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

[jordanzs]

I'm asking this for a couple of friends of mine as there's a dispute going in one of their leagues, but I was horribly burned by this same setting a few years ago:

There's a setting in MFL which would prevent a trade from going through if it creates an invalid roster.

In the 2011 offseason, someone OFFERED ME Adrian Peterson for Woodhead/Stevie Johnson. I accepted (duhhhh) but MFL nixed the trade because it would've put HIM over the roster limit. Even though he sent me the offer & accepted. And I re-offered to him as a 2 for 2, and also told him to re-offer it but drop someone, etc. But he didn't re-offer, and instead he traded Peterson for Sidney Rice/1.4. Grrrrrrrr. Commish ruled that those were the settings, and I moved on.

It sounds like this happened yesterday in a redrafter league in MFL. Owner A sent out a bunch of offers involving him giving away Hilton (96 team league, 8 copies of each player) and one of them was a 3 for 1. Owner B accepted a 3 for 1 offer but MFL nixed it due to the invalid roster issue. And in the meantime, owner C accepted a 1 for 1 trade for Hilton so that trade offer got processed. Owner A is happier about the accepted trade that Owner C accepted & was processed. But he had even sent out that offer first, he sent out numerous offers. Not like he got cold feet like my above douchy Peterson/Woodhead/Stevie J scenario.

Owner B feels that the trade with Owner A/Owner C should be reversed and his trade should be processed because he legitimately accepted an offer but was victimized by a horrible MFL setting that should not exist in the first place. I'm guessing that Owner C would not be happy to have a trade reversed that he was offered & had accepted/processed. I can see where Owner B feels burned by the situation & system....I was that owner B in the past. It made me hate MFL even more.

So what is the solution here? And obviously the commish should fix the setting going forward.

[skip]

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.

[jordanzs]

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.

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.

In yesterday's scenario, owner A sent 3 players to Owner B for 1 piece. Owner B accepted the offer but it evaporated since he was over the roster limit. On other sites and common sense says that MFL shouldn't immediately cancel the whole offer, but keep it "accepted" and give you a screen to drop 2 guys for it to process. I think it is an awful glitch in their programming. If someone sends me a trade where I'm getting 2 pieces for 1 piece, I should be able to accept the offer and then have MFL bring me to a screen to drop a player so that the trade should process. Not cancel out the whole trade.

But the MFL system is what it is.

[ArrylT]

Concur with skip.

Any trade that breaks a rule or setting is not technically a legal trade imho so while it is disappointing that Owner B missed out the fault is with Owner A and not the setting.

[ArrylT]

That would be a nice feature. It is a feature with other platforms like yahoo.

[jordanzs]

Concur with skip.

Any trade that breaks a rule or setting is not technically a legal trade imho so while it is disappointing that Owner B missed out the fault is with Owner A and not the setting.

But why would the fault be with owner A? He didn't do anything besides send out multiple trades to multiple partners. He wasn't around to re-send offers.

I've been owner A before & sent out offers to several people. He isn't the one who would've had the invalid roster (owner B who accepted would've had the invalid roster). And he didn't know that there would be several owners trying to accept them, and that the 1st owner (owner B) who accepted got hosed by a stupid MFL technicality and in the meantime another owner (owner C) accepted a trade that went through.

[skip]

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.

[ArrylT]

I thought you meant Owner A offered Hilton for 3 players. Then it is Owner As responsibility to ensure he has the room.

If Owner A was offering 3 players including Hilton then yeah responsibility for roster limits fall to Owner B.

[ArrylT]

I will say, and I do it myself, but if you do send out offers to competing owners at the same time then you are risking the ill will of those who missed out.

Obviously if the setting bothers owners they can vote to change it for future seasons.

[DLF3000]

The problem is the technology - which should work for you as soon as possible in the process, not later on. That's just stupid tech.

The trade should never be allowed to be sent if it's invalid.

Or, it should allow you to immediately drop a player to become valid when you hit accept, just like Yahoo's done... forever.

Honestly, for all MFL does well, there are some insane things it does horribly (this is one, dumb default settings like allowing the Commish to see all trade offers is another, I could go on.)

MFL settings are easily a generation or two behind on some things and the workarounds or current options can be quite frustrating.

Either make the settings easier to understand and use for the Commish, or make them simpler/smarter all around.

I'm not the Commish in my league, but I've been one in many leagues for many years before, and every single damn dynasty year there are annoying issues with the MFL settings that I have to bring up with the Commish.

[jordanzs]

So once again, since it might be confusing in the post above:

Owner A: He offered 3 players for 2 of Owner B's players

Owner B: Accepted that trade but it did not process because his (owner B's) team would've been over the roster limit of 18 players. The "MFL system" evaporated the trade. It did not give him the opportunity to drop a player before the trade processed.

Owner C: Afterwards, he accepted a previously sent trade from Owner A. It was a 1 for 1 trade. It processed.

[Nanananananana]

I agree it's an annoying setting, maybe horrible is overkill. The trade should go through then the owner with the roster violation should have to drop a player.

[maxhyde]

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.

[IR1]

To me the question is when is the trade official? If you go from receiving party accepting, then the sending party needs to drop players to accommodate his offer. If it is when comish approves, then the roster limits seem to come into play.

[jordanzs]

Ok I got got a response from Team B (another friend and long time fantasy football leaguemate). Here is what happened. slightly different than what I had posted, but similar:

In the IBL there are 96 teams, 12 owners representing 8 different boards. I'm playing for Sports Outlaw this season. My boardmates post that (Team A) sent a few of them offers of TY for their copies of Ty Montgomery. No one was going to accept. So I sent him an offer of West for TY. He rejected and countered with TY, Ginn, Julius for my Ingram, Clay (a 3-for-2). I went to the MFL site and accepted, but if failed because getting 3 for 2 would have put me over the roster limit. No issue. I attempt to drop Vereen. The site says I don't have privs to Drop, which we're all supposed to have. So I call my Commish and ask him to do it. He tries but his Commish privs were gone. No help. So I then post on the Message Board explaining the situation (leaving out names) asking for anyone to drop Vereen for me so I can accept this trade. No one around. I send an email to the Commissioners asking the same. No reply. I go to the IBL Forum which is hosted by Fantasy Sharks and post the same. No reply. Out of options I sit and wait knowing that Team A had likely sent out other offers and just had the feeling someone else would accept before a Commish either fixed the Drop privs or dropped Vereen for me so I could accept. Almost an hour goes by of me trying to get anyone with privs to help and then another owner accepts a TY for Ty offer that Team A must have put out previously just as I had feared. At that point I feel pretty screwed, but not by Team A, instead by MFL and the Commissioners board for not setting things up correctly and not being around to help. So I make a another post asking for a review of the situation. That my attempted acceptance was clearly logged and that an incorrect setting in MFL prevented me from making the deal. Which I felt was unfair, and asked that the other deal be reversed and I be awarded the original offer from Team A.