Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal? (Dynasty League)

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

    • Yes, He Should Have Nixed.
    • No, He Should Not Have Nixed.


Recommended Posts

In my dynasty fantasy football league, someone made a trade for Julio Jones in 2015. Here's how the deal looked back then. We use PPR scoring, but TEs get a premium of 1.5 per catch. 

Team A Receives:
Allen Hurns (64 receptions, 1031 yards + 10 TD season)
First Round Pick (turned out to be Carson Wentz, but Hunter Henry was still on the board)
Second Round Pick (turned out to be Keanu Neal, but Deion Jones was also on the board)

Team B Receives:
Julio Jones (136 receptions, 1871 Yards, 9 TDs (8 Receiving TDs, 1 fumble return TD))

However, prior to the beginning of the season, Team A told many owners that this was his last year. Team A traded rookie Todd Gurley to the commish for Reuben Randle (coming off a 71 catch, 3 TD, 900+ yard season) and a First Round Pick (Commish finished in the top 6 of the league that year, so it was at best the 11th overall pick in the draft). At a point prior to this deal processing, Team A had told Team B that this would be Team A's last year in the league. 

Team A told Team B that if Team B beat him in their matchup, then he would trade Julio to Team B. Team B did in fact win, and this win eliminated Team A from playoff contention. The commish likely did not know of this. However, Team B was unsure if Team A was serious, and nothing was offered to cement such a statement. Team A had said things the previous year that the previous year would be his last, but it wasn't. Team B still offered a deal to Team A after he won, which was rejected by Team A. TBH, Team A and Team B had been in trade talks for Julio for quite a while. Team B was trying to deal away Danny Amendola instead of Allen Hurns, and was trying to get Greg Hardy included in the deal. Obviously, neither of these happened. Team B was not trying to include both a first and second round either. Team B's initial offers were rejected by Team A, until Team A finally offered the deal above. The final deal actually involved negotiating and bargaining.

However, prior to the deal, Team A told the commissioner's brother (Team C) that Team A was going to trade Julio to Team B to make the competition tougher for Team C. The commish did know about this, but Team B did not. 

There was no agreement between Team A and Team B that if Team B won, then he'd split his earnings with Team A. There was no collusion. 

The commissioner has to process all trades though to make them final. Prior to processing, the commissioner asked for the remainder of Team B's dues (dues are $120, so the league runs on a two-installment plan, where you pay the first $60 prior to the year, and then the final $60 at a date tba later). Team B paid this remainder at this time and not later because he and Team A had just reached a deal for Julio. Team B also thought that if he didn't pay dues at this time, then the deal for Julio definitely would not go through.

Finally, the league does not vote on trades. In fact, I'm not even sure if the rules expressly allow for the commish to nix a deal. The commissioner has never nixed a deal before (if he has, then it's not well known at all). However, he still nixed this one, which was a first in the league.

Since Team A is leaving, the commissioner was concerned with recruiting a new owner. He thought that a team with Julio would be more attractive than a team with Hurns, Wentz, and Neal.

Considering all of this, should the commissioner have nixed the deal that Team B made for Julio Jones? Why or Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a and b are going to split winnings bc on for in and another didn’t so they loaded the talent to the team in the playoffs that IS collusion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burkho13 said:

If a and b are going to split winnings bc on for in and another didn’t so they loaded the talent to the team in the playoffs that IS collusion 

 

What if there is no collusion to split earnings though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burkho13 said:

The fact that the commish allowed his trade for gurley though is garbagw

 

Yeah, that's not cool at all. But does it matter if the commish did not personally know that the team was leaving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude There was clear collusion, you admitted to trying so make things harder bc one team was out of the playoffs. If he knew what was going on or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 2:57 PM, Burkho13 said:

Dude There was clear collusion, you admitted to trying so make things harder bc one team was out of the playoffs. If he knew what was going on or not

 

Well if the trade is for fair-market value, then does that change anything?

 

Also, is it collusion if someone says he'd rather trade with Team A than with Team B, because Team B has a better squad than Team A?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.