We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.
This pertains to redraft only.
But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy
I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency.
If true, I think it's completely legal and appropriate. If I needed a team to lose against a deadbeat owner, I'd have no problem sending them an email saying "Hey man, you still have games to play. Why not set a valid lineup at least?"
I'm not offering them anything, and I'm not making any decisions for them. But encouraging an owner to be active? Totally acceptable.
Should they do it all season? Sure. But setting a valid lineup now helps me, and is totally up to them. Odds are it would fall on deaf ears, but mentioning they should be active isn't illegal nor is it unethical imo.