Owner leaving keeper league next year (1 Viewer)

[Dirty Weasel]

An owner in my league has already stated that he will be leaving after this year. He has been in the league for 4 years and is a very active trader. He's made some great trades for his team over the years (i.e. trading away Priest Holmes for Brian Westbrook the same week Priest took a huge hit and never recovered), and some bonehead ones too (i.e. trading away Brandon Marshall and Plaxico Burress in return for Javon Walker, although this trade seemed OK way back then, it just turned out terrible for him).

He has won his division every year he has been in the league, and is currently 4-2 and atop his division. Trading future draft picks is allowed in our league. The question becomes - if he starts playing for this year only, at what point should the commish intervene? For example, what if he trades away his 1st rounder in 2009 for a guy like Mewelde Moore?

It's a pay league, and he has paid his dues to play in 2008. But it will certainly be hard to find a new owner to take over in 2009 if he sells the farm to win it all this year.

 

[cutler6]

If an owner trades away a future pick, they should be forced to pay next year's entry fee before the trade is official.

This way, he has some incentive to return or at least you are able to offer his team at a discount the following year (since you already collecting dues).

 

[blake]

If an owner trades away a future pick, they should be forced to pay next year's entry fee before the trade is official.This way, he has some incentive to return or at least you are able to offer his team at a discount the following year (since you already collecting dues).

wow, good call - i like that. i was going to say just do not allow him to trade future draft picks. he is at a disadvantage, but it is his problem that he is leaving the league, though i guess he is at least considerate to have let you know in advance. it would really put you in a bind had he traded future draft picks, and then in the offseason told you that he wasn't returning.

 

[dirtyhalos]

If an owner trades away a future pick, they should be forced to pay next year's entry fee before the trade is official.This way, he has some incentive to return or at least you are able to offer his team at a discount the following year (since you already collecting dues).

wow, good call - i like that. i was going to say just do not allow him to trade future draft picks. he is at a disadvantage, but it is his problem that he is leaving the league, though i guess he is at least considerate to have let you know in advance. it would really put you in a bind had he traded future draft picks, and then in the offseason told you that he wasn't returning.

this is a common rule that should have been in place prior to season starting, to implement it now is poor form..... imo he should have no restrictions, leagues fault for not addressing it

 

[blake]

If an owner trades away a future pick, they should be forced to pay next year's entry fee before the trade is official.This way, he has some incentive to return or at least you are able to offer his team at a discount the following year (since you already collecting dues).

wow, good call - i like that. i was going to say just do not allow him to trade future draft picks. he is at a disadvantage, but it is his problem that he is leaving the league, though i guess he is at least considerate to have let you know in advance. it would really put you in a bind had he traded future draft picks, and then in the offseason told you that he wasn't returning.

this is a common rule that should have been in place prior to season starting, to implement it now is poor form..... imo he should have no restrictions, leagues fault for not addressing it

i've never heard of this rule, so i'm not sure how common it is. and it depends when the league was notified to be making a blanket statement saying it is the league's fault. to implement it now certainly isn't poor form depending on circumstances, since instituting this rule immediately seems just and is not impacting anyone else's teams or creating an uneven playing field. it is simply up to the specific league and what they prefer; there definitely is no hard and fast rule.

 

[NatronIsMean]

Really, he should be allowed to trade away *some* future for the present, as this will be his last hooray. However, he should be put on alert that such trades will be highly scrutinized and if it looks like he's on the worse end of any deals in terms of value, there will be a commish veto.

He should be told if he protests that if he thinks he's inconvenienced, he should be aware that he's inconveniencing the league even more if he makes his team a bad one to sell to a new future owner.

 

[blake]

Really, he should be allowed to trade away *some* future for the present, as this will be his last hooray. However, he should be put on alert that such trades will be highly scrutinized and if it looks like he's on the worse end of any deals in terms of value, there will be a commish veto.He should be told if he protests that if he thinks he's inconvenienced, he should be aware that he's inconveniencing the league even more if he makes his team a bad one to sell to a new future owner.

actually, this is a good point for another side of the argument. the guy has been with the league for four years and since he's an active trader, he's probably been active in other parts of the league too, making him a valuable part of the league. how much slack do you allow a valuable owner who's been with the league a long while? that's probably up to the owners and commissioner of a league. i hadn't thought of that at first.

 

[cutler6]

If an owner trades away a future pick, they should be forced to pay next year's entry fee before the trade is official.

