Discussions on what is a deal and isn't a deal.

Panthers · Senior Member

Discussions on what is a deal and isn't a deal.

VancouverGM · Senior Member

A deal is not a deal untill both parties confirm it through emails with the commish attached on both emails with both gm's confirming it. If a gm backs out on you at the last second then just dont deal with him anymore. It would be nice to penalize these teams but you cant do it. Like everyone has said its he said she said.

Hawks_G · Guru

Panthers wrote:

I think this is a situation where the penalty needs to be done by the GMs and not the league. You get a reputation for backing out of deals, people stop dealing with you. People stop dealing with you, and can no longer be an effective GM.

I agree in principle. The truth of the matter is unless you have all the GMs buying in, it would be ineffective.

There is also a converse problem. We also do not want GMs calling guys on what are not firmly agreed upon deals. It is also a possibility as well.

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here.

I'm looking into a few league issues involving the matter, discussing them with the involved teams. So excuse me for being a little short.

The league's stance on the issue is one based on accepting confirming e-mails from both teams. However, we do not and have not allowed teams to use it as an excuse without punishment.

capsgm · Senior Member

Sens wrote:

I think once you've said "deal send it in and CC me" it's a deal, and if a GM backs out of that it is incredibly classless and I think in the long run will hurt you with other GM's around the league.

I know in the future IF I'm talking trade with a GM that has done this to another GM I will think twice about completing a deal with him since I won't know when he is serious about trading with me or if he has something he likes better on the back burner and will back out at the last second.

I agree 110% with this statement.

PhoenixGM · Guru

*Deep Breath, focus on avoiding specifics... *

Ok, my feeling on the matter is that we need to establish a line. It appears right now that GM's have different interpretations on what constitutes an agreement on a trade. Currently the only enforcable "line" is that once the league gets e-mail confirmation from both GM's a deal is done. This is generally the case in every league I have ever been in, but the difference between those leagues and this one is that there seems to be a lack of respect for one another in this league that far surpasses anything I've ever seen. That said, I'm not certain what the solution is.

It seems to be a general consensus that once a guy says to e-mail in a trade he has committed himself. Once the 2nd guy agrees to e-mail the league he also has committed himself. In most leagues this is enforced through common courtesy, but as we can see, this appears to be falling apart in the BRHL2 and something must be done.

The problem with not enforcing this is that GM 1 could be told by GM 2 to e-mail in the trade, GM 2 will then submit the trade and if GM 1 changes his mind, GM 2 is left hanging... possibly missing on other trades or even going over the salary cap while GM is off trading elsewhere or whatever.

My suggestion is that we establish a standard that once you say the words "e-mail it in" you are 100% committed. So... if:

GM A says to GM B "I'll give you Player X for Player Y, e-mail it in."
GM A is committed now, GM B will be committed once he responds to say he's submitting the deal.

So the question then arises... how to enforce...?

I think supporting documentation such as MSN/ICQ conversation history files would be acceptable. As for e-mail, I suggest keeping any e-mails that say "send it in" etc. on record as proof if needed. Same with message board PM's.

So if someone has acceptable documentation proving that another GM has backed out after saying to "send it in", then the offending GM should be punished.

As for punishment... monetary fine's are best I think...

Ok, those are my thoughts...

Steve

Sabres_Luke · Guru

Problem is- I can make anyone on icq or msn say anything..

The only viable option is a screen shot.

PhoenixGM · Guru

Screen shot or the actual files containing the conversation history.

Philippe27 · Guru

A deal is only official once both parties have sent it in.
Like someone else said, I think it's classless to say deal and then back out or make an offer and say I'm not so sure anymore after the other guy agrees. Nothing anyone can do about that though, all you do is lose respect from other GM's in the long run.

Hawks_G · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

A deal is only official once both parties have sent it in.
Like someone else said, I think it's classless to say deal and then back out or make an offer and say I'm not so sure anymore after the other guy agrees. Nothing anyone can do about that though, all you do is lose respect from other GM's in the long run.

We can agree to disagree. Apparently this is four or five times this has happened in a short time.(Several GMs have agreed to deals just to pull the rug out after agreeing.) I don't have a clear solution, but there has to be some deterent put in place to stop GMs from a reneg.

