A question about trades involving Thursday night players (1 Viewer)

[bweiser]

Not sure where to post this so here goes:

What would you rule is the ideal way to handle trades involving players involved in Thursday night games?

Example:

Team 1 agrees to trade Player A to Team 2 for Player B. Player A is Team 1's bench. Player B is in Team 2's starting lineup. Player A is playing Thursday night. Player B is not.

Due to league votes on vetoing trades (another matter entirely), there is a 48-hour wait period for a trade to go through.

A trade is accepted on Wednesday and won't be valid until Saturday, so Team 2 can't use either player involved in the trade in that week's lineup, but Team 1 can use the player acquired.

I said I didn't think this was fair to Team 2 and that if a trade involved a player in a Thursday night game the trade should either be passed in advance of that game or not until after the week's games are played.

What say ye?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not sure where to post this so here goes:

What would you rule is the ideal way to handle trades involving players involved in Thursday night games?

Example:

Team 1 agrees to trade Player A to Team 2 for Player B. Player A is Team 1's bench. Player B is in Team 2's starting lineup. Player A is playing Thursday night. Player B is not.

Due to league votes on vetoing trades (another matter entirely), there is a 48-hour wait period for a trade to go through.

A trade is accepted on Wednesday and won't be valid until Saturday, so Team 2 can't use either player involved in the trade in that week's lineup, but Team 1 can use the player acquired.

I said I didn't think this was fair to Team 2 and that if a trade involved a player in a Thursday night game the trade should either be passed in advance of that game or not until after the week's games are played.

What say ye?

The league needs to have a rule whereby Team 2 is allowed to announce his intention to start the player he acquired, and the commissioner needs to retroactively place that player into the starting lineup after the trade goes through.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Aren't waiting periods ridiculous anyway? Why not get rid of that rule altogether?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What would you rule is the ideal way to handle trades involving players involved in Thursday night games?

The ideal way is to get rid of this:

league votes on vetoing trades

 

[Mile High]

Aren't waiting periods ridiculous anyway? Why not get rid of that rule altogether?

This.

 

[C & C]

So long as Player A isn't in Team 1's lineup Thursday, I don't see a problem or a rule necessary. Both teams know there is a waiting period and Player A won't be available to play in this weeks games for either team. Team 2 would know this when agreeing to the trade.

 

[GregR]

So long as Player A isn't in Team 1's lineup Thursday, I don't see a problem or a rule necessary. Both teams know there is a waiting period and Player A won't be available to play in this weeks games for either team. Team 2 would know this when agreeing to the trade.

Agreed. Team 2 thought it was fair enough he agreed to the trade.

Worse is that you might cost Team 2 the trade "out of fairness" to him as Team 1 might not be willing to do the trade without this week's use of the player.

 

[ShamrockPride]

So long as Player A isn't in Team 1's lineup Thursday, I don't see a problem or a rule necessary. Both teams know there is a waiting period and Player A won't be available to play in this weeks games for either team. Team 2 would know this when agreeing to the trade.

Agreed. Team 2 thought it was fair enough he agreed to the trade.Worse is that you might cost Team 2 the trade "out of fairness" to him as Team 1 might not be willing to do the trade without this week's use of the player.

+1 to both of these. Both owners are aware of and agreed BEFORE joining the league to abide by said rules. There should be no complaints here. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[GregR]

Really the issue is how do you handle traded players and starting lineups. I would have no problem if a league said we aren't dealing with that manually and trades agreed to after a certain time don't go off until Tuesday. But fairness to the teams who chose to do the trade shouldn't drive what you go with.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Waiting period is the problem and I certainly would not make a change to the rules right now for a trade. I suppose you could put it to a vote, but I still don't love making changes in-season. Address it in the offseason.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So long as Player A isn't in Team 1's lineup Thursday, I don't see a problem or a rule necessary. Both teams know there is a waiting period and Player A won't be available to play in this weeks games for either team. Team 2 would know this when agreeing to the trade.

Agreed. Team 2 thought it was fair enough he agreed to the trade.

