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.

League ruling question. (1 Viewer)

Gottabesweet

Footballguy
We are in a redraft league for 25 years. The first 22 or so on CBS. Future draft picks were never allowed to be traded (they weren’t in the drop down). No mention of this in constitution regarding draft pick trading one way or another.

We’ve allowed current year draft pick trading on draft spots weeks leading up once we drew spots. Which has only happened a couple times.

We’ve been on yahoo past 3 years and today someone traded Henry and a 5th next year for Aiyuk and a 1st next year.

Most of the league doesn’t think it should go through. The commish thinks it should. (It’s his nephew involved, however his nephew would understand if it got reversed as he thinks it’s weird that the site allowed it for redraft.

The commish brother and many others think it should be reversed. Commish thinks corrected in off season.

The team in last place sent Henry. The team in first sent the first.

8 of 12 teams make playoffs so you really need to be out of it for this situation to occur. There’s a ton of parody in a short bench league.
 

eighsse2

Footballguy
It's hard for me to say that it should be reversed, because if the platform started allowing it, and no one has necessarily ever said that it is disallowed in the past (to my knowledge), it feels wrong to say you can't do it. Does that mean when a player's positional designation is changed by the platform (e.g., Cordarrelle Patterson to RB), you aren't allowed to plug him into the RB slot, even though the platform allows it? Because "well he's never been allowed to be a RB befoooore when other owners had him, sooo ..." In other words, I think you should usually allow and disallow things as is designated by the system -- unless your constitution is very specific about the legality of the particular matter at hand, that is.

That being said. This is an especially weird one. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem turning this one down.
 

TakiToki

Footballguy
I am very much a "if the system allows it and you don't have an explicit written rule disallowing it, it goes" type of guy (and I detest vetoing trades for any reason other than an obvious instance of a team trading against its own long-term interests), but this is a no-brainer in the opposite direction for me.

The notion of total redraft, i.e., no keepers, implicitly disallows future season considerations.

Throw in a quarter-century of precedent, and I think this is an easy veto.
 

OU#1

Footballguy
I run a keeper league that allows draft pick trades, but this shouldn’t be allowed in redraft.

In my keeper league, any future draft picks requires both trading parties to pay nexts seasons entry fee before I will process the trade. This way, if somebody leaves, at least I have the forfeited entry fee to entice a new owner to take over a bad team.
 

Gottabesweet

Footballguy
Subject: Trade Violation
I am going to reverse the two trades that involved future draft picks. sorry dudes. I cannot undo the setting that allows trading of draft picks. so any future trades that involve future draft picks will also be reversed. if you guys want to quit, that's fine with me. I will find replacement owners.


Well it looks like the guy trading a first for Kamara with a threatening to quit got the commish to reverse both before everyone planned on sending a first to the same team.
 

Gally

Footballguy
Absolutely reversed. You just can't rewrite the rules 3/4 of the way through the season. The commish is currying favor to his nephew.
The rules weren't re-written. There was never a rule allowing (or disallowing) trading future picks. It wasn't in the rules one way or the other.

This falls into the case that there isn't a specific rule about it so the commish ruled based on the intent of the rules/league. I think he did the right thing. A complete redraft shouldn't be allowed to trade future picks since they are not part of the current season.
 

Gottabesweet

Footballguy
That this was even a tough question is mind-boggling. It was common sense and implied -- nay, designated to be so -- in the very selection of the format.
Agree it took way too long of convincing from a few of us and even one doubling down and doing the same trade for the commish to finally reverse decision but he had the two who accepted it in his ear I assume.
 

Sam Quentin

Footballguy
Redraft means redraft.

You can’t hold players or tokens representing players year to year.

Keeping an asset through the offseason violates the fundamental basis of the entire league

Everything resets at the start of the year, so no way is this a legal trade.
 

Sam Quentin

Footballguy
Absolutely reversed. You just can't rewrite the rules 3/4 of the way through the season. The commish is currying favor to his nephew.
The rules weren't re-written. There was never a rule allowing (or disallowing) trading future picks. It wasn't in the rules one way or the other.

This falls into the case that there isn't a specific rule about it so the commish ruled based on the intent of the rules/league. I think he did the right thing. A complete redraft shouldn't be allowed to trade future picks since they are not part of the current season.
No. The “rule” that disallows it is that this is defined as a redraft league. No keepers means no assets are retained between seasons. The rule disallowing this is in the definition of the league.
 

acarey50

Footballguy
Go to League -> Settings and check that you didn't accidentally set the league up as a keeper league. If you did, you will see a setting named "Keeper Settings", it's about the 10th item down, below the Live Draft Pick Time (assuming you were set up for a live draft). If you did set it up as a keeper league, then the future draft picks appear as tradeable options. If you didn't set it up as a keeper league, then this setting does not appear, and to my knowledge, future draft picks do not appear as tradeable assets.

