In The Name Of Peace
Over the last week, a scandal has rocked the quiet rural community of Dynasty To Be Named Later (DTBNL). My attempts to chronicle the tale have undoubtedly made matters worse. For a full accounting of events, see Episode 1: Quantity Versus Quality and Episode 2: Dances With Rules.
If you’d rather read the short version of this heady action-thriller, here goes. Last time on Dynasty Drama…
Brad traded of Luis Urias, Cristian Pache, Ke’Bryan Hayes, and Taylor Trammell for Christian Yelich. He’s also the commissioner of DTBNL, a 25-team, keep-30 dynasty league. Outrage ensued, and the former Yelich-owner was peer-pressured into revoking the trade under the “24-hour revocability” rule in the league constitution. However, the revocation occurred during the 26th hour after the trade which led to extra-constitutional hijinx as the commissioner attempted to fairly resolve the dispute while simultaneously defending his interests…
A sort of consensus arose from Episode 2, namely that I was in the wrong in presuming my roles as league commissioner and league participant were separable. Additionally, two of the 25 teams in DTBNL were particularly incensed while at least a few reasoned owners believed I should cede my temporary claim to exclusive negotiating rights for Yelich.
While I could not disagree more with this opinion – I ultimately decided the peace of the league was of greater importance. Previously, on Monday afternoon, I worked out an accommodation to complete the Yelich trade using Royce Lewis as the new centerpiece. I requested a day or two to discuss the terms and implications with my co-manager before confirming the completed trade and to give my trading partner ample time to shop my new offer to the other main interested party.
Simultaneously on Monday afternoon, I convened my council, aka my two assistant commissioners to rule on the validity of my completing the trade. I also wondered if I should bow out of the bidding entirely. They had this to say.
I’m having trouble finding a compelling reason for you to drop out entirely. I’m comfortable letting him take the best offer, even if it’s you.
and
…Just no compelling arguments for you to have to bow out. And unless [redacted]’s offer was dramatically better than yours (thereby causing some league members to believe that your offer was accepted for non-baseball/shady reasons) then I don’t think the league peace would be upset too much.
They also suggested an alternative in which we vacate the trade entirely with all implications (i.e. the 14-day waiting period), temporarily close trading while the constitution is updated, and then resume as if nothing happened. I said the idea was attractive, but I would like to sleep on it.
Later on Monday night, the aforementioned pair of malcontents… well, they threw a fit – presumably in response to the defenses I posted in the comments of Episode 2. I’m sure they won’t appreciate me saying so, but we’ve all been here. You think a heated disagreement is more or less dealt with – everybody is calm and reasonable even if they aren’t seeing eye-to-eye – then somebody rides into town on a horse named Hurricane to whip up discontent.
In response to the fresh wave of uproar, I offered the suggestion of my assistant commissioners to vacate the trade. I was immediately told I did not have the authority to do this as commissioner. Rather than debate this point (I do), I opted to temporarily step down from my position as commissioner for a period of one week. “Opted” is probably stating it generously. I waved my hands in disgust and stormed off before I could say something I might regret. I left a duumvirant with the odious task of closing this chapter.
As part of stepping down, I offered the immediate return of Yelich for the four prospects. This was accepted on Tuesday morning shortly after we informed the owner that we agreed to terms but could not honor them until January 24. He’s free to continue shopping in the interim. In retrospect, this debacle could have been avoided if I had just done this in the first place.
However, that’s missing the point. To me, I feel like I’m being chastised for the traits which make me a good fantasy player and columnist – namely an ability to spot and exploit leverageable opportunities. A substantial portion of the advice I give pertains to the bending-but-not-breaking of rules. While it seems some people might think I intentionally created these opportunities, I simply spotted them as they occurred.
For instance, when I offered the extension outlined in Episode 2, it was a flight or fight response. I realized in the moment I needed to be creative and fast. My mind immediately seized upon offering him more time. This was not some calculated choice, I was pressing “enter” before the thought was even fully crystallized in my head. I’d rather lose a trade to a rational choice than reptile-brained panic so I let my own reptile brain buy me some time.