Worse is that you might cost Team 2 the trade "out of fairness" to him as Team 1 might not be willing to do the trade without this week's use of the player.

My understanding is that Team 1 was not using Player A this week. The key sentence in the initial post was: "so Team 2 can't use either player involved in the trade in that week's lineup, but Team 1 can use the player acquired."

No mention is made of using the player given up, which is why I feel that Team 2 should be allowed to use him if he so desires.

If it is as you assume, where Team 1 wants to use Player A for this week and then trade him afterwards, I would outlaw the trade for an entirely different reason: in my leagues, I have a rule explicitly stating that trades cannot involve future considerations. In your hypothetical, the deal basically boils down to Team 1 saying "you give me a player today, and I will give you a player next week". How would that be any different from Team 2 trading Team 1 a player today in order to acquire a different player three weeks from now, instead?

In my leagues, if a player is in your starting lineup when his game kicks off, that player is locked and cannot be moved until after the week's slate is over. So Team 1 is not allowed to start Player A and then still trade him for another player (who he can potentially also start). This also prevents situations where an owner could, say, start a kicker on Thursday and then cut him on Friday to acquire a defense to start on Sunday, essentially gaining an extra roster spot.

Edit: My position is that waiting periods are a formality meant to give the league time to consider the trade, but the trade itself is final as soon as it is accepted (barring a veto or some other clearly-spelled-out remedy). So for all practical purposes, Team 2 "owns" Player A the second the trade is agreed upon, and should be free to start him this week if he desires.

I suspect most people feel the same way about trades being final when accepted, whether they realize it or not. Consider: if, while that trade was pending, Player A absolutely blew up on Thursday Night Football and Team 1 suddenly got cold feet about the trade, would you all be fine with him just canceling it?

For example, I trade Larry Donnell to Greg for Delanie Walker on Wednesday. On Thursday, Donnell blows up for three touchdowns. Friday morning, I wake up, read the box score, and say "you know what, on second thought Greg, I don't want to do that trade after all." In any of my leagues, the appropriate response from Greg would be "tough, you already agreed to it." I wouldn't get a take-back just because Donnell played on Thursday instead of on Sunday.

 

[C & C]

My understanding is that Team 1 was not using Player A this week. The key sentence in the initial post was: "so Team 2 can't use either player involved in the trade in that week's lineup, but Team 1 can use the player acquired."

No mention is made of using the player given up, which is why I feel that Team 2 should be allowed to use him if he so desires.

I look at it as if Team 2 wants to be sure to not give Team 1 a slight advantage then wait until Friday to do the trade. Thus after the two day waiting period neither team will be able to use the acquired players. If Team 2 wants to do the deal Wednesday then Team 1 gets a slight advantage being able to use the player. But that's up to Team 2 to decide. Team 2 might want to get the deal done before the Thursday game as the expects the acquiring players value to go up after the game. Who knows? But it's his call, not anyone else.

If it is as you assume, where Team 1 wants to use Player A for this week and then trade him afterwards, I would outlaw the trade for an entirely different reason: in my leagues, I have a rule explicitly stating that trades cannot involve future considerations. In your hypothetical, the deal basically boils down to Team 1 saying "you give me a player today, and I will give you a player next week". How would that be any different from Team 2 trading Team 1 a player today in order to acquire a different player three weeks from now, instead?

Yeah, if Team 1 uses the guy, then the trade holds until next week. I think that's pretty cut and dried. No way he can get to use both.

Edit: My position is that waiting periods are a formality meant to give the league time to consider the trade, but the trade itself is final as soon as it is accepted (barring a veto or some other clearly-spelled-out remedy). So for all practical purposes, Team 2 "owns" Player A the second the trade is agreed upon, and should be free to start him this week if he desires.

I suspect most people feel the same way about trades being final when accepted, whether they realize it or not. Consider: if, while that trade was pending, Player A absolutely blew up on Thursday Night Football and Team 1 suddenly got cold feet about the trade, would you all be fine with him just canceling it?

