Eliminated Owner No Longer Cares, But Making A Trade (1 Viewer)

[the lone star]

So an Eliminated Owner in my league No Longer Cares because he is out of it now, But he is Making A Trade where he is giving up the best player in the deal. The deal is still fair per our trade calculator, but when the Vice Commish reached out to him about the deal, the owner seemed indifferent to it going through. To test him, the Vice Commish sent a lopsided offer (Vice Commish was receiving the better end) and the owner accepted the deal. Since it was just a test, we aren't processing that trade, but what about the first one where it passes our trade-calculator test? 

As of yet, the indifferent owner hasn't told us if he will be leaving, so he could be back, but we do have a waiting list. Nobody has been picked from that waiting list though, so I guess it's still the indifferent owner's team. But our thinking is that he (the indifferent owner) will probably not be back next season.

The 2nd owner in the deal REALLY wants the player as he is in the championship game this week (no trade deadline in this league), so should we process the trade? What do you think?

 

[j0nese]

Is why I set trade deadlines weeks before playoffs start.  though what do your bylaws say?  if nothing preventing it then you really can't (shouldn't) veto it.  Especially if it just giving up best player in deal & not something like Todd Gurley for Josh Gordon (this is just used as a ref)

 

[Gally]

For Re-draft leagues, teams that have been eliminated should have their rosters frozen and locked from any transactions.  They are no longer involved in the current season.  This trade should not be allowed even if you do not a have specific rule regarding trading with eliminated teams.  This is not valid in any way.

If this is a dynasty league then that is a different story.

 

[Gally]

Is why I set trade deadlines weeks before playoffs start.  though what do your bylaws say?  if nothing preventing it then you really can't (shouldn't) veto it.  Especially if it just giving up best player in deal & not something like Todd Gurley for Josh Gordon (this is just used as a ref)

Yes it should be overturned.  The eliminated team is no longer valid for the current season (assuming redraft - dynasty is different) and should be frozen from all transactions.  There is no way an eliminated team should be involved in any trades. 

 

[j0nese]

BUT if the league is still allowing trades; & it isn't a lopsided trade, & there are no by-laws then what ground do you have to reverse it?

Is trading still allowed?  Yes; go to next step   No; then reverse the trade

is the trade lopsided?  Yes; reverse it & stop the trade   No; continue to next step (i.e. if this was regular season would the trade be processed)

do the by-laws prevent trading from teams eliminated in playoffs?  Yes; then why was trade allowed to be offered   No; allow the trade to go through

 

[BigRedNole]

This is just like my new BS league. Horrible commish that doesn't know how to run a league. Once regular season is over, all non-playoff teams are locked out. No trades, no waivers, no nothing. Their rosters are locked and they are locked from making changes.

 

[j0nese]

This is just like my new BS league. Horrible commish that doesn't know how to run a league. Once regular season is over, all non-playoff teams are locked out. No trades, no waivers, no nothing. Their rosters are locked and they are locked from making changes.

I agree it SHOULD be like that, but if not then you can't change it now.  If other trades have gone through with teams not in playoff's; & is said the deal is fair then no gotta let it stand

 

[BigRedNole]

yes, if they did not have the rules in place, you can't change it. It is just a mickey mouse league with people that do not know how to run a league or put rules in place.

 

[Rubi]

The fault lies not with the eliminated owner,but with your leagues trade deadline.

Based on your rules the trade should pass

 

[Gally]

BUT if the league is still allowing trades; & it isn't a lopsided trade, & there are no by-laws then what ground do you have to reverse it?

Is trading still allowed?  Yes; go to next step   No; then reverse the trade

is the trade lopsided?  Yes; reverse it & stop the trade   No; continue to next step (i.e. if this was regular season would the trade be processed)

do the by-laws prevent trading from teams eliminated in playoffs?  Yes; then why was trade allowed to be offered   No; allow the trade to go through

It doesn't matter is the league still allows trades.  Once a team is eliminated they are not a team anymore regardless of the league allowing trades.  That roster is frozen and the commish should not allow any transaction involving the eliminated team.  This is not a rule issue.  The grounds to reverse is that the eliminated team is ELIMINATED and is no longer a team for this season. 

NOTE:  This is for redraft only.  In a dynasty league other things are in play. 

 

[Gally]

yes, if they did not have the rules in place, you can't change it. It is just a mickey mouse league with people that do not know how to run a league or put rules in place.

Yes you can.  The eliminated team is not longer playing this year.  They should not be allowed to make trades because their roster is no longer playing. For intents and purposes this is collusion because the eliminated team can no longer win so they are giving away their players to another team to help them win with zero benefit to them since they cannot win. 

