Rookie Draft Issue, need some opinions

[pokerplayer1000]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

[smbkrypt24]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

That is interesting. How could someone make an agreement not to draft someone. What did they get for saying I won't draft these two players?

Also, I am not sure if it needs stated, but if that agreement is somehow good and it was made based not the premise this is how the first 5 picks will go, I wouldn't expect B to jump in to purposefully change that.

[grooner]

This is why you don't do these contingent trades. In leagues I commish they are allowed, but not enforceable so do them at your own peril.

If the league has precedent where they should have to stand, than Owner A should not be allowed to take those players. Anyone else could have traded up and screwed up the order, so it shouldn't matter that it was team B who did.

If this is the first time, it is a great teaching moment that while you hope owners will do what they said they would, they can always change their mind.

[bjd5211]

Bigger issue is two owners COLLUDING to fix the draft to fall a certain way.

[pokerplayer1000]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

That is interesting. How could someone make an agreement not to draft someone. What did they get for saying I won't draft these two players?

Also, I am not sure if it needs stated, but if that agreement is somehow good and it was made based not the premise this is how the first 5 picks will go, I wouldn't expect B to jump in to purposefully change that.

I am with you there, a third owner proposed the idea, that Owner B may have potentially moved up to take a certain player knowing that it would impact pick 5, leaving pick 6 out to dry and also knowing that pick 6 guaranteed they wouldnt take two players at that pick, thus increasing the possibility of pushing a higher ranked player down the board.

Also, we have nothing in the bylaws about enforcing conditional agreements

[smbkrypt24]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

That is interesting. How could someone make an agreement not to draft someone. What did they get for saying I won't draft these two players?

Also, I am not sure if it needs stated, but if that agreement is somehow good and it was made based not the premise this is how the first 5 picks will go, I wouldn't expect B to jump in to purposefully change that.

I am with you there, a third owner proposed the idea, that Owner B may have potentially moved up to take a certain player knowing that it would impact pick 5, leaving pick 6 out to dry and also knowing that pick 6 guaranteed they wouldnt take two players at that pick, thus increasing the possibility of pushing a higher ranked player down the board.

Also, we have nothing in the bylaws about enforcing conditional agreements

Yes, this was what I would be worried about happened. I could potentially after getting someone to say I won't draft these two players trade up and move all value down if I had picks right after that owner. I am not sure that was purposefully done here, but when reading that became a concern.

[MrUbuto]

Bigger issue is two owners COLLUDING to fix the draft to fall a certain way.

How is that collusion?

I did almost the same thing last year. Owner A had picks 4,5,6 I wanted chubb he said he would only trade me pick 6 and not 4 but promised he wouldnt take chubb.

There was nothing really stopping him just his word, I'd have no recourse other than never trading with him again

Neither player did anything wrong, it sucks but bleep happens

[Shcritters]

Trades are trades, and unless there is something specifically written in the bylaws about contingent trades being enforceable then tough luck.

[CubfanAA]

Yes, owner A should have definitely stayed with the agreement and is kinda being a dick by not sticking with it. No, there is nothing that should be done about it. This is why I never engage in trades that can't be fully handled by the software. If there was a fantasy site that allowed locking players out as an option in the draft then by all means throw that in as a trade, but otherwise you are just relying on essentially an unenforceable handshake agreement and stuff like this is bound to eventually happen.

[MrUbuto]

I actually love little side agreements makes it seem more real. Last year guy traded juju for a 1st and a 2nd if he got over 1000 yards.

If course they aren't enforceable but still fun

[Cult of Dionysus]

If the trade was formally announced and the bylaws allow more than players and picks to be traded, then it should be enforeceable... Just cuz Owner A didn't think the whole deal through, doesn't mean he can reneg.

However, most leagues don't expressly allow more than players and picks to be traded. And the baseline is to fall back to that if the bylaws are silent... Otherwise, guys could trade just about anything in any league.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

Unless they are in the bylaws, don't allow conditional trades because it gets too messy. If it's not in the bylaws, then this was a handshake agreement which are always a risk in fantasy and in real life.

Question though: in real life, how does the NFL enforce this stuff? What happens if CAR trades McCaffrey to MIA for a 2020 1st, but it becomes a 1st + 2nd if McCaffrey rushes for over 1,500 yards? What if MIA trades away their 2nd round pick, and that scenario happens?

[pokerplayer1000]

Unless they are in the bylaws, don't allow conditional trades because it gets too messy. If it's not in the bylaws, then this was a handshake agreement which are always a risk in fantasy and in real life.

Question though: in real life, how does the NFL enforce this stuff? What happens if CAR trades McCaffrey to MIA for a 2020 1st, but it becomes a 1st + 2nd if McCaffrey rushes for over 1,500 yards? What if MIA trades away their 2nd round pick, and that scenario happens?

There is nothing in the bylaws about conditional trades, and also the terms of the conditional trade were not made public, only after the draft happened because Owner B felt like the deal was broken.

I think on the real life question, that those things are written into the trade agreement between the two teams, therefore making them enforceable. Not sure what happens if they trade away that pick, or there are multiple options written in like 2020 2nd or 2020 3rd and 4th, etc

[Chwf3rd]

Seems like it’s Owner B’s fault for not waiting to make the trade until #6 was OTC. If Owner B traded the pick to Owner A while #6 was OTB and Owner A promised to not take the two players, then I would feel more sympathetic to Owner B

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

So Team B fooled Team A into telling them who they were going to draft. Then, knowing Team A was going to take a player he wanted, Team B traded up ahead of Team A to snipe him. And now that Team B has successfully conned Team A he is mad at Team A? Does this make sense to anyone else?