For example, I trade Larry Donnell to Greg for Delanie Walker on Wednesday. On Thursday, Donnell blows up for three touchdowns. Friday morning, I wake up, read the box score, and say "you know what, on second thought Greg, I don't want to do that trade after all." In any of my leagues, the appropriate response from Greg would be "tough, you already agreed to it." I wouldn't get a take-back just because Donnell played on Thursday instead of on Sunday.

I'm not a fan of voting or vetoing, but that's not pertinent here. I think you have a great example. This shows exactly why it's up to Team 2 to decide. He's taking a risk, the player could get hurt, he could go off like Larry Donnell did, but he's agreeing to the trade understanding the league parameters.

 

[Captain Hook]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

 

[Adam Harstad]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was made on Wednesday. The problem is that, because of a 2-day waiting period, it won't go through until Friday.

 

[bweiser]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was agreed to on Wednesday. It was Victor Cruz for Donald Brown. I didn't think it was fair that because of the waiting period, I couldn't use Cruz and he got to use Brown ... so I pointed this out. I was basically told by the other owner involved in the deal that I was wrong, that all leagues are like this and that them's the breaks.

The trade was stricken and the other owner didn't want to redo it this week.

He did manage to just offer me Montae Ball and Marques Colston for Calvin Johnson. I politely declined.

 

[Godsbrother]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was made on Wednesday. The problem is that, because of a 2-day waiting period, it won't go through until Friday.

Captain Hook should have said the trade is completed before Thursday. IF you have a goofy 48-hour waiting period then they should have put the trade in 2 days earlier.

 

[habsfan]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was agreed to on Wednesday. It was Victor Cruz for Donald Brown. I didn't think it was fair that because of the waiting period, I couldn't use Cruz and he got to use Brown ... so I pointed this out. I was basically told by the other owner involved in the deal that I was wrong, that all leagues are like this and that them's the breaks.

The trade was stricken and the other owner didn't want to redo it this week.

He did manage to just offer me Montae Ball and Marques Colston for Calvin Johnson. I politely declined.

Now that these Thursday games are a fixture, the league needs to decide which is more important - a review process/period or more timely trade processing. We have commish review (because "neither" isn't a choice in the settings) and a one day review window. If the commish accepts an hour after the trade is made, it's completed as soon as he does. Most are done in hours but the one day review period is there to acknowledge that the commish has a life too and can't always process things in real time. The bylaws effectively say, "Make sure you factor in the 1-day period in your trades/negotiations".

 

[T with T]

Aren't waiting periods ridiculous anyway? Why not get rid of that rule altogether?

yea My leagues trades are processed immediately.

 

[FUBAR]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was agreed to on Wednesday. It was Victor Cruz for Donald Brown. I didn't think it was fair that because of the waiting period, I couldn't use Cruz and he got to use Brown ... so I pointed this out. I was basically told by the other owner involved in the deal that I was wrong, that all leagues are like this and that them's the breaks.

The trade was stricken and the other owner didn't want to redo it this week.

He did manage to just offer me Montae Ball and Marques Colston for Calvin Johnson. I politely declined.

Just my opinion, but there's a lot wrong here.

You traded Brown for Cruz. Sounds like you put the offer out, left it out so he could accept on Wednesday. You know the rules, so you should have revoked the offer before Tuesday night which would have avoided this situation. So instead of revoking it in time, you got out of a trade you offered because you complained about it.

Most of us would agree that waiting periods are a bad idea, but your league has that rule. As such, it's on the owners to understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects.

As to the original question - your roster at the time of the player's game decides your lineup. This might mean that I can start Jordy Nelson tonight, trade him on Friday for Percy Harvin and start Harvin too. That's on the other owner to decide if trading Harvin for Nelson at that time is worth not having either this week. or your league can put a rule in place locking in rosters as of a specific time.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Reason #265 why Thursday games suck

 

[Adam Harstad]

As to the original question - your roster at the time of the player's game decides your lineup. This might mean that I can start Jordy Nelson tonight, trade him on Friday for Percy Harvin and start Harvin too. That's on the other owner to decide if trading Harvin for Nelson at that time is worth not having either this week. or your league can put a rule in place locking in rosters as of a specific time.

Oh yuck, a million times no to this.

