Horrible MFL (trade) setting....need opinions

[sloth8u]

Strange...I have been on the end of some of these and I get a message X's team would be over the limit and doesn't process the trade. Maybe I am mistaken but I don't think the trade evaporated on me.

I get this message aswell. Never had the offer diappear. I just contact the owner and tell them that they need to drop.

There was an option to allow trades that would create an invalid roster. You just have to set it that lineups can't be submitted if a roster is invalid. Not sure if those settings are still there.

[ArrylT]

Now that is a different case. Why the heck would teams be blocked from dropping players? Seems like there is more to this league and it's settings than a typical league.

[ArrylT]

Strange...I have been on the end of some of these and I get a message X's team would be over the limit and doesn't process the trade. Maybe I am mistaken but I don't think the trade evaporated on me.

I get this message aswell. Never had the offer diappear. I just contact the owner and tell them that they need to drop.

There was an option to allow trades that would create an invalid roster. You just have to set it that lineups can't be submitted if a roster is invalid. Not sure if those settings are still there.

That setting definitely exists.

[jordanzs]

Now that is a different case. Why the heck would teams be blocked from dropping players? Seems like there is more to this league and it's settings than a typical league.

It sounds like a pretty complex league, and some settings weren't set up properly. I've seen lots of issues this year with the "New MFL"

[Ruggenater]

Seems like MFL needs to adopt the ESPN way of doing this (other sites likely handle this the same way, but I'm only familiar with ESPN). If you propose a trade where you're giving fewer players than you're getting, you need to pre-select your drop(s) for if the trade is accepted. Similar if you accept a trade where you're getting more players than you're giving--you need to select your drop(s) when you hit accept.

[Tsunami]

I am in this league and you are somewhat misunderstanding what happened. The owner getting 3 for 2 tried to drop a player, but MFL was evidently locked so that they weren't allowed to drop a player. This was an error as he should have been able to make roster moves, and not his fault. They posted asking the commish to drop Vereen (but they didn't say it was to accept a trade). A half hour later when Vereen was dropped by the commish it was too late as another offer between his trading partner had already gone through.

The only issue I have is that they didn't actually post anywhere that they were going to accept the deal, and they say there is "evidence" on MFL that they attempted to accept it but I haven't seen it. But they probably aren't lying. So the question is, do you reverse a trade because another owner got screwed by a technical difficulty that wasn't his fault, or is that hurting two people to help one? It wasn't their fault either, and the trading partner prefers the deal that actually went through.

[jordanzs]

So it sounds in this case is was an issue where the accepting party was frozen from making a drop due to the settings that were in place. And in the meantime, another owner accepted a trade that was previously sent to him.

And yes MFL should change that setting where if you're offering 1 player for 2, you should have to pre-drop a player if accepted. ESPN does that, yahoo does that, etc. If that was the case, my dynasty team since 2010 would have Adrian Peterson on it.

[jordanzs]

I am in this league and you are somewhat misunderstanding what happened. The owner getting 3 for 2 tried to drop a player, but MFL was evidently locked so that they weren't allowed to drop a player. This was an error as he should have been able to make roster moves, and not his fault. They posted asking the commish to drop Vereen (but they didn't say it was to accept a trade). A half hour later when Vereen was dropped by the commish it was too late as another offer between his trading partner had already gone through.

The only issue I have is that they didn't actually post anywhere that they were going to accept the deal, and they say there is "evidence" on MFL that they attempted to accept it but I haven't seen it. But they probably aren't lying. So the question is, do you reverse a trade because another owner got screwed by a technical difficulty that wasn't his fault, or is that hurting two people to help one? It wasn't their fault either, and the trading partner prefers the deal that actually went through.

Yo Tsunami,

Hahahaha I was just posting that as I heard from Owner B's side of the story via email (both are friends & long-time leaguemates of mine).

Owner B wouldn't be lying about anything. Neither would owner A. Owner A is beyond a straight shooter, sometimes he is over-fanatical about these things which is why he blew up my phone 3 times yesterday. And I had told him about my stories from before, which is similar. It comes down to MFL settings that screw things up.

[skip]

I'm curious if this happened after last night's game... Do your rosters lock once the games start for the week?

[sloth8u]

The commish needs to fix this setting asap I would think....but don't believe that they can go back on this particular trade.

The positive here is that this is a 96 teamer. Player B has 95 owners to try to work another deal. I know it sucks for him, but this is how a "setting issue" is discovered most of the time. Happens to me once....I'd believe I was wronged, but I would certainly hope its fixed so it doesn't happen again.

[meineymoe]

I don't think it is a horrible setting at all. Your commissioner sets a roster limit. MFL enforces that limit.

It is the responsibility of the owner receiving more pieces to ensure that he has roster space.

This. When I send an offer to someone, I either make sure it balances to stay within the roster limit rules, or I let the other owner know that before he accepts, he will have to drop someone. Usually I guess at who he will drop and include him in the trade so I can take care of the cut.

-oo-

[Coogan Football]

Tell your buddies to learn how to play better, this isn't a setting or MFL's fault at all, they just can't follow directions

[slaughterrt]

Tell your buddies to learn how to play better, this isn't a setting or MFL's fault at all, they just can't follow directions

Kids these days lack accountability. That's what's wrong with this generation. Damn hippies.

[Seventy5]

But in my situation from 2011, that owner who SENT ME the offer where he gave me Peterson for Woodhead/Stevie Johnson basically got a free pass to get cold feet. He offered 1 player for 2 players. I accepted his offer. MFL didn't process the trade because he would've been over the roster limit. So the offer evaporated and he never resent.

So then the offering team needs to clear the space when making the offer. MFL has had this limitation forever to keep owners from abusing roster limits. IMO, the issue is not the setting but rather the processing. MFL should give a warning when the trade is "accepted" that one or the other roster will be illegal but not delete the trade.

Having recently dealt with the issue the OP is talking about, I can say I both agree and disagree with Skip here.

It IS up to the teams to make sure they are within roster limits, and this setting makes it to where the commish doesn't have to chase people up every time they are over.

BUT, accepting an offer only to have it disappear with a note saying it would be one of the teams over a roster limit does create a bit of extra work and can be a pain in the a** if it took a while to find a win-win deal both teams agreed on. I think it could be solved in one of two ways:

-MFL would need to allow a "drop player x-y-z" if the deal is accepted so that it automatically keeps the team within limits. Otherwise, the team would have to clear roster space BEFORE sending out offers, which would put them at risk of dropping/losing an asset for nothing if a deal doesn't get done. This happened to me in one of my leagues a few months ago, and I ended up losing Paul Richardson for nothing after an owner backed out the second time around.

-The league would need to enforce a rule (or an MFL setting?) that says both teams have X-amount of time after a trade to get back within roster limits, which is probably the easiest, but potentially creates extra work for the commish/league if it isn't an MFL setting.

There is a similar (albeit minor) MFL flaw with the TS settings as well. Say a league has 23 active roster spots and 3 taxi squad spots and an owner with 23 on the active roster and 2 on the TS wants to add a rookie to his TS...there is no way to do that without either 1. dropping a player from the active roster to create space (which puts you at risk of losing that player if the leagues FAs have to go through a locked period), or you 'illegally' demote-add-promote/demote (anybody trying to fill out their TS with rookies during a rookie draft without dropping any vets from their active roster will understand this one)