What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TLDR: Should A Leaving Owner Still Be Allowed To Make Trades In DynastyFF? (1 Viewer)

Should A Leaving Owner Still Be Allowed To Make Trades In DynastyFF?

  • No. Not at all since he is leaving.

    Votes: 47 44.8%

  • Yes, but only if the trade appears to be for fair-market value.

    Votes: 15 14.3%

  • Yes, but put his trades up to a league-wide vote.

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Yes, but just have the commissioner review the trades he makes.

    Votes: 14 13.3%

  • Yes. Let him trade freely.

    Votes: 27 25.7%
  • Total voters
    105
T

the lone star

Footballguy
Decided to make a TLDR version of this.

If an owner has announced that he will be leaving at the end of the year in a dynasty fantasy football league, should he still be allowed to make trades? Assume that he has been able to make trades all year long, and that other people who did not announce their plans to leave have also been able to make trades in their last season.

Also assume that the commissioner plays in the league and has a competitive team of his own.

 
Much better!

Yes, let him trade freely, and this, of course, assumes no shenanigans or collusion with other owners.

 
Gotta be some similar posts to research   Personally I would say the trading of future picks is out the window   May want to post the trades in the forum for feedback  I also believe he should be able to trade though  I mean if his team can't compete and he has a player or two on their last leg but still worth starting and is offered say one of the Rookies?  None too thrilled to consider win now trades though  Should be trades that make his team stronger now but conceivably next Season

Any chance you can find his replacement so they can Co-Captain the team?

 
This season is still this season, and they paid their money and should be able to improve their team as they see fit to try to win. As commish I’d keep an eye out that he’s not just dumping his talent to his buddy, but if he wants to trade mixon or an injured obj for guys that help go for the championship he should have that right. Be thankful he is making his plans known so you can find a new owner, not wait until the night before the rookie draft to bounce. Even future picks should be on the table imo, because if he’s a buyer at the deadline and there are teams looking to the future he shouldn’t be at a disadvantage in negotiating.

 
Snorkelson said:
This season is still this season, and they paid their money and should be able to improve their team as they see fit to try to win. As commish I’d keep an eye out that he’s not just dumping his talent to his buddy, but if he wants to trade mixon or an injured obj for guys that help go for the championship he should have that right. Be thankful he is making his plans known so you can find a new owner, not wait until the night before the rookie draft to bounce. Even future picks should be on the table imo, because if he’s a buyer at the deadline and there are teams looking to the future he shouldn’t be at a disadvantage in negotiating.
Click to expand...
Disagree on the future picks.  my leagues require you to pay for the year before you trade picks from that year. In theory you could pay for 2019 even if you plan to leave, but at least the new owner would ride free that year instead of having picks. 

Otherwise I'd agree. Let the owner compete, but consider bringing in a new owner this year if it becomes obvious that the current owner has given up or just isn't around. 

 
-OZ- said:
Disagree on the future picks.  my leagues require you to pay for the year before you trade picks from that year. In theory you could pay for 2019 even if you plan to leave, but at least the new owner would ride free that year instead of having picks. 

Otherwise I'd agree. Let the owner compete, but consider bringing in a new owner this year if it becomes obvious that the current owner has given up or just isn't around. 
Click to expand...
Most leagues have that. Rules are still rules- he wants to shop future picks, he can make a deposit toward next year. If you don’t have any problem finding a new owner he can get it refunded. He should expect to be on the hook for that.  I agree with the sentiment, but I’m also assuming this is someone who is just being courteous to their leaguemates and letting them know ahead of time and isn’t demolishing his roster and being absent. Can’t fault him for making win now moves simply because he didn’t hide the fact that he’s leaving. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Most leagues have that. Rules are still rules- he wants to shop future picks, he can make a deposit toward next year. If you don’t have any problem finding a new owner he can get it refunded. He should expect to be on the hook for that.  I agree with the sentiment, but I’m also assuming this is someone who is just being courteous to their leaguemates and letting them know ahead of time and isn’t demolishing his roster and being absent. Can’t fault him for making win now moves simply because he didn’t hide the fact that he’s leaving. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Most of the time, owners who say they're leaving aren't paying for next year. If they do pay I'd treat them as if they aren't leaving. 