Imagine I'm in a league with short benches. I pick up a kicker who plays on Thursday night. After he plays, I drop him and pick up a defense that starts on Sunday. After it plays, I drop it and pick up a tight end that starts on Monday. I have now managed to get two extra free roster spots- I've got a kicker and a defense putting up points in my lineup despite not being on my roster. This is crazy. If I wanted to be really crazy, I could also grab a WR3 who plays in the Sunday Night game in there somewhere, too.

Sure, you can feel free to say "if it's such a good strategy, anyone else is free to do it, too!" but clearly this is circumventing the spirit of the rules. Roster size limits are in place for a reason: to limit your roster size. Once a player starts, he should be locked on your roster until the week is over. Or, alternately, make a rule where if you drop a player, you no longer count his points.

 

[Norcalhoya]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was made on Wednesday. The problem is that, because of a 2-day waiting period, it won't go through until Friday.

In my leagues, a trade won't process until all players involved unlock. One year, I had a stupid situation where I trade 2 players for his one. The player he had to drop to make roster space played on Thursday night, so the trade didn't process until the following Tuesday. I agree that the waiting periods are silly.

 

[Jimbo Slice]

On yahoo I made a trade for Morris last Friday after he played on Thursday, giving two guys who were playing on Sunday. We have a day waiting period and the assumption was I would receive Morris but not be able to start him because the other team did. And he would be able to start the two guys I was sending since they would be on his roster by Sunday.

After accepting, yahoo said trade would be processed for week 5 since one player already played that week. It worked in my favor but was unexpected and pretty stupid

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

We used to have a similar predicament - any trade must be approved - by a 3 owner vote (voting owners selected before the start of the season and alternates if any of the voting owners are in the trade). Which means just agreeing to a trade isn't good enough - there still is a delay until at least two votes have agreed to allow or two votes have agreed to disallow. Which usually takes 2 days with our owners.

Fortunately, we got tired of this suppressing trades especially since our league is so trade averse anyway. Now, unless the commish deems a trade grossly unfair it is passed. If commish thinks it is grossly unfair, only then will he take it to the vote. And then if the vote screws a Thursday player or for that matter a Sunday player if the trade was submitted on Saturday so be it. But once submitted (i.e., owners have agreed to the trade and it is submitted for approval) a trade cannot be withdrawn.

We have had cases where a trade was submitted, a player in the trade was injured before the trade was approved, the trade was then allowed, and an owner was stuck with a guy he couldn't use and was now injured.

Fortunately we play with friends so that particular trade was reorganized by the trading partners to alleviate the injury issue.

 

[Church of Iggy Pop]

[SIZE=9pt]Great thread. I am a commissioner in a similar quandary today. My issue should be simpler to resolve since it strictly involves players who play on Sunday afternoon.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]A trade agreement was reached between two other owners Saturday at noon. I have no issues with it, looks fair to me - I say go for it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]While I have no issue with the trade, our league rules clearly call for a 2 day trade review period, and "LM Only Vetos". ( LM is ESPN-speak for League Manager aka Commissioner ) This rule is certainly worth a re-write for 2015, but I don't believe in making rules changes mid-season.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Another wrinkle is that I happen to be playing one of the involved teams this week. I honestly don't care if the trade goes through before the game, but I'm afraid this sets me up for accusations of conflict of interest, or at least the perception of bias. [/SIZE]

If it helps, this is a stable, long-running league, and 17 years of precedence shows that I have a light hand in these matters. It would take a really, really bad trade to earn my veto.
[SIZE=9pt]Should I approve the trade right away, since I have no objection, thus making the players available to their new owners for Week 5 games? This would be my preference, and I believe it supports SSOG and habsfan's vision of the waiting period as a formality designed to give the commish a life.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Or, should I do nothing, in order to honor the stated 48-hour trade review period, and withhold my approval until noon Monday, which is after all the involved players are locked for Week 5 games? This is a more strict interpretation of the rules, and protects me from charges of bias - I think?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Thanks for your opinions.[/SIZE]

 

[FUBAR]

As to the original question - your roster at the time of the player's game decides your lineup. This might mean that I can start Jordy Nelson tonight, trade him on Friday for Percy Harvin and start Harvin too. That's on the other owner to decide if trading Harvin for Nelson at that time is worth not having either this week. or your league can put a rule in place locking in rosters as of a specific time.

