have to say it?
You’re missing the point.
What is your endgame? Is it to have an enjoyable decades-long dynasty league in which you get to have positive interactions with your patrons? Or is it to show that you are smartest guy in the room?
I understand your frustration that your trade partner requested a revoke, I’d be frustrated too if I had Yelich, only for him to be ripped away because my trade partner didn’t want to disrupt the harmony of the league.
PS. Saying “I am honoring the agreement. Why shouldn’t I do so in the way I consider most advantageous to me?” makes you sound like one of those genies that grant a wish, but in, like, a way that wasn’t intended. Don’t be a bad genie.
I does not matter how many times you say it because it does not matter. You don’t get the point. You are using your position as the commissioner to gain an advantage over other owners. That is wrong. If he had made his trade of Yelich with someone else, then came to you with the exact same question about revoking, you would have responded as the commissioner and explained the rule to him and what poor form meant. Instead, you responded as a team owner (even though he appears to have been asking you as commissioner) and did a handshake deal that you do not have to honor. And admittedly trying to honor the handshake deal in a way that is most advantageous to you. No other owner in the league could do that because the other owners are not the commissioner. That’s what you are doing wrong regardless of whether you have convinced him to be okay with this—and what else would he say? You have posted publicly here that you don’t have to honor the handshake agreement at all and that you hold all the cards. If he didn’t say he was okay with what you were doing, he’d be screwing himself.
No, I’m using my position as somebody who read the constitution to gain an incredibly trivial advantage at no expense to the other party. It’s you who isn’t getting the point.
But you’re not “…somebody who read the constitution…”. You are the commissioner who wrote the constitution. Everyone who read that exchange real-time read that as the commissioner extending the revocation period in an effort to save the “deal”.
Whe this happened”
“I might as well mention this now…
The trade was revoked after 24 hours.
I said I would honor it for a week, but that’s outside the rules”
this entire discussion took on a very different context.
Also “He’s going to get Yelich back.” doesn’t make anyone feel overly secure since, as you’ve mentioned ad nausea, statements of intent and handshake agreements are not enforceable.
Give me some credit please. Even if you don’t trust my motivations, everything about the league is designed to promote parity and an enjoyable dynasty experience over the long term. Reneging would immediately and irreparably destroy the league. I’m not going to do that. I intentionally built a league that mutes many of my strengths as a dynasty owner. I specifically (lightly) rigged the game against myself and Tom.
All I’m going to do is try to negotiate a new trade. And I have invoked my council of advisers to weigh in too.
“Also technically, I could burn some bridges and try keep Yelich” then why continuously point this out?
I pointed it out one time. In this post. I did so to indicate that if I were a bad actor, this is what I would do rather than simply taking some time to make sure the deal is dead before undoing it.
I lack the patience at this point for an exhaustive search and chalk my being wrong up to being wrong.
All you are trying to do is negotiate a new trade—while no other team can negotiate with him. Definitely something to your advantage, as you have conceded before. Just not a good look to the league.
If you made the post and keep coming to the comments to get unbiased thoughts of other knowledgeable fantasy owners, I think you have quite a clear answer by now given the comments and the thumbs up and down to them. You just seem not to like the verdict.
Again, you are not getting the point. As Kyle noted, you *wrote* the constitution—according to you, purposefully vaguely so teams could get creative. This runs into another legal principle—that contracts are construed strictly against the drafter.
You also keep noting that the other team is “fine” with this. Now, I wonder, did you just ask him if he was fine with what you were doing or did you ask him if he would rather you just undid the trade instead? I am guessing the former, not the latter.
If I follow correctly, the facts are as follows:
The team with the commissioner on it makes a trade that looks clearly in its favor to the league. (I agree with the league consensus, although that could be argued and doesn’t really matter.) The league has a 24-hour revocation of a trade rule. Within 24 hours, the non-commissioner team owner tells the commissioner that he wants to invoke the revocation rule, and the commissioner, without specifying any role in which he is speaking, tells the other owner to take his time because he will honor a revocation for a week, not just 24 hours. Two hours after the 24 hour period expires, the non-commissioner team owner attempts to invoke the revocation rule, only to be told that he cannot explicitly do so because the 24-hour time period has expired and something will have to be worked out. Now the commissioner is saying that while he will honor his “handshake” deal, he does not have to, and he is taking his time doing something, trying to use the leverage he created from the rules shenanigans to find a way to get value out of the situation.