 
Arodin said:
Make sure when you draw conclusions from the votes, you account for the "yes" vote being split four ways while all the "no" votes are bundled into one bin.

-Statistics Nerd
Click to expand...
You can group the answers

Yes, freely

Yes, under supervision / with caveats

No

 
Snorkelson said:
Most leagues have that. Rules are still rules- he wants to shop future picks, he can make a deposit toward next year. If you don’t have any problem finding a new owner he can get it refunded. He should expect to be on the hook for that.  I agree with the sentiment, but I’m also assuming this is someone who is just being courteous to their leaguemates and letting them know ahead of time and isn’t demolishing his roster and being absent. Can’t fault him for making win now moves simply because he didn’t hide the fact that he’s leaving. 
Click to expand...
So what if the guy has already been eliminated from the playoffs? Should he still be able to make trades?

 
Dismattle said:
Gotta be some similar posts to research   Personally I would say the trading of future picks is out the window   May want to post the trades in the forum for feedback  I also believe he should be able to trade though  I mean if his team can't compete and he has a player or two on their last leg but still worth starting and is offered say one of the Rookies?  None too thrilled to consider win now trades though  Should be trades that make his team stronger now but conceivably next Season

Any chance you can find his replacement so they can Co-Captain the team?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's easier if the deal makes him stronger, but the deal could also make him more of a player in a deep draft, so that he can build a squad around a young team.

 
Snorkelson said:
This season is still this season, and they paid their money and should be able to improve their team as they see fit to try to win. As commish I’d keep an eye out that he’s not just dumping his talent to his buddy, but if he wants to trade mixon or an injured obj for guys that help go for the championship he should have that right. Be thankful he is making his plans known so you can find a new owner, not wait until the night before the rookie draft to bounce. Even future picks should be on the table imo, because if he’s a buyer at the deadline and there are teams looking to the future he shouldn’t be at a disadvantage in negotiating.
Click to expand...
Let's say he's a seller at the deadline though.

 
the lone star said:
Decided to make a TLDR version of this.

If an owner has announced that he will be leaving at the end of the year in a dynasty fantasy football league, should he still be allowed to make trades? Assume that he has been able to make trades all year long, and that other people who did not announce their plans to leave have also been able to make trades in their last season.

Also assume that the commissioner plays in the league and has a competitive team of his own.
Click to expand...
I would say depends on why he's leaving. Money reasons, personal reasons etc. If its something out of his control I say let him trade. My only issue is if he already announced he's leaving the league should find a suitable replacement. That way any moves made can be agreed to with the new owner. My league is a free league and we had an owner announce he was leaving at the end of the year. The new owner was in place do to a waiting list and confirmed he'd take over the team. We only allowed him to trade if it was consulted with the next owner and agreed too. Commissioner reviewed the trades and let them go through on a vote by league. 

 
DJackson10 said:
I would say depends on why he's leaving. Money reasons, personal reasons etc. If its something out of his control I say let him trade. My only issue is if he already announced he's leaving the league should find a suitable replacement. That way any moves made can be agreed to with the new owner. My league is a free league and we had an owner announce he was leaving at the end of the year. The new owner was in place do to a waiting list and confirmed he'd take over the team. We only allowed him to trade if it was consulted with the next owner and agreed too. Commissioner reviewed the trades and let them go through on a vote by league. 
Click to expand...
That's a good idea.

Well, I'd stop short of the part in bold though. That way it wouldn't involve a commissioner review, which can be biased because the commish is also playing in the league. Same reasoning applies to a league vote.

 
-OZ- said:
Disagree on the future picks.  my leagues require you to pay for the year before you trade picks from that year. In theory you could pay for 2019 even if you plan to leave, but at least the new owner would ride free that year instead of having picks. 