I'm assuming this is the most likely culprit.

Despite that, given the 20+ years of precedent and the fact that it is a redraft league, I think reversing the trades like you did is absolutely the correct thing. Then next year, triple check the league settings.
 

Gottabesweet

Footballguy
Go to League -> Settings and check that you didn't accidentally set the league up as a keeper league. If you did, you will see a setting named "Keeper Settings", it's about the 10th item down, below the Live Draft Pick Time (assuming you were set up for a live draft). If you did set it up as a keeper league, then the future draft picks appear as tradeable options. If you didn't set it up as a keeper league, then this setting does not appear, and to my knowledge, future draft picks do not appear as tradeable assets.

I'm assuming this is the most likely culprit.

Despite that, given the 20+ years of precedent and the fact that it is a redraft league, I think reversing the trades like you did is absolutely the correct thing. Then next year, triple check the league settings.
I’ll pass along to the commish. Im a commish on CBS. Assumed it’s something like this.
 

da_budman

Footballguy
We are in a redraft league for 25 years. The first 22 or so on CBS. Future draft picks were never allowed to be traded (they weren’t in the drop down). No mention of this in constitution regarding draft pick trading one way or another.

We’ve allowed current year draft pick trading on draft spots weeks leading up once we drew spots. Which has only happened a couple times.

We’ve been on yahoo past 3 years and today someone traded Henry and a 5th next year for Aiyuk and a 1st next year.

Most of the league doesn’t think it should go through. The commish thinks it should. (It’s his nephew involved, however his nephew would understand if it got reversed as he thinks it’s weird that the site allowed it for redraft.

The commish brother and many others think it should be reversed. Commish thinks corrected in off season.

The team in last place sent Henry. The team in first sent the first.

8 of 12 teams make playoffs so you really need to be out of it for this situation to occur. There’s a ton of parody in a short bench league.
Well the commish is right IF you want to be able to trade future draft picks it has to bein the constitution....but as long as it isnt there right now I dont see why the he thinks it should go through. Sounds like he may be better off commishing a dynasty league if he thinks future trades should be a thing in a REDRAFT league....Also IF the rule gets changed to allow future picks trades you have to c9ollect next years league fee u7p front from both of the traders to avoid the players use this as a way of collusion ( because of the chance of them not comi8ng back next year) edit to add I see he reversed the trade.....I guess he gets a couple of kudos for TRYING to go by the rules however misguided as he was lol
 
Last edited:

da_budman

Footballguy
It's hard for me to say that it should be reversed, because if the platform started allowing it, and no one has necessarily ever said that it is disallowed in the past (to my knowledge), it feels wrong to say you can't do it. Does that mean when a player's positional designation is changed by the platform (e.g., Cordarrelle Patterson to RB), you aren't allowed to plug him into the RB slot, even though the platform allows it? Because "well he's never been allowed to be a RB befoooore when other owners had him, sooo ..." In other words, I think you should usually allow and disallow things as is designated by the system -- unless your constitution is very specific about the legality of the particular matter at hand, that is.

That being said. This is an especially weird one. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem turning this one down.
League bylaws override what a website allows though. I agree that it is weird its even an option in a rederaft league. our site has no option to automatically lock players out of the playoffs so we use the honor system and havent had an issue with it. (yes I know the commish can lock the players one at a time but that is a pain.)
 

da_budman

Footballguy
Absolutely reversed. You just can't rewrite the rules 3/4 of the way through the season. The commish is currying favor to his nephew.
The rules weren't re-written. There was never a rule allowing (or disallowing) trading future picks. It wasn't in the rules one way or the other.

This falls into the case that there isn't a specific rule about it so the commish ruled based on the intent of the rules/league. I think he did the right thing. A complete redraft shouldn't be allowed to trade future picks since they are not part of the current season.
I see what you are saying BUT Ive never been in a redraft league where the intent of the rules was to allow future picks in a redraft league. Put another way what trumps what the intent of the rule or if it isnt explicitly in the rules it should allowed???? Several years ago we had a player who thought it would be cute to drop/add every kicker off the waiver wire through fcfs. It wasnt explicitly against the rules at the time but it was certainly the intent that garbage like this was allowed...... Commish unlocked all the players he locked and returned the original dropee to his roster. Also every league constitution should have a catch all rule that says things unforseen can come up and the commish makes a decision on the fly about what is the fairest solution for the whole league. Since there is no rule one way or the other AND it was never done before this in a 22 year league to me this would be an easy commish decision ( and it wouldnt be the same one he chose)
 

