Monopoly Progressive: Supplemental Draft Topic

tarheel1991
Posts: 4490 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 298 9 1 42 189 1 1
Pro
I think you're assuming a nefarious motive when there isn't one, gumbercules. he sent out multiple offers at once, it's not like he kept negotiating. And the rules are very clear on how an offer is made final. If I were an owner working off of those rules, and was then informed that I make an offer irrevocable after sending a sitemail, would it really be fair to bind me to a trade when it seems the only action the other owner took was to sitemail the commish personally, instead of following the protocol laid out in the league rules? No one is trying to "screw" anyone else here, there is just some misunderstanding about the rules.     

11/26/2010 4:40 PM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect
Posted by abfball60 on 11/26/2010 2:33:00 PM (view original):
I only offered the above deal to magracefan and never confirmed it. In fact, it still isn't even an eligible offer until AFTER Bernie makes a pick as it was conditional on my player being available.

By your logic, as soon as owner 1 sends an offer to owner 2, that serves as confirmation. This is not, nor has it ever been, the way trades are executed in WIS. It was merely an offer, not a binding agreement. The deal is never official until BOTH parties confirm on a trade thread.
abf admits right here that an offer was made.  Notice he did not say "I was negotiating"; he used the word "offer".  What else am I to interpret that to mean? 
11/26/2010 4:43 PM
crazyjoe02
Posts: 8347 (0)
Hall of Famer
362 4 22 64 48
Pro
Posted by gumbercules on 11/26/2010 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Why do both teams have to confirm?  So that people can't just make crap up.  I could post tomorrow, "Crazyjoe02 trades me Cy Young, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig for Yoyo Bumchuck, One-Eyed Willie, Pegleg Pete and Mother Teresa".  If I can't offer proof of a deal being accepted, then it shouldn't go through.  I have proof that a deal was agreed to by both parties.  Again, you're looking at the letter of the rule rather than the reason for it and the spirit of the rule. 
Yes, that is exactly why the trade needs to be confirmed by both parties in a public forum. Sitemails are private and technically they could be forged by an incredibly unscrupulous owner (not saying that is what happened here.) I am definitely looking at the specific letter of the rule, because that's all we have to go by. Like I said, I've been burned by this in the past and I may chose never to try to deal with an owner in the future because of this, but if the rules say a trade isn't final until posted and confirmed by both parties in the trade thread. That hasn't happened so no trade yet.

Here is an article about almost this same exact situation in the M's trade of Cliff Lee to the Rangers. The Yankees thought they had a deal, but the M's backed out and he ended up in Texas. Nothing the Yanks could do but to have hesitation in dealing with the M's in the future.
11/26/2010 4:46 PM
tarheel1991
Posts: 4490 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 298 9 1 42 189 1 1
Pro
i haven't played many baseball progressives, but in the one I was in and in all the basketball progressives i'm in the way a trade is made official is to be 1) posted in the thread and 2) confirmed by the other owner. It's very clear that our league was founded with intent to follow that same rule. If operating under that principal I would be very surprised to find out that a trade had been made official without my knowledge by the other owner sitemailing the commissioner and not posting in the trade thread. I see no evidence of anyone trying to back out of anything.


I would also like to note that this could make negotiating with multiple owners at the same time very difficult, if a trade can be accepted in that manner. Should I have to write in every trade proposal I send "NOTE: this is not official until I confirm myself, it is not a final offer" if I want to make sure I can keep multiple options open?
11/26/2010 4:47 PM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect

1.  abf sent me an identical copy of the sitemail as the one magracefan sent me. 
2.  By that logic, when a trade is submitted to the commisioner and approved, it's not official.  It needs to be announced publicly.  ESPN would absolutely love this.

11/26/2010 4:47 PM
abfball60
Posts: 981 (0)
Hall of Famer
175 4 1 2 2
Prospect
I didn't take back any deal and this isn't a technicality. I was simply trying to kickstart the negotiation process with a few owners at the same time, knowing that everyone, me included, would have limited internet access over the holiday weekend.

Crazyjoe is exactly right - if this were to be proposed in the middle of the season through the trade feature, it is absolutely a deal that cannot be taken back. No tickets. No whining. But when I send a SM asking "would you take this offer if player x is still there when your pick is up" that doesn't commit me in anyway to a deal. These types of sm's are sent all the time.
11/26/2010 4:48 PM
tarheel1991
Posts: 4490 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 298 9 1 42 189 1 1
Pro
Posted by gumbercules on 11/26/2010 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by abfball60 on 11/26/2010 2:33:00 PM (view original):
I only offered the above deal to magracefan and never confirmed it. In fact, it still isn't even an eligible offer until AFTER Bernie makes a pick as it was conditional on my player being available.