It was only later that I realized I could not, as commissioner, enforce the rule as written once the 24 hours expired. The same day as the trade, after a cooling off period, I went to bed highly confident the trade would stand. I had heard nothing to the contrary. I figured everything was under control. Once the trade was revoked, it was only then I discovered and decided to use my right to temporarily hold and continue negotiating for Yelich.
In closing, I believe I went above and beyond the call to operate in a fair and forthright manner as league commissioner while simultaneously defending my interests as a league participant. Although I could have immediately relinquished my rights as an owner in the interest of peace, it is also not reasonable to expect me to do so. Clearly, some people disagree with one or both statements. In an effort to anticipate future disputes of this nature, a new rule will be implemented (see Yelich Rule below) to eliminate my conflict of interest.
Addendum
Behind the scenes, four constitutional changes have been proposed and will likely be added. I’ll post the rough draft of them below for y’all to tear apart!
1. “Commissioner Hats” In all conversations, the Commissioner and his assistants are assumed to be representing themselves as owners in the league unless they state otherwise. This is especially true of any matters that affect their team.
2. “Handshake and Extra-Constitutional Agreements” Any verbal or written agreement is defined as a “handshake agreement.” These are constitutionally non-binding unless the arrangement falls under the purview of this document or the native rules on FanTrax. Agreements executed via the FanTrax platform are considered binding except where exempted in this document (see “24 hour revocability”). A handshake agreement should be treated as a matter of trust between the owners who have entered into it. The existence of this rule should not be construed as encouragement to renege on your word.
3. ·“Updated 24 Hour Revocability” any party to a trade may back out for any reason within 24 hours. This is done by contacting the commissioner. During the season, 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. Any trade revoked during the offseason shall lock the returned players to their owner’s roster until the start of the next draft phase or for 14 days, whichever is greater. A draft phase begins once any manager is eligible to make a draft pick. These penalties are 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. Even though you are not required to have a reason, it is expected that you will have a good one. For instance, if you fail to adequately shop a trade and receive moderately better offers after executing it, this is not considered to be a particularly strong reason.
This does not apply in any way to handshake agreements – only those accepted through the FanTrax trade tool.
4. “The Yelich Rule” In the event of a dispute involving the commissioner’s team, league members may request the assistant commissioners to take temporary control of the league until the dispute is resolved. This process is triggered when 1) any league member so requests 2) any additional league member from another team seconds the request. While authority will rest with the assistant commissioners, the Commissioner may be solicited for advice and expertise throughout this process.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
Still hate the 24 hr backout rule… unless the owner hit “accept” in error, no one forced them to accept the trade, they had time to do all the analysis they saw fit before accepting.
Completely agree. We have a 48 hour window for league members to vote on a trade if they disapprove. Nothing worse than watching your friends build a coalition and try to convince your trade partner that they don’t know what they’re doing.
If you clicked “Accept,” you had the foresight to do research, make some projections, cost analysis, etc…
Side note: I hate – HATE – when you make a trade, and immediately 5 league mates pop out of the wood work claiming they would’ve offered more for what you’re giving. After getting no response from proposals for months.
I heart FMLB.
Corollary: I hate – HATE – when I’ve been asking after a player for months, told he’s not available, and then he’s traded for less than I would have offered without so much as a “hey, this is about to happen…”
Yeah, I agree, its annoying. But if youve already made your interest clear what more can you really do? Bad managers are going to manage badly. The 24hr rule only opens the door to peer pressure and controversy.
Idk how regularly you read Brad’s stuff, but I remember the epic 3 article entitled bitch-fit he threw when this happened last season. My stance is still the same: nobody owes you a fucking thing, your league mates are your opponents.
That is what happens when you try to turn everything to your advantage from trades to rule loopholes. Some people just won’t deal with you. I know there have been some people in my leagues that I would trade a guy for slightly less because the person was insufferable and was “that guy” in the league. If I make that trade with “that guy” it helps him continue his annoying actions, and I would not want to do encourage that in the slightest.
