This happened to me tonight, but in order to not offend anyone I am for the time being going to keep names out of this... Here is the scenario, I welcome opinions.
Team A PM's Team B and offers a deal to Team B
Team B PM's Team A with the following reply: "send a copy to eric at the league email NOW, i need him to tell me you confirmed the deal to get the cap room right away, nice doing business with you"
Team A is away from the computer and doesn't e-mail the league the deal for about 5.5 hours.
Team B trades the player(s)/pick(s)/cash in question to another team before Team A can submit his end of the deal.
So essentially we have an agreed upon deal between two teams, with clear confirmation from one GM to the other, but no confirmation with the league.
The issue is that although this may be an unethical manouver by Team B, many would argue it is not against the rules because there was no confirmation with the league.
What do you think of this: a) Team A quit wining, if there is no confirmation with the league there is no deal b) Team B should be held to the initial offer because it was confirmed by both GM's, and Team B should be fined c) Other
First off, no one can be held to an initial offer unless it's sent by both- it may break etiquette, but that's the way it works.
I would say once you agree to send in a deal you should do it. Which is different than making an offer and then taking it back.
Another thing I find as poor Etiquette is sending in trades before both parties say "Send it in".
I think it's very poor taste if Team B agreed to send it in, and then traded players in the deal before Team A responded. Very distasteful in my opinion, but unfortunately nothing you can do.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
I think if a team offers you a deal and you respond accepting, that is an agreement. It is unprofessional to then trade away players that you have offered to someone in a PM before they allow a few hours to respond.
Granted if you offer something, and they dont confirm until 2 hours later- I would say the team offering can trade away the players they offered, but once the team acknowledges an acceptance I agree.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
FYI, in this particular case, all parties discussed this amongst themselves and came to an agreement... this may not always be the case though, and thus my reason for posting this.
Team B PM's Team A with the following reply: "send a copy to eric at the league email NOW, i need him to tell me you confirmed the deal to get the cap room right away, nice doing business with you"
Team A is away from the computer and doesn't e-mail the league the deal for about 5.5 hours.
Team B trades the player(s)/pick(s)/cash in question to another team before Team A can submit his end of the deal.
So essentially we have an agreed upon deal between two teams, with clear confirmation from one GM to the other, but no confirmation with the league.
So one g.m. wants to do a deal but the other g.m. isn't around to say "deal"? Well, it's not like they agreed, each saying "deal" "deal", doing the digital handshake.
Instead it sounds like one g.m. said "okay i like the offer let's do a deal and extends his hand to shake on it.... and the other g.m. isn't around to shake on it, to say 'deal, let's each send it in.'
it takes two to make a handshake.
an offer at one time may or may not be still valid later, as many times in this league and others g.m.s have told me they don't want to confirm an offer they made that i wanted to jump on and confirm.
proper process in a simple case (not in cases of conditional offers):
1) A offers 2) B expresses an interest to make it a "deal" 3) A agrees and says 'deal' also, completing the handshake 4) A & B each submit a confirmation
sounds like in Phoenix's trade situation there was no 3) and no 4).
there should have been at least a 3 though often many g.m.s speed through to 4, which as sabres-luke says is poor etiquette to submit as a deal what was not each agreed on as a deal
no one is held bound to offers made hours or days earlier... even a matter of minutes when deadlines and urgency is expressed ("right away" and "NOW" in caps)... so a desire to accept an offer is equally nonbinding until AT THE VERY LEAST each side says "deal" "deal".
without 3) one g.m. ends up submitting their acceptance of an offer, thinking it's a done deal, when in fact they should wait for 3), for the offerer to say okay, "deal"
this is doubly important when multiple negotiations are happening: g.m.s make an offer and an hour later doesnt want to do it because an offer they also extended elsewhere has been accepted
in a perfect world we would negotiate with ONE TEAM at a time
but that doesnt always happen and getting 3) ensures that a handshake has been reached before each side submits confirmation to the league
Actually Jay, if you sent me an email saying "Sure, that is a deal, send it right away." That implies deal regardless of the time frame of 5 hours that it takes me to make a deal.
The right thing to do is to tell the other GMs, that you have the players involved in the deal tied up, but if it falls through, you will make a new agreement.
If it was a couple days...I could see it, but a few hours after you have "Agreed in principle." to a deal, is poor form to reneg on an agreed transaction.
If something like that is a continual problem with a GM, the any league should take action. Agreeing to a deal verbally and trading the principals before the confirmations being sent is bad ettiquette and a "Oops, sorry, my bad." and "It won't ever happen again." is what I would do if I made that mistake.
ahaha i had this happen at least 3 times this offseason :) once last season and then one time in the original brhl entry draft aswell.. what im saying phoenix is get used to it :)