Oh yuck, a million times no to this.

Imagine I'm in a league with short benches. I pick up a kicker who plays on Thursday night. After he plays, I drop him and pick up a defense that starts on Sunday. After it plays, I drop it and pick up a tight end that starts on Monday. I have now managed to get two extra free roster spots- I've got a kicker and a defense putting up points in my lineup despite not being on my roster. This is crazy. If I wanted to be really crazy, I could also grab a WR3 who plays in the Sunday Night game in there somewhere, too.

Sure, you can feel free to say "if it's such a good strategy, anyone else is free to do it, too!" but clearly this is circumventing the spirit of the rules. Roster size limits are in place for a reason: to limit your roster size. Once a player starts, he should be locked on your roster until the week is over. Or, alternately, make a rule where if you drop a player, you no longer count his points.

Imo, waivers are different than trades. Lock a player from waivers if they've played, just like you shouldn't be able to pick up a player who played. but I'm good with trades.

Understand your point, just disagree with it. It's not circumventing anything.

Do you have any problems with a team trading a player who hasn't yet had their bye week for a player who has? One owner now gets 17 weeks from that spot while the other only gets 15 - assuming they're both healthy.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Imo, waivers are different than trades.

Lock a player from waivers if they've played, just like you shouldn't be able to pick up a player who played. but I'm good with trades.Understand your point, just disagree with it. It's not circumventing anything.

Do you have any problems with a team trading a player who hasn't yet had their bye week for a player who has? One owner now gets 17 weeks from that spot while the other only gets 15 - assuming they're both healthy.

I don't get how that analogy works at all. If I have 24 roster spots, and I trade a player who hasn't had his bye for a player who his past his bye, I still have 24 roster spots. When I choose who I start every week, it still has to be one of the 24 players on my roster. Some players will play fewer games than others, whether due to injury or suspension or bye, but they each take up a roster spot, and they each cannot be used unless they are actually on my roster. My start/sit decision involves only 24 players.

In the examples I described (where I trade for a new player but still get to use my old one after the trade, or where I cut a player I started and still get to keep his score), then my start/sit decisions are expanded from 24 players to 25 (or 26, or 27, or 28, or more) players. It's a different scenario.

 

[FUBAR]

Imo, waivers are different than trades.Lock a player from waivers if they've played, just like you shouldn't be able to pick up a player who played. but I'm good with trades.

Understand your point, just disagree with it. It's not circumventing anything.

Do you have any problems with a team trading a player who hasn't yet had their bye week for a player who has? One owner now gets 17 weeks from that spot while the other only gets 15 - assuming they're both healthy.

I don't get how that analogy works at all. If I have 24 roster spots, and I trade a player who hasn't had his bye for a player who his past his bye, I still have 24 roster spots. When I choose who I start every week, it still has to be one of the 24 players on my roster. Some players will play fewer games than others, whether due to injury or suspension or bye, but they each take up a roster spot, and they each cannot be used unless they are actually on my roster. My start/sit decision involves only 24 players.

In the examples I described (where I trade for a new player but still get to use my old one after the trade, or where I cut a player I started and still get to keep his score), then my start/sit decisions are expanded from 24 players to 25 (or 26, or 27, or 28, or more) players. It's a different scenario.

Just asking where you draw the line. Apparently it's there.

You have 24 roster spots which include players on bye weeks. If you trade Julio Jones for aj green (just an example, not saying that would be fair) you have one less bye week issue to manage.

I have no problem if a league has a rule against trading once a player has played or whatever works for that league. My sole point is that rule shouldn't be assumed.