I agree with this sentiment. Unless owners are writing out contracts with legal contingencies, they should not be able to back out of a trade once accepted, This post Series actually inspired me to change our constitution, so that there is no review of trades, “As a default, there will be no trade reviews / vetos.
In general, the Commissioner will not interfere with trades. However if abuse is detected, then the commissioner may choose to trigger the veto process. The Veto process will be as follows: the Commissioner will choose to ask all owners not participating in the trade to vote for or against the trade. In this scenario, the vote must be unanimously against to void the trade.”
I, as commissioner, previously approved all trades.
Unclear why you keep dunking on yourself but I would certainly never play in a league with you.
Same.
Man, I had something just like this happen last year. I traded Devers (keepable 19/17/14/10 rounds next 4 years) and Folty (20th round keeper) for Trout (1st and 5th round to keep for 1 year) and people were furious. Lots of “I’d have offered more” from people who had a chance to and didn’t. We ended up letting the owner trading trout to evaluate offers for 24 hours and he stuck with Devers/Folty, which in hindsight looks like a great call by him
“A substantial portion of the advice I give pertains to the bending-but-not-breaking of rules.”
This is a sociopathic statement in which you admit to trying to cheat and seem oblivious to why others would object. I will give you credit at least for saying the quiet part out loud.
Bending rules is not cheating. And in this case, no rules were even bent. We just found ourselves floating in an ungoverned space and had to make things up as we went.
If you’re playing in a friends and family league and just want to be nice to everyone, that’s one thing. If you’re trying to win in a competitive format, my best advice is to use every allowable tool at your disposal.
It depends, are you playing fantasy baseball manager or playing fantasy lawyer? A league’s consitiution is not going to be an exhaustive document and yes there are going to be bendable rules, but you have to be reasonable.
I begrudgingly play one in real life, and gifted Brad a conflict of interest clause in my comment below.
And was I not excessively reasonable? At every step before proceeding, I informed the league and requested a ruling from my council. I then followed the advice of the council when given.
You told him he could have extra time and then used that to leverage him into negotiating with you alone. That’s really bad.
That’s not correct. It’s not like he couldn’t negotiate with other owners, he just *voluntarily* had to wait until January 24 to complete the trade. He did in fact continue negotiating with several owners, accepted a deal in principle with one, which he then held over my head until I added Royce into my offer.
How is a rational, pragmatic, and step-wise approach “really bad?” I’m fascinated by the psychology at play here.
So what exactly did you mean by holding Yelich hostage then? Why didn’t you just return him immediately? You’re using either your commish hat or your owner hat whenever it benefits you. “Oh, I can’t use commish powers to undo the trade, that would be so wrong” lol you are so transparent.
If that’s how you want to tell yourself it happened, then I’m clearly not going to convince you otherwise. Obviously I’m the spider at the center of a vast web of conspiracy designed to net me one star player in a low-stakes dynasty league specifically designed for parity. A league, I’ll add, where I’ll probably finish 18th of 25 this season because the only pitcher on my roster is Dane Dunning. Behold my villainous genius!
And if you’re just trolling me, then fine. Well played. You got some responses out of me.
I guess instead of answering the questions you can just ridicule me, but I will point out that like zero people agree with you here.
This is Brad’s gimmick. He’ll post a story like this and then respond to consensus disapproval by claiming everyone understood him wrong in spite of the fact he did such a great job explaining what happened.
I mean clearly I’ve not explained myself well. I’ll be the first to admit that’s painfully obvious by the reactions. Because, yea, I’m feeling pretty misunderstood. Even you ascribe to the most nefarious interpretation of events, the outcome is the fantasy equivalent of cutting in line at the supermarket. Sure, it’s shitty, but it’s also not actually hurting anybody.
And that’s the worst possible interpretation of events. That’s not how it happened from my seat.
For the record, I do not cut in line at supermarkets. Or elsewhere. I’m a good little sheep in public just like (most of) the rest of you.
Well, we’re all here and commenting. Might just be trolling.
The problem with your stating that others are wrong about how it went down is that we only know what happened from what you yourself told us. You were the one who stated that you held on to Yelich and when it was noted that this was a way to give yourself leverage and an advantage, you stated that of course you would try to take what advantage you could. We aren’t making things up; we are just going by what you said.