I also note that the commissioner wrote the rules, and now states that he specifically left some vague areas in the rules “for creativity.” This combined with the commissioner’s other statements about the Wild West and spiders, indicates that the rules were left purposefully vague so that some teams (and the commissioner’s team, being the team of the guy who wrote the rules and knows them best would stand to benefit the most) could use the rules to screw other teams. As the commissioner notes, the rules allow someone who wants to be “a shitty [racial slur] to be a shitty [racial slur].” Far from the commissioner in this league having to be the proverbial “wife of Caesar,” the commissioner of the league is far more like Cleopatra, eternally scheming for his own ends.
On these facts, I make the following conclusions:
The commissioner has not valid legal leg to stand upon. In a court, he would loss miserably based on the legal theory of unjust enrichment. He made an agreement with his trading partner that the trading partner relied upon and therefore missed the 24-hour period within the rules, and now the commissioner is using that rules issue to attempt to gain advantage over the trading partner. The rules of equity do not allow for this.
The commissioner might want to consider just being a better person. Or at least refrain from posting articles about fantasy league ethics when he clearly dislikes the concept of ethics.
Totally agree with this. The vagaries of the author’s role during each exchange could be seen as purposeful and deceitful. An immediate trade reversal as requested by the trade partner under the 24 Hour Rule is the right thing to do given these circumstances. And you know it.
Except the other owner in the trade has agreed that I’m handling this fairly. Absent a complaint, there is no trial.
Since when is shyster a racial slur? Is “lawyer” a race now?
The other owner was worried about acting in poor form, and you convinced him to think about it for more than the 24-hour period and put him in a bit of a pickle. Whether someone complains about an ethical breach does not make one not one. This owner is obviously trying to be nice and get along. His niceness is a reflection on him, not anyone else.
As for the word, it has a history of use as antisemitic although the origins and original intent of the phrase are hotly debated. A quick Google search shows both sides argued passionately.
Also this is a league of your patrons—you have more power as a commish of such a league than a normal commissioner does. One would think you would rather not lose patrons over silliness like this, I mean, hey, patrons are great.
And one clarification–I was not objecting to your use of the word given its disputed background. I just choose not to use it, and I did not take the time necessary to come up with a better way to express what I meant.
It is widely considered anti-Semitic.
Shyster: a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business.
Other than there being a lot of Jewish lawyers, how is that anti-semitic? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I use the term frequently.
It is a central part of a long pernicious history of the anti-Semitic trope of the dishonest Jewish lawyer.
Why does this rule exist in the first place? I don’t really understand the point of it to begin with
It replaces all veto scenarios and protects against bad faith trades while leaving the commissioner and bystanders out of the loop. Unless, like in this case, he’s a party to the trade.
The rule appears to be intended to remove the necessity for the commissioner to ever have to veto a trade (which as a commissioner myself I know is an uncomfortable thing to have to do) – instead of allowing (or requiring) the commissioner to make a judgment call and veto a lopsided trade, the rule allows the owner to instead “self-veto” the trade for a period of 24 hours.
So far so good. The rule, of course, counts on the other owners jumping into high gear to convince a trading owner that (a) he got hoodwinked, and (b) he should exercise his right to back out of the deal using the rule. They would do that presumably by convincing him either that he can get a lot more for the player in a later trade (including because they promise him they will trade him something better, even though they will apparently have no obligation to follow through on that promise) or simply that he will have a better roster by failing to go through with the trade.
One of the issues with the rule is that it can be used to “shop” players by soliciting other offers in the 24 hour wake of having made a trade. Concern that it would be used for that purpose undoubtedly triggered the inclusion of the “in bad form” clause, but that clause is clearly problematic in that it badly undermines the rule’s effectiveness by suggesting that exercising the right under the rule is wrong or unethical. Either owners should be able to exercise their rights or not – the commissioner should not by rule place them under a moral quandary every time they make a trade.