 

[habsfan]

[SIZE=9pt]Great thread. I am a commissioner in a similar quandary today. My issue should be simpler to resolve since it strictly involves players who play on Sunday afternoon.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]A trade agreement was reached between two other owners Saturday at noon. I have no issues with it, looks fair to me - I say go for it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]While I have no issue with the trade, our league rules clearly call for a 2 day trade review period, and "LM Only Vetos". ( LM is ESPN-speak for League Manager aka Commissioner ) This rule is certainly worth a re-write for 2015, but I don't believe in making rules changes mid-season.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Another wrinkle is that I happen to be playing one of the involved teams this week. I honestly don't care if the trade goes through before the game, but I'm afraid this sets me up for accusations of conflict of interest, or at least the perception of bias. [/SIZE]

If it helps, this is a stable, long-running league, and 17 years of precedence shows that I have a light hand in these matters. It would take a really, really bad trade to earn my veto.
[SIZE=9pt]Should I approve the trade right away, since I have no objection, thus making the players available to their new owners for Week 5 games? This would be my preference, and I believe it supports SSOG and habsfan's vision of the waiting period as a formality designed to give the commish a life.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Or, should I do nothing, in order to honor the stated 48-hour trade review period, and withhold my approval until noon Monday, which is after all the involved players are locked for Week 5 games? This is a more strict interpretation of the rules, and protects me from charges of bias - I think?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Thanks for your opinions.[/SIZE]

I would put it to the league and say, "If there are no objections, I would like to...".

Clearly the parties in the trade want this to take effect this week and if you can improve a standing rule in mid season I say do it. Just bear in mind that you'll need to adhere to the 24 hours for all subsequent trades (or whatever you revise it to).

 

[FUBAR]

Treat the 2 day review period as a maximum allowed. Pass all trades as soon as you see them, assuming you don't see collusion.

Just try to be quick when possible and if you're not able to process a trade Saturday, let the league know you'll be gone. Make it clear to all that you're operating this way.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Imo, waivers are different than trades.Lock a player from waivers if they've played, just like you shouldn't be able to pick up a player who played. but I'm good with trades.

Understand your point, just disagree with it. It's not circumventing anything.

Do you have any problems with a team trading a player who hasn't yet had their bye week for a player who has? One owner now gets 17 weeks from that spot while the other only gets 15 - assuming they're both healthy.

I don't get how that analogy works at all. If I have 24 roster spots, and I trade a player who hasn't had his bye for a player who his past his bye, I still have 24 roster spots. When I choose who I start every week, it still has to be one of the 24 players on my roster. Some players will play fewer games than others, whether due to injury or suspension or bye, but they each take up a roster spot, and they each cannot be used unless they are actually on my roster. My start/sit decision involves only 24 players.

In the examples I described (where I trade for a new player but still get to use my old one after the trade, or where I cut a player I started and still get to keep his score), then my start/sit decisions are expanded from 24 players to 25 (or 26, or 27, or 28, or more) players. It's a different scenario.

Just asking where you draw the line. Apparently it's there.

You have 24 roster spots which include players on bye weeks. If you trade Julio Jones for aj green (just an example, not saying that would be fair) you have one less bye week issue to manage.

I have no problem if a league has a rule against trading once a player has played or whatever works for that league. My sole point is that rule shouldn't be assumed.

This isn't a slippery slope situation where there's a vague line that could easily be drawn a little bit further down, instead.

Players not on your roster can't score points in your lineup.

Simple line. No slope, slippery or otherwise. On your roster? Eligible to score points. Not on your roster? Not eligible to score points. That's what your roster is- it's the list of guys you can start and score points with. If someone is not on your roster, and he manages to score points for you, then you effectively have extra roster spots... and at that point, what's the point of having fixed roster sizes?

 

[Johnny Blood]

[SIZE=9pt]While I have no issue with the trade, our league rules clearly call for a 2 day trade review period, and "LM Only Vetos". ( LM is ESPN-speak for League Manager aka Commissioner ) This rule is certainly worth a re-write for 2015, but I don't believe in making rules changes mid-season.[/SIZE]

Unless your rule has some weird verbiage I would interpret that to mean the LM must make a ruling within 48 hours, not that the LM can't make a ruling for 48 hours.