Gally

Footballguy
I see what you are saying BUT Ive never been in a redraft league where the intent of the rules was to allow future picks in a redraft league. Put another way what trumps what the intent of the rule or if it isnt explicitly in the rules it should allowed???? Several years ago we had a player who thought it would be cute to drop/add every kicker off the waiver wire through fcfs. It wasnt explicitly against the rules at the time but it was certainly the intent that garbage like this was allowed...... Commish unlocked all the players he locked and returned the original dropee to his roster. Also every league constitution should have a catch all rule that says things unforseen can come up and the commish makes a decision on the fly about what is the fairest solution for the whole league. Since there is no rule one way or the other AND it was never done before this in a 22 year league to me this would be an easy commish decision ( and it wouldnt be the same one he chose)
I completely agree and that was my point. The intent of a redraft is that every year is autonomous. No future assets can be used because those are not part of the current season. The rule doesn't need to be written that you cannot trade future assets for current year deals to allow the commish to rule on the intent of the redraft type league. However, I have played with many owners that will argue that since it is not written you cannot disallow it. As a commish I have quashed the attempt and I have also allowed it depending on the type of circumvention and whether or not the intent was so obvious and clear (like this situation) or not. In all cases we then amend the by laws in the off season to close up the loophole. These type of owners are the worst for commisioning a league. Trying to circumvent the rules and their intent is crap.

I believe the commish disallowed the trades eventually as he should have.
 

wlwiles

Footballguy
Trading draft picks in a redraft league is fine so long as you're not mixing assets from different years. As @Gally and others have said, each year must be autonomous. Can't trade a 2022 player for a 2023 pick or vice versa.

Trading draft picks in a redraft is unorthodox, to be sure, but as long as it's picks for picks within the same draft there should be no issue with it. I have a redraft I commish that does this and it's quite fun, as it adds an additional element especially if you do an in-person draft. If Kelce is on the board at 1.10 and I've got the 1.12, I'll throw in a middle pick to move up two spots or something along those lines. One year we had a guy who hates drafting in the middle and he drew the 1.06, he just outright swapped all of his draft picks with the guy at 1.11. No issue with that.
 

Zow

Footballguy
Trading draft picks in a redraft league is fine so long as you're not mixing assets from different years. As @Gally and others have said, each year must be autonomous. Can't trade a 2022 player for a 2023 pick or vice versa.

Trading draft picks in a redraft is unorthodox, to be sure, but as long as it's picks for picks within the same draft there should be no issue with it. I have a redraft I commish that does this and it's quite fun, as it adds an additional element especially if you do an in-person draft. If Kelce is on the board at 1.10 and I've got the 1.12, I'll throw in a middle pick to move up two spots or something along those lines. One year we had a guy who hates drafting in the middle and he drew the 1.06, he just outright swapped all of his draft picks with the guy at 1.11. No issue with that.
Right. This all seems fine and makes sense. No issues with trading picks in the same year.

Future in a redraft just screams for disaster and potential collusion.
 

-OZ-

Footballguy
A redraft season is a different entity than the next season. My leagues don’t explicitly disallow trading between leagues, but we sure aren’t going to allow a team to trade Derrick Henry for a fifth in league A while the same owners swap Travis Kelce for a fifth in league B.
 

da_budman

Footballguy
I see what you are saying BUT Ive never been in a redraft league where the intent of the rules was to allow future picks in a redraft league. Put another way what trumps what the intent of the rule or if it isnt explicitly in the rules it should allowed???? Several years ago we had a player who thought it would be cute to drop/add every kicker off the waiver wire through fcfs. It wasnt explicitly against the rules at the time but it was certainly the intent that garbage like this was allowed...... Commish unlocked all the players he locked and returned the original dropee to his roster. Also every league constitution should have a catch all rule that says things unforseen can come up and the commish makes a decision on the fly about what is the fairest solution for the whole league. Since there is no rule one way or the other AND it was never done before this in a 22 year league to me this would be an easy commish decision ( and it wouldnt be the same one he chose)
I completely agree and that was my point. The intent of a redraft is that every year is autonomous. No future assets can be used because those are not part of the current season. The rule doesn't need to be written that you cannot trade future assets for current year deals to allow the commish to rule on the intent of the redraft type league. However, I have played with many owners that will argue that since it is not written you cannot disallow it. As a commish I have quashed the attempt and I have also allowed it depending on the type of circumvention and whether or not the intent was so obvious and clear (like this situation) or not. In all cases we then amend the by laws in the off season to close up the loophole. These type of owners are the worst for commisioning a league. Trying to circumvent the rules and their intent is crap.

I believe the commish disallowed the trades eventually as he should have.
Yeah I amended the post to reflect the fact that he eventually did the right thing.... Your post saying he DID the right thing was before that was posted though. I was pretty confused lol Sounds like a bit of cross posting goin on here
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top