Jump to content

What to do if you trade for a player right before he goes to IR?


RamRod

Recommended Posts

This wasn't me but I saw someone bring this up on reddit.

The guy said he traded Devonta Freeman for TJ Yeldon prior to Freeman going on IR. Once Freeman later went to IR the league vetoed the trade and the guy felt that it was wrong.

I said that vetoing the trade was right move because it wasn't fair for the Yeldon owner who didn't know Freeman was about to go on IR. I was actually surprised that the majority of people disagreed with me and comment has been downvoted quite a number of times. So I just wanted to see what everybody else thinks is the right thing to do in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

was it the same day or last week. If trade made same day, that is snake move...if it was made a few days back its on the owner for not keeping up on that Freeman was banged up

It was yesterday. Same day Freeman got put on IR. The owner probably knew he was banged up so he tried to get him on the cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Vetoing trades in general should be outlawed 

It's fine as long as it needs to be like 7/10 or something because that literally means everyone needs to veto (2 of the 10 made the trade)  

It has to be allowed in leagues with clueless commissioners because there have been times where teams make lopsided trades on purpose to try and split winnings later. 

What say you @the lone star

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s how I view it. If it’s my job to determine whether to veto or not veto...I ask myself if the trade is fair. I don’t care if it was a fair a week ago, I care about whether it’s a fair trade at the time I review the trade. If the trade is unfair, I veto the trade. Whether there was an injury or not is irrelevant in my mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually in agreement with you, OP, and I responded similarly in that same thread on Reddit.  

If I'm Commish, and that trade has been accepted, but has not been put through yet, I will veto it if the owner getting the injured player wants me to, as it's not really fair for a guy to accept a trade, and then something fluky happens right afterward, and he's stuck with the injury.  I mean, I can see why some people say that's the way to go, but I don't agree, and I will always manage my leagues with a user friendly, and common sense hand.  The two owners agreed to the trade with a certain value, and truth about the players involved in mind.  If that changes before the trade is completed, it is only reasonable to void the trade, since the rationale for it existing is no longer there.  

However, if the trade has been accepted on a Tuesday, put through on a Wednesday, and the player gets hurt later that day, it's a done deal, and I will appeal for kindness on behalf of the owner getting the shaft, to the other owner.  But I will leave it up to him, whether the trade is reversed.  Obviously, once play has started for the week (Sunday), it's a done deal.  \

One thing I am also adamantly opposed to, is the owner who is sitting on a trade, either thinking a long time about it, or just being a jerk, and ignoring it because he doesn't want it, who then quickly accepts an offer involving a player where there is breaking news about his status changing dramatically, before the other owner can retract it.  I think that's an absolutely bush league move, and not only will it be vetoed, I will admonish the owner that did it.  That's not the kind of behavior, or owner, I really want in my leagues anyway...  

Oh, and clearly, I'm not in the "Never Veto" camp!  lol  I think that's an absurd notion, especially in a world where fishy trades are rampant, and predatory owners (those who find the idiots and prey) are all over the place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheDILinator said:

I'm actually in agreement with you, OP, and I responded similarly in that same thread on Reddit.  

If I'm Commish, and that trade has been accepted, but has not been put through yet, I will veto it if the owner getting the injured player wants me to, as it's not really fair for a guy to accept a trade, and then something fluky happens right afterward, and he's stuck with the injury.  I mean, I can see why some people say that's the way to go, but I don't agree, and I will always manage my leagues with a user friendly, and common sense hand.  The two owners agreed to the trade with a certain value, and truth about the players involved in mind.  If that changes before the trade is completed, it is only reasonable to void the trade, since the rationale for it existing is no longer there.  

However, if the trade has been accepted on a Tuesday, put through on a Wednesday, and the player gets hurt later that day, it's a done deal, and I will appeal for kindness on behalf of the owner getting the shaft, to the other owner.  But I will leave it up to him, whether the trade is reversed.  Obviously, once play has started for the week (Sunday), it's a done deal.  \

One thing I am also adamantly opposed to, is the owner who is sitting on a trade, either thinking a long time about it, or just being a jerk, and ignoring it because he doesn't want it, who then quickly accepts an offer involving a player where there is breaking news about his status changing dramatically, before the other owner can retract it.  I think that's an absolutely bush league move, and not only will it be vetoed, I will admonish the owner that did it.  That's not the kind of behavior, or owner, I really want in my leagues anyway...  

Oh, and clearly, I'm not in the "Never Veto" camp!  lol  I think that's an absurd notion, especially in a world where fishy trades are rampant, and predatory owners (those who find the idiots and prey) are all over the place.  

Lol. Too true. I hate owners that slow play trades something catastrophic happens to put the trade in their favor. 

I remember in my younger (and slightly less mature) days...in 2002 I traded Ricky Williams for Deuce McAllister. Little did my opponent know they weren’t getting Dolphins, league leading rusher, Ricky Williams...he was getting the gently used Colts backup, Ricky Williams. The trade got vetoed as expected but both sides got a kick out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had an offer in my league a couple weeks ago. It was Keenan Allen & Crowell for Lynch & Antonio Callaway. The guy giving up Allen proposed the trade on a Friday, the other team let it sit there until Monday & accepted it. Now this was the week Crowell had 30 points and Allen had 18 (PpR). Lynch had 18 himself but Callaway 5. 

 

The trade ended up getting vetoed because the guy ended up texting his friends to veto it for him. I just think that some BS & shouldn’t have been like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...