Can someone please talk me down?

[splendorlex]

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

It's something the commissioner decided to put in the rules, unilaterally, but several owners do not agree with it. This guy happens to not only disagree with it, but refuses to utilize the rule. The rule was originally designed as a "commenting period" on trades, to give less experienced people the opportunity to hear from others before finalizing a trade.

Basically...it's a clusterf&^#^&&

That being said, I have a good team...but it's giving me serious pause at this point. Reason enough to leave? Idk...hence this thread

Like I said, seriously doubt it's collusion. Is supreme stupidity and dumb-assery enough to leave a league?

Then the real problem is the commissioner. If several owners disagree with a rule like that, it shouldn't have been implemented. Quit thinking about dumb trade refusal guy and start thinking about buddy commissioner.

[dlf_jules]

Like I said, seriously doubt it's collusion. Is supreme stupidity and dumb-assery enough to leave a league?

Not one instance of it. If it becomes a constant problem, then maybe.

[vtguy88]

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

It's something the commissioner decided to put in the rules, unilaterally, but several owners do not agree with it. This guy happens to not only disagree with it, but refuses to utilize the rule. The rule was originally designed as a "commenting period" on trades, to give less experienced people the opportunity to hear from others before finalizing a trade.

Basically...it's a clusterf&^#^&&

That being said, I have a good team...but it's giving me serious pause at this point. Reason enough to leave? Idk...hence this thread

Like I said, seriously doubt it's collusion. Is supreme stupidity and dumb-assery enough to leave a league?

Then the real problem is the commissioner. If several owners disagree with a rule like that, it shouldn't have been implemented. Quit thinking about dumb trade refusal guy and start thinking about buddy commissioner.

The commissioner's role in this is what's making me consider it. Not the other dude. Sounds contradictory I know, but your input is most definitely helpful.

[Bad News Barrett]

Sounds like some pretty stupid rules. In my league, we are all friends and trade offers come in all shapes, sizes and methods. Once a trade is verbally agreed upon, it is usually a done deal. One time, someone backed out of an agreed upon deal. It was extremely frustrating as it happened to me. So I will sympathize with the guy saying he didn't want to back out of a deal, as nothing is more frustrating. Nonetheless, I ended up making a better deal for the same pieces, so it worked out pretty well, but I am sure you get my point

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

It sounds like this "pending period" rule is the issue. I would approach the commish and ask for a vote on it.

[Balzac]

Other than trying to change the rule I would explain to the Hopkins owner how much more valuable Hopkins is, and to come to you next time he wants to make a stupid deal.

[Dingram]

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

Unless the league bylaws say you HAVE to take better offers, there's nothing wrong here. It's 4 spots people. Maybe it's 20% he doesn't like to back out of accepted trades, and 40% he doesn't want to help the champ, and 40% dumb.

It doesn't make it collusion.

I don't understand your stance here. If it's not collusion, its def shady. First off, let me start off by saying I'm not a fan of your rule. That being said, what's the point of it if this owner is not going to accept a CLEARLY better offer? Why wouldn't he? He's not backing out of his word IMO, he took the better offer. I Think I'd leave the league

[Tsunami]

This is clear evidence of collusion, I would send an email to the other owners letting them know what you offered (they can draw their own conclusions) and then quit.

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

Unless the league bylaws say you HAVE to take better offers, there's nothing wrong here. It's 4 spots people. Maybe it's 20% he doesn't like to back out of accepted trades, and 40% he doesn't want to help the champ, and 40% dumb.

It doesn't make it collusion.

"Doesn't want to help out the champ" is collusion.

[Phaded]

"Doesn't want to help out the champ" is collusion.

No it is not.

Think of it this way - if you're in a fantasy league with 4 divisions for example. The team in your division offers you a better pick; but someone else outside your division sends you an offer that is "slightly less valuable" (as is this case) - I couldn't fault someone for wanting to send him to the team outside the division.

So because you didn't accept the best trade in a "black and white" scenario, that is collusion?

No. Trades are not "black and white".

Just because the champ offered him a late 1st, it doesn't mean he has to take it over the early 2nd.

[vtguy88]

"Doesn't want to help out the champ" is collusion.

No it is not.

Think of it this way - if you're in a fantasy league with 4 divisions for example. The team in your division offers you a better pick; but someone else outside your division sends you an offer that is "slightly less valuable" (as is this case) - I couldn't fault someone for wanting to send him to the team outside the division.

So because you didn't accept the best trade in a "black and white" scenario, that is collusion?

No. Trades are not "black and white".

Just because the champ offered him a late 1st, it doesn't mean he has to take it over the early 2nd.

Understandable. Unfortunately, in this situation, the guy he's getting the 2nd from IS in his division...and I'm the one outside the division.
Also, the commissioner's team is also very good. If it hadn't been for Aaron Rodgers in the quarterfinals, he would have been our champion instead of me.

[clarion contrarion]

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

the I don't want to back out of the commitment should be the 99% of the reason and the other 1% should be the insanity of joining a league that allows poached trades .......that is insane and pathetic .
do teams get to approve your starting lineup every week and also your waiver bids

[clarion contrarion]

^^^ should be implementing a rule . not joining a league ... my bad .....I owe you a beer & a firehouse pizza buddy should have read both pages of thread instead of getting mad about that stupid rule and posting to quickly.

[bigchiefbc]

This is clear evidence of collusion, I would send an email to the other owners letting them know what you offered (they can draw their own conclusions) and then quit.

I understand about 1% of the "don't want to back out of a commitment". If the league is designed to be able to have other owners "poach" trades then that's the way the league is constructed and that is the very framework of the league!

Unless the league bylaws say you HAVE to take better offers, there's nothing wrong here. It's 4 spots people. Maybe it's 20% he doesn't like to back out of accepted trades, and 40% he doesn't want to help the champ, and 40% dumb.

It doesn't make it collusion.

"Doesn't want to help out the champ" is collusion.

Completely disagree with this. I always consider who I am going to be making the deal with. If it is a dangerous team and this piece might put him over the top, I very well might not make the deal, even if it is tilted in my favor.

[thebeast]

If it's a money league and you're the reigning champ and have a chance to win again then I would get over it, but I'd bring up the situation to the whole league to see if you can start a dialogue. If it's a just for fun league then it doesn't sound like it's worth the annoyance.

[slaughterrt]

Do the bylaws state that teams must accept better offers during that period? Or do they just get the chance to receive other offers?