Yeah you kind of hit my points. Just seems to cause a lot more controversy with its existence. But if you had to have it…
Just have a 24hr window, allow full revocation by either owner, no reason needed. Two week ban on re-trading the player.
I think the one thing I don’t like about how things went down is from this:
“Further, as the deal involved me, it should have been understood that I was speaking in my role as participant.”
I’m not sure that should have been understood. You are also the commissioner. How could one read between the lines and figure out if you were talking as Brad the owner and not Brad the commissioner if you didn’t lay that out?
I think it’s not a big deal, especially since the other owner is cool with how things are going down, but that’s just one thing I read and kind of said “huh?” at.
Very, very good point. If the other owner had made a deal with someone else, he still would have talked to Brad (J) as the commissioner about the revocation and could have done so. If Brad (J) thinks the other owner should understand that he was speaking as a participant, how does the other owner ever get to speak to Brad (J) as the commissioner?
Yeah this whole speaking as one or the other thing is just semantic nonsense. He is both. When he speaks, he speaks as both. To introduce the idea of a split after the fact is a strawman. Brad not seeing that he is clearly in the wrong may be hard, I know my own perspective on my actions can be biased for sure. It might take a little reflection and time. Or it may not happen. It doesn’t make Brad a bad commish, commishing is hard. This is, however, one instance where the rules were clear and the commish-team-manager was the baddie.
Commissioners are fantasy sports’ beasts of burden. The best one can hope for is to pull almost all of the league’s weight and then to not get whipped for doing so. The worst is your situation, or something similar when disgruntilerros take issue with a commish following the rules to the letter, and appearing to benefit from them. I tell ya, we get no respect!
Commissioners do, indeed, have to do much work for little appreciation. A good commissioner is worth his or her weight in gold. On the other hand, commissioners who use their position to advantage their teams harm the image of all commissioners and should be the focus of the ire of other commissioners, not praise.
How do Johnson’s actions violate his league rules?
They just violate general principles of ethics. Given that he wrote the rules and is tasked with interpreting as commissioner, it is almost impossible for him to violate the rules since he can change them if he wants to do so. He has acknowledged that he purposefully made the rules vague. To then take advantage of this as the guy who wrote and interprets the rules is just not ethical. That’s all.
Good ol’ Slapdick Edwards, what an off-season for his popularity.
The issue of the case is whether the Defendant, Brad Johnson, was acting in his role as the commissioner, or his role as a league participant, when he agreed, in writing, to “honor it up to next Saturday.” Note: this is not a handshake agreement, it is in writing.
The rule the courts use to settle these disputes is what a reasonably prudent dynasty owner would be led to believe if put in the Plaintiff’s shoes.
In this case, the Plaintiff went to the public league discord server (not a private message) and asked for clarification on a league rule, asking specifically what the wording “it’s poor form” meant under the statute. It is the court’s belief, that when a league participant asks for clarification on a league rule in a public forum, and the commissioner responds to that question, it is reasonable to expect the commissioner’s response be that in his role as the commissioner, and not as a league participant. Clarifying league rules is one of the commissioner’s main functions, and dynasty owners routinely seek out the commissioners counsel on rule clarifications. And while this is not of issue in this case, we also believe the commissioner knew, or should have known how his response would be taken.
Therefore, when the Defendant responded in writing, “I’ll honor it up to next Saturday,” he did so in his role as the commissioner. We hereby order Christian Yelich to be immediately returned to the Plaintiff.
The defendant doesn’t get to defend himself?
What this kangaroo court isn’t considering is my response came later in the exchange. The summary of which I left out of the above description for the sake of the narrative. Others had already explained the rule. I then helpfully said “hey, you don’t need to panic right this moment. Relax and let your head make the decision.” I made no explanation of the rule. To assume I was offering the extension in my role as commissioner is to assume our constitution does not govern our league. Rule changes can only fairly occur when they do not affect ongoing disputes.
You’ll have to take that argument to the appellate court 🙂
Either way, always enjoy your off-season dynasty content. Good stuff.