Wait a second, AlexTheGreat—a lawyer is supposed to follow ethical rules. Don’t smear my profession by associating it with him!
“if you’re trying to win in a competitive format, my best advice is to use every allowable tool at your disposal.”
This is terrible advice if you want any league to last more than 5 minutes. Lets be honest most of us are playing for what $50 or $100 which brings with it a whole year of fun. Better advice would be to conduct yourself in a way to have fun and win without pissing off your rivals.
You literally ignored the conditional in my statement. I said “if competitive” and you responded by commenting on friends and family formats.
If you’re playing in a friends and family league, then do what makes you happiest while keeping in mind that avoiding scandals is likely to help your happiness. Try to win or try to roster players with funny names or roster as many Mets as possible. Or if using every tool at your disposal – scandal be damned – will make you happy, do that. To each their own.
Fantasy sports is centered around finding a competitive edge. If the rules don’t explicitly forbid something, they need to be modified, but in the meantime you can’t really deride someone for taking advantage. Nor can you expect any commissioner to foresee all possible outcomes of a league constitution – especially in leagues with unique formats and rules.
Well, if they guy who is finding the loopholes for a competitive edge wrote the rules and purposefully did so vaguely to encourage this kind of stuff, well, yeah, you can deride that person for taking advantage of the rules.
Brad, “Yelich Rule” and to some extent the “Hats Rule” are unnecessarily complicated while not addressing all potential . This entire debacle could have been fixed or prevented in its entirety with a conflict of interest clause. The below should solve all your problems and prevent future ones.
“Conflicts of Interest:
All communications, trades, and/or transactions involving the Commissioner or any assistant commissioners are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are presumed to be conducted solely in their capacity as owners.
In the event of a dispute involving the Commissioner’s team, the Commissioner shall recuse himself from his Official League Role as Commissioner as it relates to the dispute and the Assistant Commissioner(s) shall assume the all the Commissioner’s powers and duties as it relates to the dispute. If the dispute involves the Commissioner and one or more Assistant Commissioner(s) each party shall recuse themselves from their Official League Roles as it relates to the dispute. If after all parties have recused themselves from their Official League Roles there is/are no Assistant Commissioner(s) left to rule on the dispute then the parties to the dispute shall jointly select one League Member, who does not have a conflict of interest in the dispute, to act as an arbitrator to the dispute. All decisions made by any Assistant Commissioner or Arbitrator are irrevocable and shall be treated as if made by the Commissioner subject only to the limitations on the Commissioner’s power as set-forth elsewhere in this document.”
This is a solid rule. I appreciate it and will consider using a version to replace the “hats” rule.
My one reservation is that most disputes involving me in some way will not require me to step aside and can be more quickly ameliorated if I do not. This one blew up, but I’ve never had another issue with this rule in over a decade of using it nor do I recall a similar uproar against a decision I’ve reached, even in the case of a conflict. For that reason, I prefer my stepping aside to be triggered by request. If I foresee trouble, I can voluntarily step aside as I did in this case.
I would just recommend finding a reliable assistant commissioner and letting them deal with it. It is typically worth sacrificing a small amount of convenience or swiftness of resolution in the name of removing any basis for a claim of impropriety.
I’m definitely considering this.
Hey! I actually thumbed up one of your comments. Miracles never cease. This is just a great rule and avoids so many problems.
“My attempts to chronicle the tale have undoubtedly made matters worse.”
Maybe one day you’ll learn, but probably not.
A good story is well worth a little discord in, uh, Discord.
A player who wants to bend the rules should not be the commissioner, and should not be the one writing the rules. That player must certainly not be both!!
I suggest having an odd number of assistant commissioners to facilitate resolving disputes. 1 or 3.
Werthless—an even number is fine as well—so long as who is #2 and who is #3 is clearly identified so the tie can be broken if necessary. That’s how our league does it, and one time we didn’t bother to identify #2 in line and #3 in line and paid the price. One of these situations (a challenge to a trade made by the commissioner) with the two assistants disagreeing on the proper resolution. At that point, we had to decide who was #2 and who was #3, which decided the issue, but given that the positions of the two was well known, it left a pretty bad taste in people’s mouths—for good reason. (Shame on us for that; fwiw, I was #3 eventually and against the commissioner.)