By your logic, as soon as owner 1 sends an offer to owner 2, that serves as confirmation. This is not, nor has it ever been, the way trades are executed in WIS. It was merely an offer, not a binding agreement. The deal is never official until BOTH parties confirm on a trade thread.
abf admits right here that an offer was made.  Notice he did not say "I was negotiating"; he used the word "offer".  What else am I to interpret that to mean? 
I don't see why there is interpretation to be done - the rules are clear and unambiguous. All owners - just as during the auction - are responsible for having read and knowing the rules. I am sorry magracefan was not aware of how trades would work in the league, but it is right there in plain sight in the league rules and is in no way unclear.
11/26/2010 4:49 PM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect
There is no misunderstanding here.  This is simply a fundamental disagreement.  I argue that offering a trade is confirmation of a deal, on the basis that you wouldn't offer a deal if you didn't want it to be accepted.  You guys are arguing that it's not. 
11/26/2010 4:49 PM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect
Posted by tarheel1991 on 11/26/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
I think you're assuming a nefarious motive when there isn't one, gumbercules. he sent out multiple offers at once, it's not like he kept negotiating. And the rules are very clear on how an offer is made final. If I were an owner working off of those rules, and was then informed that I make an offer irrevocable after sending a sitemail, would it really be fair to bind me to a trade when it seems the only action the other owner took was to sitemail the commish personally, instead of following the protocol laid out in the league rules? No one is trying to "screw" anyone else here, there is just some misunderstanding about the rules.     

I dare you to argue that abfball60 wouldn't have confirmed the trade if beirnej1 hadn't come back to him with the better offer.
11/26/2010 4:51 PM
tarheel1991
Posts: 4490 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 298 9 1 42 189 1 1
Pro
Posted by gumbercules on 11/26/2010 4:49:00 PM (view original):
There is no misunderstanding here.  This is simply a fundamental disagreement.  I argue that offering a trade is confirmation of a deal, on the basis that you wouldn't offer a deal if you didn't want it to be accepted.  You guys are arguing that it's not. 
except that it is clear whose side the official league rules are on. I appreciate your position, and understand why you feel that way. But this is not a matter of interpretation - it is a matter of enforcing an extremely clear league rule. If there was a problem with that rule on trades it should have been brought up beforehand.     
11/26/2010 4:51 PM
tarheel1991
Posts: 4490 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 298 9 1 42 189 1 1
Pro
Posted by gumbercules on 11/26/2010 4:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarheel1991 on 11/26/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
I think you're assuming a nefarious motive when there isn't one, gumbercules. he sent out multiple offers at once, it's not like he kept negotiating. And the rules are very clear on how an offer is made final. If I were an owner working off of those rules, and was then informed that I make an offer irrevocable after sending a sitemail, would it really be fair to bind me to a trade when it seems the only action the other owner took was to sitemail the commish personally, instead of following the protocol laid out in the league rules? No one is trying to "screw" anyone else here, there is just some misunderstanding about the rules.     

I dare you to argue that abfball60 wouldn't have confirmed the trade if beirnej1 hadn't come back to him with the better offer.
If you believe afball - and there is no reason not to at this point - he proposed the same deal to several owners at once. Beirnej did not "come back" to him with an offer - he agreed to the same offer magracefan did.
11/26/2010 4:54 PM
crazyjoe02
Posts: 8347 (0)
Hall of Famer
362 4 22 64 48
Pro

Yep, and the deal is not final until both sides confirm in the trade thread. It says so specifically in the rules that were posted.

 "Offseason trades must be posted in the trade forum and confirmed by both parties in order to be valid."

Nothing to argue there. If magracefan feels that abf acted dishonestly and wishes to refuse to negotiate with him the the future he is well within his rights to do so, but there isn't anything that can be done to force the trade to be had with him rather than beirnej1. As the rules are stated, the trade between abf and beirnej1 isn't even valid yet because abf only posted his end of the offer, beirnej1 hasn't accepted it.
 

11/26/2010 5:00 PM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect
Maybe "come back to" wasn't the term I was looking for.  I meant "agreed to".  The beirnej1 pick is #9, and the magracefan pick was #10. 

This is frustrating only because I feel less and less like I have a leg to stand on argumentatively but still feel in my heart that this isn't right.
11/26/2010 5:01 PM
teal_leo
Posts: 291 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Rookie
I'm with the mob on this one. The posting and confirming of trades in the trade thread is a well-established practice on WIS for handling off-season trade activity. It takes out the commishioner as a middle-man and keeps everything in the open for all to see. We've all been short-shrifted from time to time on this site.

abfball60 made several offers. beirnej5 had the most valuable item on the other end, (highest draft pick). abfball60 told me he was only going for one man anyway. If Palmeiro was taken off the board before magracefan's pick, the offer would still have been taken off the table.

For the record, abfball60 did make me the same offer:

From:
abfball60
To:
teal_leo
Received:
11/25/2010 5:17:00 PM
Subject:
Supplemental draft offer
Message:
I'm interested in your pick provided the guy I want is still available.

Would you take SP - Gil Meche, $3M, and my 1st round pick to move down 6 spots in the draft?

AB
11/26/2010 5:04 PM
crazyjoe02
Posts: 8347 (0)
Hall of Famer
362 4 22 64 48
Pro
Posted by gumbercules on 11/26/2010 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Maybe "come back to" wasn't the term I was looking for.  I meant "agreed to".  The beirnej1 pick is #9, and the magracefan pick was #10. 

This is frustrating only because I feel less and less like I have a leg to stand on argumentatively but still feel in my heart that this isn't right.
This is true, and that's the difference between a trade being officially agreed to and just being discussed. Parties involved might feel that they were wronged and refuse to deal with each other in the future (much like I think the Yankees feel in the Cliff Lee deal) but legally there is nothing that can be done. The Yankees weren't able to petition to the commissioners office saying that we had a deal agreed to and Cliff Lee should be removed from the Rangers and awarded to us, but they can chose not to negotiate with the M's in the future.

11/26/2010 5:05 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...8 Next ▸
Monopoly Progressive: Supplemental Draft Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.