We'll if this trade was accepted after the game but before he got the MRI, and the results I assume than you must not veto.
Because think of this...
This is what happened: 1)Brown went down 2) Game ended/ X-ray results were not conclusive 3) Trade accepted 4)MRI results come back bad, Brown down for the year 5) Owner who traded for Brown in horrible position
Now...if 1,2 and 3 stayed the same...what happens if the MRI comes back good, and Brown isn't down for the year...then I think the other owner maybe pissed off because he traded Brown thinking he is done for the year most likely.
So honestly when the trade was accepted Brown's position was in the air, and so the owner (if he was knowledgeable of the situation) was taking a risk. And that risk ended up being a bad one.
Brown owner was on top of the Miami game as it happened, proposed trade immediately. Edge owner was out and about with the family, came home, checked his email, saw the proposal - accepted it without thinking (obviously) and unaware of the injury at all, realized soon after what he did, emailed me asking if I could vote against the trade - I made the following post in the league before it was known he was out for the season:
First off, I'm not trying to cause an uproar or sway opinions. I'm just throwing this out there.
Is it probably a little sneaky to knowingly trade an injured player?
yes
Should the potential recipient of the injured player have done more homework before accepting the trade?
yes
My hands are tied on this one since it is not collusion which would be the only reason for me to step in...also, the seriousness of the injury is undetermined at the moment. That's all i'm going to say...Play ball!
Just freakin great!!! - The following post just came in from the Edge guy:
First off, I accept the fact that I didn't do enough homework. I did check his profile on our wonderful league page last night and there was absolutely nothing related to him being injured. But, I have to say that someone offering an injured player knowingly is a little below the belt i.e. Alex Rodriguez trying to hit the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's glove in the 2004 playoffs. But, I guess some people have no morals and/or ethics. So, if you all can live with this display of good sportsmanship, I am hereby offering any of my players to his opponent for the rest of the season until the trading deadline ends. After that, I will leave it up to the waiver wire numbers. Good Luck!!!
Now I know it looks like my friends are douches, but they are usually ok. I guess fantasy football can bring out the worst in people! Moral of the story --> as a commish, choose your league-mates wisely!!
Jagator73 wrote:Just freakin great!!! - The following post just came in from the Edge guy:
First off, I accept the fact that I didn't do enough homework. I did check his profile on our wonderful league page last night and there was absolutely nothing related to him being injured. But, I have to say that someone offering an injured player knowingly is a little below the belt i.e. Alex Rodriguez trying to hit the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's glove in the 2004 playoffs. But, I guess some people have no morals and/or ethics. So, if you all can live with this display of good sportsmanship, I am hereby offering any of my players to his opponent for the rest of the season until the trading deadline ends. After that, I will leave it up to the waiver wire numbers. Good Luck!!!
This is exactly what I said in my first post. This story was not made public until this afternoon, for the most part. SHADY. I'd veto this.
If I was a brown owner, id just pickup chatman, drop brown, and part ways with my losses...its happens, cant try and trade every injured player that pops up on your roster
Current Cafe Dynasties: 4th and Goal Fourth & Inches Double D Any Given Dynasty Eat Cheese Dynasty NFL's Finest Cafe Very Special Forces
stomperrob wrote: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
I do not agree that it would meet Yahoo's definition of collusion.
It is a blatant violation of Yahoo's basic rules of fair play.
The 'no collusion, no veto' rule is a bit too simplistic to me.
Your most important function as commish is to maintain the leagues integrity, and IMO the league's integrity is at stake. You should rarely have to step in at all, but in this case you would be justified in taking action.
The Brown owner has violated two of Yahoo's rules regarding fair play (#4 and #5).
Here is the link to Yahoo's fantasy football rules. Read them and see if you, as commish, can justify not stepping in. If you do veto it, post the link to the rules so other owners can see your justification for themselves.
I think the trade stands. Even if your league site didn't have info about his injury that info (that he was injured, left the game, and was getting an MRI) was scattered all over the Internet, and you can't be responsible for making sure every owner does his or her homework.
That said, I wouldn't invite either owner back next year. The guy who offered Ronnie has no ethics (at least FF-wise), and the second guy is all-too-willing to drop his (the "I'll trade any of my players..." crap) as soon as his panties get in a twist.
Trading injured players is the Fantasy Football equivalent of selling a dead bird to a blind kid. Yeah, you might make a few bucks, but it's bad juju, and sooner or later what goes around comes around.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Jagator73 wrote:Just freakin great!!! - The following post just came in from the Edge guy:
First off, I accept the fact that I didn't do enough homework. I did check his profile on our wonderful league page last night and there was absolutely nothing related to him being injured. But, I have to say that someone offering an injured player knowingly is a little below the belt i.e. Alex Rodriguez trying to hit the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's glove in the 2004 playoffs. But, I guess some people have no morals and/or ethics. So, if you all can live with this display of good sportsmanship, I am hereby offering any of my players to his opponent for the rest of the season until the trading deadline ends. After that, I will leave it up to the waiver wire numbers. Good Luck!!!
Now I know it looks like my friends are douches, but they are usually ok. I guess fantasy football can bring out the worst in people! Moral of the story --> as a commish, choose your league-mates wisely!!
So this owner screws up and accepts a bad trade (which no one knew was that bad at the time, as the MRI was not back yet). Then he whines about it to the commish to get his mistake reversed. Then, when the commish rightly says that he cannot interfere, this owner threatens to basically destroy the league with a trading temper tantrum. I don’t know about the rest of your friends, but this one is, in fact, a douche.
Kilroy1872 wrote:Trading injured players is the Fantasy Football equivalent of selling a dead bird to a blind kid. Yeah, you might make a few bucks, but it's bad juju, and sooner or later what goes around comes around.
Competative owners make for fun leagues. I don't like the idea of trading an injured player, but at least you know that owner is raising the level of play within the league. If you want a good league, you're gonna have to kick the "blind kid" to the curb.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by aaawall91 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:56 pm 