 

[j0nese]

Yes you can.  The eliminated team is not longer playing this year.  They should not be allowed to make trades because their roster is no longer playing. For intents and purposes this is collusion because the eliminated team can no longer win so they are giving away their players to another team to help them win with zero benefit to them since they cannot win. 

not if they have let other eliminated teams make trades before this 1 (i.e. previous playoff weeks).  then reversing this trade means they have to go back & reverse others (if any) & that could impact games.  You can't go changing rules at the end of season, this should've been established from the start

 

[Gally]

not if they have let other eliminated teams make trades before this 1 (i.e. previous playoff weeks).  then reversing this trade means they have to go back & reverse others (if any) & that could impact games.  You can't go changing rules at the end of season, this should've been established from the start

Agree that if they have allowed it in the past then it must go through.  You cannot change a rule mid season.  However, I understood this as a one off situation that had not happened before because the question was about allowing an eliminated team to make a trade.....not that trade itself was bad.  If I was wrong with that interpretation then I agree that trade should stand.......and then change the rules over the off-season to freeze all eliminated teams from all transactions.  (again assuming this is redraft and not dynasty).

 

[BigRedNole]

Yes you can.  The eliminated team is not longer playing this year.  They should not be allowed to make trades because their roster is no longer playing. For intents and purposes this is collusion because the eliminated team can no longer win so they are giving away their players to another team to help them win with zero benefit to them since they cannot win. 

I completely agree with you. However, it is apparent they allowed previously eliminated owners to trade during the playoffs. You can't arbitrarily stop it now. They never put rules in place for a trade deadline. This is like changing the point system and retroactively changing every game score to create new playoff teams. The rules that were in place when the trade was made is the rule that has to stand.

 

[Gally]

I completely agree with you. However, it is apparent they allowed previously eliminated owners to trade during the playoffs. You can't arbitrarily stop it now. They never put rules in place for a trade deadline. This is like changing the point system and retroactively changing every game score to create new playoff teams. The rules that were in place when the trade was made is the rule that has to stand.

I actually took it the other way that this is the first time an eliminated team has made a trade which is what prompted the question.  I see nowhere in the OP that alludes to this happening previously (other than their lame attempt to bait the owner with a lopsided trade offer after the fact).

If it has happened in the past (and was allowed) then this must go through and you cannot stop it.  I agree no changing the rules.  But if it has never happened before I see no reason why the Commish can't stop it from happening now. 

 

[beerbuff]

Follow your league rules you psychotic numbskull.

 

[The Scorpion]

No trades...redraft or Dynasty after week 10...Period 

 

[Guru]

Too bad, trade stands.  Fix your rules for 2019. 

 

[Gally]

Too bad, trade stands.  Fix your rules for 2019. 

Why?  If this type of trade has never occurred before (the OP is not clear whether this has happened before or not) why should it be allowed?  It would be within the commish's power to overturn this trade if there has never been a trade between an active team and eliminated team in the past.  

I would agree if this type of trade has happened before then it must be allowed.

Either way the rules need to be clarified in the off season.

 

[the lone star]

50-50 split, yikes!

 

[Gally]

50-50 split, yikes!

its actually not really 50-50 based on the commentary.  There is one glaring piece of information that you haven't clarified - Has this type of trade happened in previous years?

Most people are in agreement that if this type of trade has happened in the past then you have to allow it this year.  

Other people are in agreement that if it has never happened before there is no issue in overturning it and setting the precedent. 

Basically it comes down to whether or not it has happened before.  Either way the rules need to be addressed to lock any eliminated team from all transactions.  Then you will never face this issue again. 

 

[the lone star]

its actually not really 50-50 based on the commentary.  There is one glaring piece of information that you haven't clarified - Has this type of trade happened in previous years?

Most people are in agreement that if this type of trade has happened in the past then you have to allow it this year.  

Other people are in agreement that if it has never happened before there is no issue in overturning it and setting the precedent. 

Basically it comes down to whether or not it has happened before.  Either way the rules need to be addressed to lock any eliminated team from all transactions.  Then you will never face this issue again. 

Yeah, it's happened before. More "lopsided" deals have been pushed through in the past.

 

[Gally]

Yeah, it's happened before. More "lopsided" deals have been pushed through in the past.

I don't care about lopsided.  I would only care if teams eliminated from the playoffs made trades after they were eliminated.  If that happened previously this trade should be allowed but then change that rule immediately following the season.  No team that is eliminated in the playoffs should be allowed to make any transactions (provided it is a redraft league). 

 

[the lone star]

I don't care about lopsided.  I would only care if teams eliminated from the playoffs made trades after they were eliminated.  If that happened previously this trade should be allowed but then change that rule immediately following the season.  No team that is eliminated in the playoffs should be allowed to make any transactions (provided it is a redraft league). 

That makes sense in redraft, but this is actually a dynasty league, which complicates things. 

 

[Gally]

That makes sense in redraft, but this is actually a dynasty league, which complicates things. 