It’s your team.. it’s your trade.. vetoing trades for any reason other than clear collusion is lame.. your league doesn’t need better rules.. it needs better owners
That depends on whether you think teams who don’t like to take advantage of rubes in trades should have a chance.
I do enjoy these articles but I’m assuming not in the way it was intended. Fascinated by the absurdity of the league. I’ll read the next one too, but give me 24 hours to see if I change my mind.
If this “exploit leverageable opportunities” equals go after newbies before they understand rules and value then that sentence doesn’t put you in a good light. A commissioner/owner is in a strange position and almost always has to weigh the league’s competitive balance when they are making any moves that seem great for them but possibly not so great for the other owner and the league.
The original offer was a chicken for four eggs. Yes, one or more eggs might grow into chickens but more likely they end up fried.
I’ve since learned he selected my offer over a package of three present-value stars. He proposed the trade with almost no prompting from me. All I did was send him a list of around 25 prospects and said something to the effect of “I’d like to meet your ask for Yelich. What would you need?” *HE* proposed the framework. He proposed the trade. We accepted.
And he’s been a co-owner in the league since early on. He isn’t a newbie. He clearly preferred 4 eggs to 3 less robust chickens.
It just seems there are a lot of misunderstandings about how this happened despite my best efforts to explain.
Any misunderstanding with most of us has come from what you have said about what happened because most of us only have you for a source of knowledge for what happened.
Honestly if you’re joining a league like this and don’t take the time to understand the rules, that’s on you.
That said I have strongly considered implementing a freeze period on new managers trading because they almost always undervalue their team and players who would be otherwise be considered waiver fodder in standard leagues.
It’s funny how it all gets back to the same things. I recall doing a few rounds with you in the comments last year in an article about trades and your goals in them, and the same principles apply here. My unsolicited (well, except to the extent that you posted the article and allowed comments) two cents:
1. Reversing the trade was the proper, and only proper thing to do in the situation.
2. The proposed conflict of interest rule in the comments is much better than your proposed rule changes. The advantage is this: if you are automatically out in anything effective a trade of yours, when the other owner in a situation like this tells the person holding commissioner power over the trade that he thinks he wants to revoke, he goes to the assistant commissioner instead of you. Then he can get an unbiased assessment from someone acting as commissioner, instead of someone trying to save his trade.
3. Trying to “bend but not break” the rules that you yourself wrote is highly questionable. You are allowed to purposefully set loopholes in the rules (which you admitted wrote vaguely basically for this purpose) and then exploit those loopholes. And make rulings on your attempts to exploit those loopholes. How you fail to see the problems with this is beyond me.
4. The problem is that one cannot simultaneously go above and beyond being a fair and forthright commissioner in a rules dispute regarding his own trade while also simultaneously defending his interests as a league participant. Your claim to have done this cannot be true because being completely fair as a commissioner would involve always speaking as commissioner while dealing with the dispute, which would prevent active defense of your interests as a league participant. For example, it would have involved answering the I think I want to revoke comment with something from the commissioner, not an attempt to save the trade from the league participant.
5. For many, and I think most, people (including me) playing fantasy baseball, the goal in winning is to draft better, prospect better, and assemble a roster better. There is, however, a minority of people who think that it is perfectly fine to have leagues won by exploiting poorly drafted or vague rules and being the best at duping rubes in trades. I am sure most people here have been in a league with someone from the latter group. They are “that guy” (a/k/a “the jackass”) in the league. They have to win every trade. They have to try to exploit everything they can. My underlying problem with you is this mentality–as it was last year. The “ability to spot and exploit leverageable opportunities” is not what makes one a good fantasy player or columnist. It is what makes one “that guy.”
Regarding #2, I think what I’m leaning towards is automatically recusing myself in the case of a trade involving me while reverting to the language in my “Yelich rule” for other disputes which may involve me more tangentially.