Otherwise I'd agree. Let the owner compete, but consider bringing in a new owner this year if it becomes obvious that the current owner has given up or just isn't around. 
Click to expand...
I think it is a good rule to require that owners pay the next season in advance to be able to trade away the next years rookie picks, because those picks are not going to have any effect on the current season, except as trade capital.

Most of the time people do not know if they are going to be in the league or not in the following season. You would hope that people playing dynasty are in it with the intent of playing out the league for a long time, but things change and obviously people have the right to change their mind. 

By having them pay the dues for the next season before trading the next seasons picks, it makes that owner think about the future and if they want to be running their team next season without the draft picks they are thinking to trade away. It somewhat dissuades owners from trying to win now by sacrificing the future.

For the same reasons I don't think it is a good idea to allow teams to trade picks further out than one season in advance. I know there are leagues which allow this and I bet it works out fine for them, but I have never played in one.

Maybe there shouldn't be any market forces making owners think twice about employing a win now strategy. It is their team and they should be able to do whatever they want. 

On the other hand you do not want abandoned teams without any talent to compete and no draft picks to try to fix that situation. That is what the rule is trying to prevent, deserted farm teams that need a long term rebuild to become competitive again. It is a lot to ask of a replacement owner to take a team with no talent and no draft picks.

 
Biabreakable said:
I think it is a good rule to require that owners pay the next season in advance to be able to trade away the next years rookie picks, because those picks are not going to have any effect on the current season, except as trade capital.

Most of the time people do not know if they are going to be in the league or not in the following season. You would hope that people playing dynasty are in it with the intent of playing out the league for a long time, but things change and obviously people have the right to change their mind. 

By having them pay the dues for the next season before trading the next seasons picks, it makes that owner think about the future and if they want to be running their team next season without the draft picks they are thinking to trade away. It somewhat dissuades owners from trying to win now by sacrificing the future.

For the same reasons I don't think it is a good idea to allow teams to trade picks further out than one season in advance. I know there are leagues which allow this and I bet it works out fine for them, but I have never played in one.

Maybe there shouldn't be any market forces making owners think twice about employing a win now strategy. It is their team and they should be able to do whatever they want. 

On the other hand you do not want abandoned teams without any talent to compete and no draft picks to try to fix that situation. That is what the rule is trying to prevent, deserted farm teams that need a long term rebuild to become competitive again. It is a lot to ask of a replacement owner to take a team with no talent and no draft picks.
Click to expand...
That's a reason we like dispersal drafts. While you'll occasionally only lose one owner, in large leagues we've generally lost at least two at a time.

 
Biabreakable said:
On the other hand you do not want abandoned teams without any talent to compete and no draft picks to try to fix that situation. That is what the rule is trying to prevent, deserted farm teams that need a long term rebuild to become competitive again. It is a lot to ask of a replacement owner to take a team with no talent and no draft picks.
Click to expand...
:blackdot:

 
the lone star said:
So what if the guy has already been eliminated from the playoffs? Should he still be able to make trades?
Click to expand...
Well, if it were me, I would try to leave the team in good shape and may sell off assets like a shady or a Brady in season, but those moves make sense. If the guy is eliminated from the playoffs, trading away young talent and future draft picks after he’s announced he’s leaving, you don’t need to make a thread for an answer. 

My overall point is that you pay your money and you take your chances, you shouldn’t be at a disadvantage by not being able to make your team better. If he buys a bunch of older guys at the deadline while making a push, so be it. Maybe it works out or him, and doesn’t for you, and the team is left in rough shape picking late and with aging assets. You may have to offer a discount for a year and adjust the pot, it sucks but it happens. You have to think of the owner who already put up his money rather than the guy who isn’t in the league yet. 

 
Biabreakable said:
:confused:

Is there something about the bolded statement that you want to refer back to at some point in the future?