I declare bankruptcy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp4BQYV0-P0
I mean, I appeal!
haha
Well, I do work as a staff attorney for a federal appeals court. I don’t think this ends well for you on appeal. 😉
I think the basic problem you have here is that you think that the burden is on the other owner to know in what role you are speaking. With greater power, which you have as founder, constitution writer, and commissioner, comes greater responsibility. In my primary league, we have a deputy and assistant commissioner, and when any rule issue involves the commissioner, the commissioner is automatically barred from participating in the decision, which is as it should be. Your rules, which allow you to wear both hats (team owner and commissioner) simultaneously are just begging for issues to arise and abuse to happen.
“I immediately responded with…
Hey, take some time to digest. I’ll honor it up to next Saturday.”
This “offer” is asking the other owner to step into the wild west of situations that fall outside the prescribed rules that you’ve set up to handle the case of buyer remorse. You both “wrote the rules” and offered to let the other owner go outside the rules. And now you’re trying to leverage that to your advantage. That’s poor commissioning at best, abuse of power at worst. Look here:
“And so, I’m currently holding Yelich hostage for at least part of the 14 days as I attempt to complete our trade.”
There is nothing to complete! Reverse the trade if that’s what you agreed. Any other offer is poor sportsmanship. You offered an extended revocation period, which you shouldn’t have done in the first place, and now you must honor it.
If I were in this league, I would not feel comfortable with you as commissioner moving forward.
PS. If you’re reviewing all of the rules, you should consider addressing the “undo trade” situation that you are currently pursuing. For example, a player cannot be traded back to the original team within X days.
I think the commissioner needs a hand-slapping for not being clear when he’s in his commissioner/non-commissioner role. I think you should add something to your constitution that says something along the lines of anytime the commissioner is speaking as the commissioner, they need to clearly state so. If they do not, their words cannot be binding.
I also don’t get some of the details in this – I think it’s explained rather opaquely. But I think that’s by design in a way. As in: a clear-eyed assessment wouldn’t leave much question for what’s right and what’s wrong. By describing the situation itself as being fuzzy, you’re creating gray space where rules/ethics/etc. can be bent.
That is absolutely getting added.
Let’s try a different recounting of events.
0. Unpopular trade is agreed by all interested parties.
1. I made a good faith offer to prevent a party from panic-invoking a rule that isn’t really intended to be used this way. I did not attempt to convince him of this because I considered that to be unfairly meddlesome. I would have informed him thusly if the trade did not involve me.
2. The offer led to a situation that isn’t governed by FanTrax rules or by the constitution. It’s seemingly allowed because it is not banned.
3a. I noticed #2 had occurred and thought through the consequences.
3b. If I immediately return Yelich there is no 14 day waiting period. So I have to hold Yelich.
3c. I got the other owner to agree he would wait 14 days anyway. So I don’t *have* to hold Yelich. But I still can.
3d. I decide to hold Yelich in case we come to an accommodation. Then the deal would be final and unrevocable.
4. All interested parties agreed.
This is my clear-eyed assessment, and I don’t see much of any room to interpret this as wrong behavior. I’ve bent over backwards to not exploit my role as commissioner in this situation.
“I would have informed him thusly if the trade did not involve me.” If you’re going to play the “which hat am I wearing right now” game then this statement cannot stand. If, as the commissioner you would have made a clarification were the trade between two other parties, then you must make it regardless in all cases since, as you’ve described, you are essentially two distinct parties, no?
“I’ve bent over backwards to not exploit my role as commissioner in this situation.” except for the first part.
You might be right, but the clarification was made without my intervention. I didn’t want to be seen as badgering him into taking the deal so I didn’t weigh in. I did my best to remain as neutral as possible.
But had that clarification been made by a different party (like in this case) on say a deal between myself and another team, and I offered to extend the revocation period (something I CLEARLY) cannot do, would you, as you stated, have stepped in and clarified the rules for the other owner?
I’ll save everyone some time: If the answer, when being honest with yourself, alone in the dark, is “Yes” or even “Maybe” then you acted improperly and know it.
