Trade Review, Commissioners and Bylaws

[Jonah Parker]

Gentlemen,

I have a couple things to get through here and apologize in advance for the length. I understand this is super long for this format and I’ll email it as well, but wanted to make sure you got the ping notification on your phones rather than just having it go by unnoticed.

It was brought to my attention by a league member last night that there could be a perception of impropriety surrounding my trade with the Sticky Bandits last week and subsequent acquisition of Alexander Mattison via the waiver FAAB process.

The trade involved no players and thus there was no league email or app alert that went out when it was accepted and the only record of it happening is in the league message board. I processed the trade just before midnight that night, which was less than 24 hrs from the time stamp on the message board. 

The standard league review period for trades is 1 day. Because this did not have a formal notification it did not have a full day review from the time of public notification, much budget trades which have processed during league drafts in the past. Furthermore, because the budget agreement was never acknowledged by both parties, it violates subsection b1 of Article VI of our bylaws, as have all trades involving budget that have processed this year. According to that same subsection, the trade is to be reversed by the league commissioners.

However, doing so would now benefit me given that I ultimately lost despite picking up Mattison and have no real benefit from continuing to hold him. Additionally, reversing prior trades that have violated this rule seems illogical given the effort involved and number of prior matchups impacted.

So, the first thing is that I am soliciting feedback on how to proceed. Options as I see them:

1. Move forward with everything as is.
2. Reverse the trade, award Mattison to the next highest bidder (Franklin’s Finest) and adjust lineups for last week accordingly (neither matchup would be impacted in terms of who won).
3. Leave the trade intact but reverse the timing of when it took place such that Mattison is awarded to the next highest bidder (same notes apply as in #2).

What do you all think should occur here?

Beyond this specific instance, the same league member informed me that this is not the first time where there has been a perceived impropriety. While I’ve previously heard feedback that there is too much discussion and bureaucracy for a fantasy football league, it seems as if the opposite view is being conveyed elsewhere; that I am too controlling as a commissioner steering rules and decisions to my views and advantages.

This is precisely why the bureaucracy was built in. No league should have any appearance, based in fact or otherwise, of impropriety by the people with authority. For that reason I will be stepping down as a co-commissioner of the league effective immediately. The remaining four co-commissioners can replace me with someone of their choosing. I believe there would need to be a rule change approved by the league to change the total number of commissioners. I’m happy to continue contributing to the league by helping to maintain pricing sheets or league documents as the commissioners see fit, but all league documents are openly available to all league members is it currently stands.

Additionally, given the most recent trade issues, I would like to propose a few rule changes:

1. I propose all in-season trades be required to include a player to ensure they process through the league site and avoid the potential for early processing.
2. I propose formalizing a rule to allow for budget-only trades without a 1 day review period so that draft-day trades do not by definition violate the rules.
3. I propose that all prior references to posting to the message board for budget trade notifications be replaced by requirements to post to the Discord channel so league members receive notification.

Apologies again for the length. Happy to discuss further as needed.

-Jonah