I don't understand your post unless you are the team owner the lone star is talking about?
Click to expand...
huh No  I'm agreeing with you  wth would anyone want to let someone gut a team to recoup their fee's or whatever reason  It almost sounds like Pay To Win

 
Trades should be allowed but I think payments should always be made in advance when future picks are involved, even for owners that aren't leaving. It's a great way to ensure you don't have a bad situation where a win now owner wrecks the future value of the team then orphans it and makes it tough to get a new owner to buy in. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Well, if it were me, I would try to leave the team in good shape and may sell off assets like a shady or a Brady in season, but those moves make sense. If the guy is eliminated from the playoffs, trading away young talent and future draft picks after he’s announced he’s leaving, you don’t need to make a thread for an answer. 

My overall point is that you pay your money and you take your chances, you shouldn’t be at a disadvantage by not being able to make your team better. If he buys a bunch of older guys at the deadline while making a push, so be it. Maybe it works out or him, and doesn’t for you, and the team is left in rough shape picking late and with aging assets. You may have to offer a discount for a year and adjust the pot, it sucks but it happens. You have to think of the owner who already put up his money rather than the guy who isn’t in the league yet. 
Click to expand...
That's fair. If he's trading to get younger and acquire draft picks, then that's probably fine.

 
the lone star said:
The vote is closer in this poll than it is in the other poll. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/766235-was-it-correct-for-the-commissioner-to-nix-this-deal-dynastyff/

What are the main differences?
Click to expand...
The question- should a leaving owner be able to make trades vs should the commish nix this deal. I think most of us on these boards subscribe to the idea that if a guy wants to make a trade he should be allowed to- 2-3 years ago a league may get upset if you traded dez for Keenan Allen, but that would get argued the other way now. Trade voting and commish approval will make me avoid a league. So the commish nixing any deal is troubling unless the commish isn’t in the league as well. Most people run a legit league, but you’ll get the occasional commish that adjusts/interprets the rules to favor himself. I’ve made my point about you pay you play by the same rules as everyone regarding trade ability, so I won’t rehash that. 

So cutting out the bs, commish shouldn’t meddle and owners own the team until they don’t. Certain situations may call for intervention though...

That said, your other post has its own situation. Considering it has commish and his brother, I’m guessing perhaps you all know each other? If that’s the case and he’s trading guys to his friends just to bolster their teams in the future, you have to step in. Money doesn’t have to be promised for there to be collusion imo. If it’s obvious that there is a value gap and the guys are friends I would ask for the justification. 

 
Snorkelson said:
The question- should a leaving owner be able to make trades vs should the commish nix this deal. I think most of us on these boards subscribe to the idea that if a guy wants to make a trade he should be allowed to- 2-3 years ago a league may get upset if you traded dez for Keenan Allen, but that would get argued the other way now. Trade voting and commish approval will make me avoid a league. So the commish nixing any deal is troubling unless the commish isn’t in the league as well. Most people run a legit league, but you’ll get the occasional commish that adjusts/interprets the rules to favor himself. I’ve made my point about you pay you play by the same rules as everyone regarding trade ability, so I won’t rehash that. 

So cutting out the bs, commish shouldn’t meddle and owners own the team until they don’t. Certain situations may call for intervention though...

That said, your other post has its own situation. Considering it has commish and his brother, I’m guessing perhaps you all know each other? If that’s the case and he’s trading guys to his friends just to bolster their teams in the future, you have to step in. Money doesn’t have to be promised for there to be collusion imo. If it’s obvious that there is a value gap and the guys are friends I would ask for the justification. 
Click to expand...
That's a really good analysis. I like the value gap idea and you're dead on the money with hindsight. Hurns looks like he could be a #1 again this year, and in 2015, he put up really nice numbers. Also gotta look at previous trades in the league.

Your first paragraph really helps me understand though, so thank you!

 
I'd allow them to trade all the way up to when they get knocked out of the playoffs. If they miss the playoffs and are fighting for 7th or 8th place and they try and trade away major assets for 1 last win but it will compromise that team for years to come, I'd have to think long and hard about it. But if they're in the playoffs and want to trade away future picks and players to make a serious run, I'm fine with it. In our league you can only trade picks from 1 future year until the end of the season. So that limits how much affect they can have lasting far into the future.