I’m not sure I understand.
If one of the parties asked me to interpret what would happen, I would have laid out everything I understood to be true based on the constitution.
If nobody requested my involvement, one of the following would have happened.
1. I might not have noticed it – it was a chaotic and fast-moving chat.
2. If I saw it and realized the implications, I would have piped up to say I could not enforce the rule via commissioner controls after 24 hours. That is, it’s up to the 2 parties to resolve.
3. It’s also possible I would have let it lie until a further crisis was sparked in the hope that everything would sort itself out.
I see nothing improper or inconsistent here.
“2. If I saw it and realized the implications, I would have piped up to say I could not enforce the rule via commissioner controls after 24 hours. That is, it’s up to the 2 parties to resolve.”
You definitely noticed it, as you made the offer as an “owner” that you could not enforce as “commissioner”, so the first “If” is addressed. You’ve stated multiple times that you wrote the constitution and understood its vagaries , so you were 100% aware of the implications, there’s the second “if” . So why didn’t you, as the “commissioner”, “pipe up” as you state you would?
“I see nothing improper or inconsistent here.”
This appears to be contradictory.
I don’t honestly know what else can be said. If you don’t see how you’ve behaved improperly, it seems there is nothing I or anyone else can write to convince you otherwise.
I have not read your entire rule set, but based on what you have expressed here, I would be very surprised if the rules that you wrote did not give you enough flexibility as commissioner to state before the end of the 24 hour period “in this particular instance, and in consideration that I am the other party in this trade, as commissioner I will extend the period for X to invoke his right to back out of this trade for an additional 3 hours [or 24 hours, or any other period]”. Not a single owner would have been hurt by that extension. Oh, except you, because you would not be able to hold the existence of the trade as leverage over your trading partner.
And even now, well after the 24 hour period, I bet you could still find a “the commissioner may interpret these rules in a manner intended to further the purposes of these rules” clause or some similar “catch-all” empowering rule to hang a revocation of the trade on.
I think you’re getting dragged on here, maybe a bit unfairly/too much, because everyone is chomping at the bit for fantasy baseball action.
With that being said… It’s easier to read #1 as a bad faith effort than a good faith effort, regardless of the intent. If the owner wanted to invoke the rule, he probably should have been allowed to. It’s hard to remove you personally wanting the trade to happen from what is perceived as to be your intent. (I know – no good deed goes unpunished, etc., etc.)
As to who hold on to Yelich for the time being, it seems like a moot point… but it also seems like a power play. In practicality there really isn’t a much of difference between owner #1 holding onto Yelich for 14 days with a promise not to trade him, and owner #2 holding onto to Yelich for 13 days and then sending him back to owner #1 on the 14th day. Since at day 14 the outcomes are going to be the same either way, holding him on your team seems a bit much. It seems unnecessary, and like the commissioner throwing their weight around. (Could any non-commissioner team do what you’re doing right now?)
Just trade back. You have a promise from the other owner that they won’t move Yelich for 14 days, and that’s about the best you can ask for. All everyone else has is your word that’ll trade him back on day 14. Either everyone’s word is good or no one’s word is good (or you think your word is better than the the other owner’s word, which your league is telling you isn’t a good look). If the trade was meant to be you’ll work something out.
Also, in the past, I’ve found that when your league is in a situation not covered by the rules, it can better to create a new rule as to what should happen than try to create a patchwork with current rules.
The problem appears with your statement at step 1: “I made a good faith offer to prevent a party from panic-invoking a rule that isn’t really intended to be used this way.”
The rest of your entire assessment falls like a house of cards because this situation is PRECISELY the situation in which the rule is intended to be used.
I agree it is NOT intended to be used for is for an owner to *intentionally* shop a player around for a better offer during the 24 hours, knowing that he can and will back out if he gets one. That is NOT what happened here. The other owner made the trade in good faith, and then, *exactly as intended by the rule*, was convinced by the other owners during the 24 hour period that his trade was an awful mistake. Only then did he form the intention to exercise his right to back out of the trade.
If this is not the situation the rule was intended to allow for, what is?
