I'm the commish of a 12 team money league. There is a R. Brown owner who is notoriously a little cut-throat when it comes to FF, anyway, as soon as Brown went down, he was dishing out the trade proposal's and he hooked the Edgerrin James owner, who is sort of a novice (second year player). Next thing I know the trade is pending and I get a private email from the Edge owner asking me to vote against it since the league has 1/3 votes and its vetoed. So is it a question of ethics? Is it "fair game" and Edge owner should have been paying closer attention? Is it my place to step in? Please give me some insight
As crappy as you may feel it is... you're well within your right to offer a trade that looks great on the surface, but is in fact, terrible. That's the WHOLE CONCEPT of sell high. It seems extra lame, when you sell an injured player, and I'd say that there are leagues in which I wouldn't make such an offer. But you know what, when you get right down to it, it's the other guy's responsibility to look up ALL the info on a given player before accepting a trade. If they don't do their homework, they DESERVE to be taken to the cleaners. It's not flowers and rainbows. It's strategy. If an owner knows he's not on top of the game, he shouldn't be trading in the first place.
trade stands, but i'd seriously consider not inviting the ronnie brown owner back for next year. i know the 'all's fair in war and football' and whatnot arguments, but i don't agree with them. people should try to play with some ethics.
How is my typing? Call 1-555-382-5968 Many posters could benefit from this.
When was the trade proposed? Before the MRI? I personally wouldn't "have" room for the Ronnie Brown owner next year. A person like that makes a league less fun. Sure, I take advantage of owners too, but trading injured players is bush league. And on another note, it sounds like you have a history with this individual
here is a R. Brown owner who is notoriously a little cut-throat when it comes to FF,
I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. Frank Sinatra
There's a difference between doing your HW and not being afforded the opportunity to do so. This guy proposed the trade right after the game. I know this sounds crazy, but not everyone knows about this site. What other options do most people use? ESPN and Rotoworld? ESPN didnt even pick up on this story until this afternoon. And at 1 a.m. on Rotoworld, this wasnt even a top headline! I can sympathize with this guy. If it wasnt for this site, I'd have ZERO clue that Brown went down until about 2 hours ago. I'm sure other people were in a similar situation. There's a difference between playing fair and just plain cheating. While this cant be classified as either, it definitely leans more towards the latter.
I would cast a veto vote - it actually does fit Yahoo's definition of collusion:
No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).
It would also appear to be a violation of Yahoo's basic rules of fair play:
No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.
Using the above, I would have no problem voting against the trade - and also telling the offending party what a jerk he is
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"