We had an owner leave the league surprisingly at the end of a season where they made a handful of bad trades and drops, they just didn't care anymore. When a new owner took over, we didn't give them back those players, but it was voted and agreed upon unanimously to give them some comp picks at the end of rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4. They ended up getting 6 extra picks and were able to retool the team in 2-3 years to make it competitive. 

Basically, I'm not going to begrudge a team the chance to compete during their final season, but once it's over they're cut off.

 
I have to believe anyone who voted yes cannot be serious.   Of course you don't let a leaving owner trade.  You remove them right away and find a new owner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: -X-
JohnnyU said:
I have to believe anyone who voted yes cannot be serious.   Of course you don't let a leaving owner trade.  You remove them right away and find a new owner.
Click to expand...
It's a sticky situation, because you pay to play, and play to get pay. If he has already paid, then he should be able to trade, but if he's out of playoff contention, then that means any trade he makes should be good for the team going forward. Tough balancing act. I'd be against trading freely and preventing him from trading. So maybe just post his trades on a forum and see what people think. Ionno.

 
steelers1080 said:
I'd allow them to trade all the way up to when they get knocked out of the playoffs. If they miss the playoffs and are fighting for 7th or 8th place and they try and trade away major assets for 1 last win but it will compromise that team for years to come, I'd have to think long and hard about it. But if they're in the playoffs and want to trade away future picks and players to make a serious run, I'm fine with it. In our league you can only trade picks from 1 future year until the end of the season. So that limits how much affect they can have lasting far into the future.

We had an owner leave the league surprisingly at the end of a season where they made a handful of bad trades and drops, they just didn't care anymore. When a new owner took over, we didn't give them back those players, but it was voted and agreed upon unanimously to give them some comp picks at the end of rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4. They ended up getting 6 extra picks and were able to retool the team in 2-3 years to make it competitive. 

Basically, I'm not going to begrudge a team the chance to compete during their final season, but once it's over they're cut off.
Click to expand...
That's fair. What if the owner is trading away a primetime asset for future assets, and the deal seems to be fair-market value when compared to other trades in the league? Let's say the owner has not been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention just yet.

 
Snorkelson said:
 but if he wants to trade mixon or an injured obj for guys that help go for the championship he should have that right.
Click to expand...
I think you have to be careful with this, since his intentions give him cart blanche to make moves he'd never make if he was sticking around. You do not want to need to find a new owner to take over a team that has no draft picks and a starting line-up of Tom Brady-Marshawn Lynch-LeSeaon McCoy-Larry Fitzgerald-Jordy Nelson-D Thomas-Jimmy Graham with little depth.

As a commissioner I would give him leeway to trade freely but appeal to him to keep in mind this is a dynasty league. It's surely a tricky situation to balance his rights v. what's good for the league that he'll be leaving. It would be unfair if he wins takes the money and then you need to give his team away for free or for a heavy discount to get some one to take it.

 
JohnnyU said:
I have to believe anyone who voted yes cannot be serious.   Of course you don't let a leaving owner trade.  You remove them right away and find a new owner.
Click to expand...
Whenever it has happened in my leagues the owner leaving has voluntarily agreed to step aside and let the new owner run his team for the rest of the season - which is really the stand up thing to do in a dynasty. Lets face it if the team was stacked and they guy had a legit championship contender he isn't likely to be leaving in the first place,

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Whenever it has happened in my leagues the owner leaving has voluntarily agreed to step aside and let the new owner run his team for the rest of the season - which is really the stand up thing to do in a dynasty. Lets face it if the team was stacked and they guy had a legit championship contender he isn't likely to be leaving in the first place,
Click to expand...
That's true. That's a good policy, I like it.

 
I actually voted no before reading the initial post and didn't realize the owner was playing out the season.  If he announces prior to the start of the season he should be able to still make trades but as a commish I would look at his trades a little more careful to ensure he isn't mortgaging the future (which he won't be a part of) to win now.  As long as the trades were reasonable for now and the future then I wouldn't have an issue with the trades.