I wish I could thumb up this comment more than once. This is exactly what I was going to say—his whole house of cards is on a bed of sand because of this problem. His only other problem in the new statement of facts is that he acts like he could not undo the trade and explain that because it is a revocation, Yelich cannot be traded for two weeks. He could do this. But as he has mentioned many times, he still wants to get Yelich, which is the same as saying he still wants to use to situation he created to his advantage.
You extended the revocation window till Saturday. Your trade parter attempted to revoke it within that window. And you did something other than revoking/undoing the trade right then. It’s that simple. Not cool. Doesn’t matter how the other player felt about it.
I’m late to these comments I see but it’s painful to digest what has happened here.
Team B “I probably should invoke the 24 hr backout clause. But I certainly don’t want to offend. Not clear on what the “it’s poor form” means.”
then
Commish/Team A “Hey, take some time to digest. I’ll honor it up to next Saturday.”
“It” here is referring to the 24 hr blackout clause. With that second quote from the commish, the 24 hour blackout clause becomes a blackout clause up until next Saturday. I’d say this remark is where things unintentionally went off the rails.
But here we now are with the commish saying “And that put us in an interesting spot because the 24-hour rule no longer applied. ”
At best it was a huge misunderstanding, and should be governed as such. The question becomes what is to be done.
I’d argue that the best thing is to undo the trade as if it never happened, and allow a 72 hour cooling off period before any moves with involved players are made. All written and handshake agreements about the trade should be null and void.
Its not the best outcome but when the commish extends the blackout clause (perhaps by way of misunderstanding but as shown above it was extended) and then wants to withdraw said extension it puts everyone in a pickle.
I agree completely except that, sadly, given his Brad’s comments, I am not sure that “things unintentionally went off the rails.”
That was also my initial instinct, but it is just that – my instinct so take that at fave value. I mean if Brad is like most of us on here he knows the rules up and down and is thinking 3 moves ahead. This doesn’t look good AT ALL and I see no acknowledgement of that which troubles me. What do we see here? A guy desperately trying to hold on to Yelich. Nothing more.
One side note – I’m not in a league that allows undos but I suppose you have to make trades with that in mind. If you”win” a lopsided deal it may not last. Not my cup of tea but if that’s the rules you have to factor that in.
Sorry Brad, but I agree with others that you are in the wrong here. The root problem is the rule is too clever, creating too much grey area. Fantasy league rules should be black and white with no room open for interpretation. The rules should also be kept as simple as possible to achieve the league’s goals. Otherwise, you are asking for trouble. There’s already enough silly drama in fantasy leagues. Rules should be designed to reduce drama, not encourage it, which seems to be the case here.
Agreed on simple rules. This is all just fantasy baseball anyway; it’s meant to be fun not arduous and painful to slog through. If people don’t find it fun anymore, don’t be surprised if they start leaving. Those bridges are important at least in that sense.
The fact that the league allows trades to be voided because of better offers is”If you want to be a shitty shyster, be a shitty shyster.” enough, but as a commissioner you are bound to a stricter set of rules like it or not. If you start bending them even a touch for yourself it’s bad precedent.
Tough spot? Tough shit, being a responsible person hurts sometimes.
I didn’t bend the rules. I didn’t even “interpret” them favorably. I just used what was in place.
But you extended the revocation period…that’s not “I used what was in place.”
From the previous article “Earlier in the offseason, we had three owners ghost on us.” Three? Left at the same time, in the same way? Seems like that would not regularly happen. Must be a rarity, maybe the new owner process needs some better due diligence.
And then I get to this article… oh… I get it. Commish who wants to play games with the rules and trick other owners. I’d guess that losing just 3 owners is a good offseason with garbage like that going on.
Well… If we’re going to be technical… Five teams have new owners this off-season. Two non renewals and three disappearing acts
To be fair though, there was no vetting process for joining besides “is patron.” Heavy turnover was expected early in the process. The new owners are a substantial improvement.
The rules should have been followed with regards to the 24 hour cancellation period. Everything would have been avoided had that simply been followed as written.
He can’t say you didn’t give him a very clear picture of “poor form” when he asked, lol