Not if the owner already gave notice of leaving.  If that is the case as soon as he is eliminated the season is over and his team should be frozen until the new owner takes over. 

 

[the lone star]

Not if the owner already gave notice of leaving.  If that is the case as soon as he is eliminated the season is over and his team should be frozen until the new owner takes over. 

So what if he changes his mind? What about the trades that were made that same season before he gave notice? Should those be reversed?

Isn't it still his team until a new owner is found? I mean, he did pay full dues, after all.

 

[Gally]

So what if he changes his mind? What about the trades that were made that same season before he gave notice? Should those be reversed?

Isn't it still his team until a new owner is found? I mean, he did pay full dues, after all.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.  It is really not this difficult.  If the owner tendered his resignation he can play out the season as he sees fit (barring any collusion situations) and once his season is over the team is frozen until a new owner is located.  If the resigned owner decides he wants to keep the team for another year than the team is unfrozen and his to do what he wants with it at that point. 

 

[the lone star]

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.  It is really not this difficult.  If the owner tendered his resignation he can play out the season as he sees fit (barring any collusion situations) and once his season is over the team is frozen until a new owner is located.  If the resigned owner decides he wants to keep the team for another year than the team is unfrozen and his to do what he wants with it at that point. 

Man, that's tough to shut a team down in a dynasty league after he's been making moves and such all season AND has paid dues. I'd just give his further roster transactions additional scrutiny. Or at least make him announce to all that he is in fact leaving the league. Letting just the Commish know leads to information asymmetry. Plus I think big things like that should be posted for all to see anyway.

 

[Gally]

Man, that's tough to shut a team down in a dynasty league after he's been making moves and such all season AND has paid dues. I'd just give his further roster transactions additional scrutiny. Or at least make him announce to all that he is in fact leaving the league. Letting just the Commish know leads to information asymmetry. Plus I think big things like that should be posted for all to see anyway.

I never said keep it a secret.  As soon as the resignation was tendered I would let the entire league know that is the owner's plan.  You are not shutting a team down.  The owner quit and tendered his resignation.  His season is over so he no longer owns the team.  He has been eliminated from the current year - which was his last year he committed to playing based on his resignation.  I am not sure why you are having issue with this process.

If the owner doesn't want to quit and wants to keep the team beyond the current year then the story is now different.  You don't take away the team from an owner that is current and wants to continue.  But that is not the way you have presented this case.  You stated the owner tendered his resignation stating that this would be his last year.  Well, once you are eliminated from playoff contention your year is over.  The team now has no owner so the assets are frozen until an owner can be found.  It is really simple. 

 

[the lone star]

I never said keep it a secret.  As soon as the resignation was tendered I would let the entire league know that is the owner's plan.  You are not shutting a team down.  The owner quit and tendered his resignation.  His season is over so he no longer owns the team.  He has been eliminated from the current year - which was his last year he committed to playing based on his resignation.  I am not sure why you are having issue with this process.

If the owner doesn't want to quit and wants to keep the team beyond the current year then the story is now different.  You don't take away the team from an owner that is current and wants to continue.  But that is not the way you have presented this case.  You stated the owner tendered his resignation stating that this would be his last year.  Well, once you are eliminated from playoff contention your year is over.  The team now has no owner so the assets are frozen until an owner can be found.  It is really simple. 

I gotcha. 

So what happens if notice isn't given to the rest of the league and a trade is agreed to, with the other team being completely unaware of the resignation status?

 

[Gally]

I gotcha. 

So what happens if notice isn't given to the rest of the league and a trade is agreed to, with the other team being completely unaware of the resignation status?

Was the resignation given to the commish?  If the team resigned and is no longer playing beyond this year that franchise is frozen as soon as it is eliminated from the current year as mentioned previously.  Whether another team knows about the resignation or not is really irrelevant.....although I don't know why this would be kept a secret.  If I am the commish if I received a resignation from an owner I would immediately post that we need to find a new owner to take over that franchise and try and get them in place ASAP.  The easiest way is letting the rest of the league know and hope they have a friend that would be interested (or if there is a team owned by partners maybe they want to separate).

I don't understand why this would be kept quiet.  That only leads to possible shenanigans. 

 

[the lone star]

Was the resignation given to the commish?  If the team resigned and is no longer playing beyond this year that franchise is frozen as soon as it is eliminated from the current year as mentioned previously.  Whether another team knows about the resignation or not is really irrelevant.....although I don't know why this would be kept a secret.  If I am the commish if I received a resignation from an owner I would immediately post that we need to find a new owner to take over that franchise and try and get them in place ASAP.  The easiest way is letting the rest of the league know and hope they have a friend that would be interested (or if there is a team owned by partners maybe they want to separate).

I don't understand why this would be kept quiet.  That only leads to possible shenanigans. 

Yeah, I agree. Good points.