I would also be looking to find a replacement and once found he should be involved in any trade discussion and acceptance (provided he has committed to take over by placing a deposit on the team).  In a league where an owner wanted out early in a season we worked out a deal where the incoming owner took ownership of the team for the current year and agreed to split have of all winnings for the current year with the leaving owner (since the leaving owner paid for the season).  In this case the team wasn't likely to get in the money so it was a win-win for the exiting owner because he got to leave and not mess with the team in the hands of an owner that was trying to improve the team for the future so if anything was won he got a part of it. 

 
Put it in the constitution.  Everyone should be paid up for the 2020 season before the 2019 draft.  If you decide to quit before the start of the new year and we get a replacement owner in time then you get your money back.  If you quit at the last minute or nobody will take your terrible team over then no refund.  

 
As commish if an owner says they are leaving and it's in the off-season I immediately restrict that team's ability to add/drop/trade players and I find a new owner. If it's in-season and they say they are leaving at the end of the season,  I ask them to not trade away assets, but it's their team still and they are trying to win this season even though they say they're leaving at the end of the season.  So, if they trade picks to help them win in this situation, there's nothing you should do about it.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: -X-
Gally said:
I actually voted no before reading the initial post and didn't realize the owner was playing out the season.  If he announces prior to the start of the season he should be able to still make trades but as a commish I would look at his trades a little more careful to ensure he isn't mortgaging the future (which he won't be a part of) to win now.  As long as the trades were reasonable for now and the future then I wouldn't have an issue with the trades.

I would also be looking to find a replacement and once found he should be involved in any trade discussion and acceptance (provided he has committed to take over by placing a deposit on the team).  In a league where an owner wanted out early in a season we worked out a deal where the incoming owner took ownership of the team for the current year and agreed to split have of all winnings for the current year with the leaving owner (since the leaving owner paid for the season).  In this case the team wasn't likely to get in the money so it was a win-win for the exiting owner because he got to leave and not mess with the team in the hands of an owner that was trying to improve the team for the future so if anything was won he got a part of it. 
Click to expand...
So just to be more clear, in this situation, do you let it play out since he has already paid all of his dues and the season isn't technically over yet?

 
the lone star said:
So just to be more clear, in this situation, do you let it play out since he has already paid all of his dues and the season isn't technically over yet?
Click to expand...
Up until the point he is eliminated from the playoffs but I would try and get the new owner involved ASAP so that he has some input into trades that affect the franchise moving beyond the current year. 

 
Gally said:
Up until the point he is eliminated from the playoffs but I would try and get the new owner involved ASAP so that he has some input into trades that affect the franchise moving beyond the current year. 
Click to expand...
Ah I gotcha. So in the scenario I am thinking of (just now realized I didn't give a whole lot of details, but I didn't want to drone on for too long), the owner was all but eliminated (very small chance of making it to the playoffs) and no new owner had been picked yet. The current owner had made trades all year long, so personally, I think you let him continue making trades until you find a new owner. 

Lemme know what you think of that.

 
the lone star said:
Ah I gotcha. So in the scenario I am thinking of (just now realized I didn't give a whole lot of details, but I didn't want to drone on for too long), the owner was all but eliminated (very small chance of making it to the playoffs) and no new owner had been picked yet. The current owner had made trades all year long, so personally, I think you let him continue making trades until you find a new owner. 

Lemme know what you think of that.
Click to expand...
Nope.  Once he is eliminated and he turned in his resignation then his team is locked because he no longer has any stake in the franchise.  Time to find a new owner to take over the team ASAP.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RC94
FBG Mock Draft
14 15 16
Replies
797
Views
20K
rockaction
rockaction
F
My Commissioner is Cheating
Replies
17
Views
1K
massraider
massraider
zamboni
Should There Be A League Trade Deadline (Keeper/Dynasty)?
Replies
33
Views
778
Mitchie
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top