Regarding #3, I think there’s a misconception that I intentionally and knowingly created loopholes for my later profit. I enjoy fostering a spirit of creativity even if it leads to occasional dust ups. And so, I knew by not stipulating exactly when the revocability rule could be used, there was opportunity for future creativity. That said, I’ve had this rule in my constitutions for over 10 years and this is I believe the second or third time it’s ever been invoked. From experience, I had no reason to believe it would be used in this manner nor did I lay plans related to it when I wrote the document.
Regarding #4, Fine. That’s splitting hairs to me. I’ll say I went above and beyond et al insofar as is possible as a conflicted party. I represented the interests of the league at least as if not more vehemently than my interests as an owner.
Your response to #2 encourages me. Your response to #3 does not. “[F]ostering a spirit of creativity” in the rules context means trying to encourage people to bend the rules. That sort of defeats the point of even having rules. Encouraging bending the rules more or less means you like to do this (which you have more or less admitted) and that means trying to win the league by manipulating rules instead of by doing better at fantasy baseball (i.e. drafting better, identifying future stars better, etc.). You finessing of the language is lost on me—I passed the bar in 1999; playing with words is something I can identify pretty easily.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good bit of skullduggery and seeing who can get one over on everyone else in the right context. I just don’t think fantasy baseball is the proper arena; it has a different purpose. I would love to play a game of Diplomacy against/with you and other like-minded individuals I don’t particularly know. I think you would love the game—just don’t play with friends/family who have anything but thick skins—it’s a nasty vicious game. If you lie and try to put one over on everyone all the time, you run out of allies and get roasted. If you wait to long to stick the knife in the back of your erstwhile ally, you’ll find that the knives in your back will probably finish you off. All good fun, if you like that type of thing (which I do)—because the whole purpose of the game is that. Have you ever played?
Played once in college, but we only got through one turn before everybody got too busy drinking. I was a little bummed because it seemed fun (I wasn’t drinking yet at the time). The guy who brought the game got tired of trying to herd cats and joined the Taka parade.
Growing up, we would play Risk and try to make it needlessly complex. People seem to think it’s a long, strategic game, but it’s really just War the card game with a tiny skill check for idiots. You need a friend willing to be an agent of chaos/always lose. I added a bunch of lego pieces with different abilities that could be “purchased” with troops to add some flare, but all it really did was rig the game.
You really hit the nail on #5. Brad thinks it’s a strength in fantasy that he was able to get Yelich for stuff a lot less valuable than Yelich from a dumb owner. Do I do that? If I can sure. I don’t brag about it and write an article claiming it’s some sort of fantasy strength of mine to rip off a poor owner. Fantasy Baseball should be won by superior player evaluation, and when someone does that consistently I’m impressed. Trading Hayes and Pache to get Yelich is just an embarrassing indictment on one particular owner and consequently the league.
If the manager he traded with offered the trade, how was Brad exploiting him in the original trade?
Is taking advantage of rubes the way you want fantasy leagues won? I have no idea if the deal was good or bad for the other owner, but I suspect it was bad given how much Brad wanted to not lose it. But there are some leagues deep enough where four guys who will likely play full time, even if mostly for defense, is better than a superstar because just having a full roster of full-time players is impossible for most teams.
I personally seek out trades that benefit both teams, but if a ‘rube’ is dead set on trading away quality players for cheap, then, yes, I would rather that team be me than a competiter. But I also *try* to avoid playing in leagues with said rubes.
Fair enough. I agree it is nice to find leagues where no real vetoes or revocations, etc., are necessary because they would never be invoked even if they did exist.
I’d hope any person reading the comment sees the Albies for Noelvi Marte and Pache/Hayes/Trammell for Yelich as the easy trades to make if a poor owner would do it. I would be embarrassed to brag about these trades publicly.
Re: #5 I disagree – I think trades are a completely legitimate talent acquisition route. I’m not “that guy” where I try to win every trade, quite the opposite – I regularly complete trades in a competitive league w/friends because I identify win/win opportunities on another team’s roster. However, this usually means I’m trading quantity for quality with teams that are lower in the standings due to obvious holes. The prices paid at auction might not line up on either side of the trade, but both teams are positioned to get better in the standings (which to me, is the whole point).