 

[FUBAR]

Imo, waivers are different than trades.Lock a player from waivers if they've played, just like you shouldn't be able to pick up a player who played. but I'm good with trades.

Understand your point, just disagree with it. It's not circumventing anything.

Do you have any problems with a team trading a player who hasn't yet had their bye week for a player who has? One owner now gets 17 weeks from that spot while the other only gets 15 - assuming they're both healthy.

I don't get how that analogy works at all. If I have 24 roster spots, and I trade a player who hasn't had his bye for a player who his past his bye, I still have 24 roster spots. When I choose who I start every week, it still has to be one of the 24 players on my roster. Some players will play fewer games than others, whether due to injury or suspension or bye, but they each take up a roster spot, and they each cannot be used unless they are actually on my roster. My start/sit decision involves only 24 players.

In the examples I described (where I trade for a new player but still get to use my old one after the trade, or where I cut a player I started and still get to keep his score), then my start/sit decisions are expanded from 24 players to 25 (or 26, or 27, or 28, or more) players. It's a different scenario.

Just asking where you draw the line. Apparently it's there.

You have 24 roster spots which include players on bye weeks. If you trade Julio Jones for aj green (just an example, not saying that would be fair) you have one less bye week issue to manage.

I have no problem if a league has a rule against trading once a player has played or whatever works for that league. My sole point is that rule shouldn't be assumed.

This isn't a slippery slope situation where there's a vague line that could easily be drawn a little bit further down, instead.

Players not on your roster can't score points in your lineup.

Simple line. No slope, slippery or otherwise. On your roster? Eligible to score points. Not on your roster? Not eligible to score points. That's what your roster is- it's the list of guys you can start and score points with. If someone is not on your roster, and he manages to score points for you, then you effectively have extra roster spots... and at that point, what's the point of having fixed roster sizes?

Agreed. Lacy was on your roster Thursday, he can score points. Lynch is on your roster Monday, he can score points.

If you want to include a rule that only players on your roster as of Noon Sunday or whatever time the owners agree to are allowed to score points, have at it.

 

[Tool]

Not sure where to post this so here goes:

What would you rule is the ideal way to handle trades involving players involved in Thursday night games?

Example:

Team 1 agrees to trade Player A to Team 2 for Player B. Player A is Team 1's bench. Player B is in Team 2's starting lineup. Player A is playing Thursday night. Player B is not.

Due to league votes on vetoing trades (another matter entirely), there is a 48-hour wait period for a trade to go through.

A trade is accepted on Wednesday and won't be valid until Saturday, so Team 2 can't use either player involved in the trade in that week's lineup, but Team 1 can use the player acquired.

I said I didn't think this was fair to Team 2 and that if a trade involved a player in a Thursday night game the trade should either be passed in advance of that game or not until after the week's games are played.

What say ye?

Haven't read the whole thread but this is the solution.

 

[bonscott]

Shouldn't be allowed at all unless the trade is made before Thursday

The trade was agreed to on Wednesday. It was Victor Cruz for Donald Brown. I didn't think it was fair that because of the waiting period, I couldn't use Cruz and he got to use Brown ... so I pointed this out. I was basically told by the other owner involved in the deal that I was wrong, that all leagues are like this and that them's the breaks.

The trade was stricken and the other owner didn't want to redo it this week.

He did manage to just offer me Montae Ball and Marques Colston for Calvin Johnson. I politely declined.

Yea, that's incorrect. In all my leagues dating back 10+ years if a trade involves a player that has already played then the trade will not be processed until the following Tuesday. This gets around the whole issue. MFL now has a setting that even prevents a trade from being accepted if a players game has already kicked off (Thursday players couldn't be traded in a trade on Friday for example, they would have to wait until all games are over). Now none of my league have league voting (I won't even go there) all are commish approval or immediately go thru.

Now the wrinkle here is the trade voting and 2 day wait period. Trade was accepted on Wednesday, but won't go thru until Friday (assuming votes pass) so in the spirit of our rules it wouldn't officially go into effect until Tuesday, thus the players would still be on their respective teams for starting lineups this week and then on Tuesday the trade would go thru and that is that. No fuss, no muss.