-- Edited by Hawks_G at 00:55, 2007-09-26

OilersBrent · Senior Member

Hawks_G wrote:

Before this gets shut down by the Moderator, bear with me here....I see the issue that exists between Colorado and Atlanta. That isn't what I want to debate here.

Now guys, before posting here is the way this thread has to go.

1. Do not mention any other team names.
2. Don't call anyone down or berate anyone.
3. Discuss the principles, not the people.

So here is the goal of this discussion. What are the answers to these four questions?

What is a deal and not a deal?

Should there be a penalty for a GM agreeing to a deal and changing his mind after he says "Deal."?

Since we have seen this happen several times, if we don't administer some policy on this issue, will it become epidemic?

We all agree that it is bad form, but do we do nothing because most of the time it turns into "He said, she said."?

If we keep the discussion intelligent and positive and solution oriented, then it will be a good discussion. (And the mod might leave it alone ?)

A deal is when both sides have agreed to the transaction.

There should be a penalty but nothing major. A fine would be the max i would go. By being classless and unprofessional you have damaged your relationship with GMs in the league and gained a bad rep.

I don't think it will be epidemic. For the most part, if you are a honest dealer, that's not going to change by what a few people are doing.

We do nothing because there is nothing in the rules to act on, as of yet. If, and when the rule is put in place, I can see if being hard to monitor because there is no proof other than ones word.

What I've noticed is that there are GMs in this league that are out there just to trade for the fun of it. That's fine, you pay your money, you are free to do what you like. But what isn't fair is the following: Team X (trades for fun) and Team Y (trades out of neccessity) make a agreement but before both teams are able to send it to the league, team X has dealt players. Both teams should have 24 hours to send in an email or reply to one confirming the deal before it falls off the table. If by chance a team backs out or doesn't reply on purpose within 24 hours, then there should be msn/icq history passed on to the league and go from there.

-- Edited by OilersBrent at 14:13, 2007-09-26

-- Edited by OilersBrent at 14:15, 2007-09-26

HOTLANTA · Guru

it happened to me a few times earlier in the summer and i posted asking why was this allowed.. (i had agreed to a couple deals at last minute before leaving on a friday i get back on the monday and find out the deals no longer exist and even though the other team had sent confirmation, I hadnt as i left in a hurry after making the deals. when going to send them in i was told that the deals were no longer valid.)

i raised this issue way way back then jw why it wasnt looked at more seriously then and not now after a bunch of them happened in a short time frame????

Hawks_G · Guru

HOTLANTA wrote:

it happened to me a few times earlier in the summer and i posted asking why was this allowed.. (i had agreed to a couple deals at last minute before leaving on a friday i get back on the monday and find out the deals no longer exist and even though the other team had sent confirmation, I hadnt as i left in a hurry after making the deals. when going to send them in i was told that the deals were no longer valid.)

i raised this issue way way back then jw why it wasnt looked at more seriously then and not now after a bunch of them happened in a short time frame????

In your defense Kirk, the only reason that it is a big issue now is because this was blatant and admitted to. I know of one other time that it happened...and you weren't involved. I want to be part of the addressing of it because it seems to be happening more and more.

I didn't know that it happened to you....if I did, the same questions would have come up.

Sabres · Guru

My opinion on the topic:

A deal is a deal when both parties have sent it to the league. Thats where the line should be. Though it is pretty classless to say you are sending it in and then not actually do it. So in theory, the unwritten rule on this would be once you SAY you're sending it in is where the line should be in my opinion.

Hawks GM 2 · Senior Member

I'm one of those firmly on the side of when a GM says "deal... send it in" that it's a deal.

How many times does this happen:

You just complete negotiations on a deal and whether on IRC or MSN or ICQ or whatever, you chat with another GM about the deal you just made and that other GM goes "wow... I would have given you more for [insert player name here]".

Well you haven't confirmed the deal yet... what's to stop you from negotiation a "better" deal with that other GM? According to the rules... nothing because both parties haven't confirmed. But is it right?

I say no. A deal is a deal. Suck it up and live with it.

My $0.02.