I firmly believe that quirky rules in different leagues are all features, not bugs. But whenever possible, be diplomatic. Bend the rules, don’t exploit other people.
the only reason this became such a big issue was because, what, 5 out of 25 owners bitched? it shouldn’t have even gotten to this point, and then on top of that the counterparty was weak willed enough to succumb to the hive mind, and then beyond that he submitted his revocation of the trade after 26 hours instead of 24! correct me if i have any details wrong but from my understanding this became a SNAFU when it shouldnt have and you were just trying to ride the waves as smooth as possible which is fine.
I agree, but my understanding is that much of the confusion lie in Brad allowing extra time to revoke the trade, which I presume the other manager took to mean that the commissioner was modifying the 24 hour rule on this occasion.
I’d say once Brad gave the impression the window was extended, which potentially modified the 24 hour rule, it probably created confusion best mitigated by returning Yelich.
That said, if you join a deep league understand the rules, otherwise its on you! If you land on the hotel I just put on Board Walk, I’m not letting you re-roll.
A lot of Brad’s material is tailored towards complex keeper leagues rules, which are becoming more common thanks to the growth platforms like Ottoneu. Whether you agree or disagree with him, Brad consistently presents awesome concepts applicable towards “advanced” fantasy leagues and uber-active owners, which is a growing demographic.
Personally, I used to read Fangraphs while only playing in ESPN/CBS standard format leagues, and a lot of this type material didn’t really make sense to me. Context is key, and I’d say some portion of the “boo-birds” just don’t really have an accurate picture of what they are attacking. In general a lot of the negative attacks are nothing more than assaults on complex league charters…
As an observation, I’d say that Brad’s material doesn’t resonate positively with fantasy managers whom; don’t play advanced formats, veto all trades as a competitive tool, tend play weekly formats due to time constraints, or owners who have fantasy play time constraints in general.
If you are the type of owner who scuttles agreed upon deals because you want the opportunity to “offer more” after the fact, nothing logical really applies to you. You literally do not belong in complex keeper leagues, and will be a detriment towards keeping 12 active engage owners long term.
Nah. This isn’t an “assault on complex league charters.” If you’re going to be the commissioner in a league with such a constitution, where you’re actively seeking creative owners and boundary pushing, then you need to be able to navigate that league as both a commissioner and owner simultaneously, but primarily the former.
Brad didn’t give an honest retelling of events here. He left out that the other manager asked for clarification about the rule, and in reply Brad told him he was extending the deadline for a decision. The other manager used that extension. Brad claims that the extension he himself offered wasn’t valid under the rules, so the other owner was, in fact, too late, and shouldn’t have trusted “manager Brad” because he wasn’t acting as “commissioner Brad” at that moment.
We’ve had a version of the “Yelich Rule” in place for years and it’s been pretty peaceful since. The exact way we use is:
If an owner has a disagreement about any function of the league (a formal dispute for a trade, for example) he asks the Commissioner for a Committee Review. As long as his dispute is relevant, the Commissioner creates a 3-person Committee of unaffiliated individuals. Unaffiliated would mean: not the Commission, the two teams trading players, and the person filing the dispute. The committee gathers their info and talks to anyone truly involved and delivers a ruling within 48 hours. The Committee members are publicly known and their votes are made public.
We’ve had two Reviews in 6 years, no sour grapes after a ruling, (one a 2-1 vote, another 3-0 vote) and no one leave the league due to a ruling. FWIW, a few teams adopted the same rule to a football league 4 members are apart of because it finally created peace about trades, etc.
It adds a couple hurdles for someone to have to jump through if they’re pissed/upset. Two, by uninvolving so many related people, your issue better damn well be important or egregious enough for the league to mostly feel the same way as the person asking for a review.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too, in that you do not want the stress of having to decide whether to veto any trades as commissioner, but you also do not want anyone to self-veto a trade under the rule. In that regard, I am still trying to figure out the rationale behind the “Even though you are not required to have a reason, it is expected that you will have a good one” clause being in the rules. What is an example or two of what you would consider to be a good reason?
Because it seems to me that this situation was exactly what the rule was intended for – an owner makes a good faith trade with no intent to self-veto, other owners come out of the woodwork when they see the trade details and convince him he is getting ripped off, and then and only then does he decide he should veto the trade.
Typically, the intent of the rule is to protect from overzealous owners selling fact roles or players who have underlying injuries. It was originally designed because we had a manager (ages ago, different league) who would sell these outlandish scenarios and convince people to buy into them. For example, if a trade partner convinced you Nick Anderson was 100% definitely going to close for the Rays, you might think he’s worth a lot more as a 40 sv, 110 K reliever than you otherwise would.
Alternatively, if we completed a Yelich deal and then somebody offer 2x more than me, that would be a pretty good reason to reset. In this case, the two or three offers I’m aware of for Yelich are indistinguishable from the original deal in terms of aggregate asset value. It’s just scrunched into 3 players instead of 4 now. In any event, the stricter offseason penalty for backing out should resolve the confusion by imposing an opportunity cost.
You were being an ass. That’s why you’re getting the feedback you are, not because you’re not explaining yourself clearly or we’re too dull to understand.
The 24-hour rule is asking for drama. Leaving room for creativity and having rules that can be bent in ways others won’t expect is really asking drama. You got what you asked for here.
I generally like your writing. You’re thinking outside the box compared to most fantasy baseball writers. But this series feels like it was written by someone who’s never been a fantasy commissioner before. Perhaps you have been lucky enough up until now to have a great group of like-minded players. In my experience (and I suspect that of many other commenters), fantasy leagues are a constant source of bickering and silly drama. The only way to avoid that is with simple, straightforward rules and firm limits on what is allowed and what is not.
Yours is a league from which I would resign as commish and Not Return next year. I may not have paid close enough attention, but some of these clowns signed up thinking they could beat a guy who writes about fantasy baseball for a living. Your league has too many assholes in it, most of whom are also too ignorant. Mullets should not sign up for leagues run by a shark. Yes Brad, you are a shark running a league with way too many mullets in it. Organize a league of sharks; it may or may not be fun to play, but everyone will know the character of their opponents.
That said, I still think the bitchers are in the wrong. I once traded a hot spring Lucas Duda for dead spring Mike Stanton (his name then) after Mike’s owner publicly offered him for next to nothing. The league vetoed the deal. I insisted that the guy who cast the last vote to kill it take over as commissioner. He did and has worn that albatross for the past 5 years.
A guy who plays 20 or so leagues should be prepared to punt some of them Publicly, Permanently, and, In Advance of next year. Do it, Brad. You will immediately feel better.
This is the epitome of the kind of fantasy players you want nothing to do with. Anyone who thinks that playing this game is MORE fun for everyone when you are “bending-but-not-breaking rules” are sociopath weirdos. We get it, you want to run the Houston Astros of fantasy baseball. Who wouldn’t want to play a game with someone who thinks the heights of enjoyment is leveraging exploitable opportunities? Is your goal to make fantasy baseball as unloveable and unwholesome and the least about the game of baseball as possible?
TLDR: You’re modelling the very worst part of modern baseball front offices in fantasy which is somehow even more pathetic than it sounds.
Brad, you should have just traded for Wander Javier instead of Yelich. Then you would have had a better player and not had to look like a fool in your latest series of whiny posts about your leagues.
Seems like the biggest problem with your league is that you have an owner who thinks that was a good return for Yelich. When you have weak hands at the table it eventually turns into a race among the sharks to take advantage of them. People who won’t take part in the fleecing suffer a competitive disadvantage. Eventually they run out of assets that they can mishandle and disrupt league balance but then they usually have a flaming husk of a team that nobody will take over when they leave.
I would have been too embarrassed to accept that trade offer. I would have added on my end to prevent the obvious shitstorm that was going to follow. In a dynasty it can’t only be about winning the current trade, because people have to be willing to deal with you year after year. It’s interesting that you don’t get that yet.