This way, he has some incentive to return or at least you are able to offer his team at a discount the following year (since you already collecting dues).

wow, good call - i like that. i was going to say just do not allow him to trade future draft picks. he is at a disadvantage, but it is his problem that he is leaving the league, though i guess he is at least considerate to have let you know in advance. it would really put you in a bind had he traded future draft picks, and then in the offseason told you that he wasn't returning.

this is a common rule that should have been in place prior to season starting, to implement it now is poor form..... imo he should have no restrictions, leagues fault for not addressing it

I agree implementing rules once the season starts is a bad idea. However, *if* an owner has made it know he is leaving yet he is cannibalizing the future of his team (because there is not risk to him next year) the commish should be able to step in for the integrity of the league.Here are some rules my league uses to handle this kind of stuff. But, to dirtyhalos' point, everyone signed off on these before the season started.

Any trade involving future draft picks during the season or draft picks for any draft other than the upcoming draft in the off season are allowed. Trades involving future draft picks are finalized only when both owners pay their entry fee for the upcoming season. If a team is involved in trading after the Championship Game and that team is vacated before the upcoming season, all trades post-Championship Gamewill be reversed. This assumes the vacating team has not paid their entry fee for the upcoming season.

This could also help avoid teams cannibalizing their squad, basically gives the commish AND assist commish together executive power:

At anytime, the commissioner or asst commissioner reserves the right to take any action to correct any conduct that is determined to be detrimental to the competitive balance of the league (this includes starting players that are on bye, injured, or on suspension). If disruptive conduct is repeated by an owner that is considered to be detrimental to the league, the commissioner or asst commissioner may request a league vote to immediately remove the owner from the league without refund.

 

[eighsse2]

So, we have two teams that have said that this is their last year. One of them has a horrible team and would be easily the odds-on favorite to get the first pick. We don't have any rule about paying up before trading future picks (though we can only trade picks one year out). I'm just wondering ethically whether I can make offers on those teams' picks.

In theory, it seems to me, the trade itself matters critically.
If I gave up Lamb or Bijan for a first and a second (which I wouldn't), that certainly is a good "business move" for the other team, and helps out whoever takes the "business" over.
If I trade Tyreek Hill or Aaron Rodgers for a first and a second, that is a guy selfishly trying to have a chance to win money in his final year, and further screwing the new owner.

So, I could see any move being especially controversial, even if it is good business. I guess I should just consider those picks to be locked.

 

[TheWinz]

Holy cow! I was the OP way back then. I am still The Dirty Weasels in all my leagues though.

 

[Gally]

So, I could see any move being especially controversial, even if it is good business. I guess I should just consider those picks to be locked.

Any chance you can find new owners now and have them involved with the team in making those type of decisions. Obviously the guys leaving will be trying to win now (otherwise they should just hand the team over now).

I think before you limit what the lame duck owners can or cannot do the league should get together and vote on how it should be handled. It should be a decision everyone is involved in.

 

[Statorama]

Holy cow! I was the OP way back then. I am still The Dirty Weasels in all my leagues though.

How did that thing work out? Did he not trade any draft picks?

(Also, hearing Priest's name always makes me remember 04-06 Larry Johnson - what a rush)

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

A question for the commish, if it isn't you. I'm not sure why this guy has to declare it's his swan song after two weeks. It would make me wonder if he's really done or just frustrated by the early results to this season?

If it's not an empire league, I think you really should have a pre-paid season. If you want to leave a good enough team that someone is willing to pay into immediately -or- if you're finding your own replacement, you get your refund. However, if you're leaving a junky team, then the league at least gets to offer a free rebuilding season to the next guy.

Since it's too late for that, I think you're relying on basic decency. In my opinion, if you're telling everyone that you're leaving the league following 2024, you'd come across as a horse's *** trading 2025/2026 1st rounders for win-now players. Even if they're younger veterans, it's still not right to take that selling point away from the league, when you're already making them find your replacement. If the guy is a decent dude, he should understand that.

 

[eighsse2]

So, I could see any move being especially controversial, even if it is good business. I guess I should just consider those picks to be locked.

Any chance you can find new owners now and have them involved with the team in making those type of decisions. Obviously the guys leaving will be trying to win now (otherwise they should just hand the team over now).

I think before you limit what the lame duck owners can or cannot do the league should get together and vote on how it should be handled. It should be a decision everyone is involved in.

That's fair. And yeah that would be a good idea if we can get replacements committed ahead of time, never thought of that.

 

[TheWinz]

Holy cow! I was the OP way back then. I am still The Dirty Weasels in all my leagues though.

How did that thing work out? Did he not trade any draft picks?

(Also, hearing Priest's name always makes me remember 04-06 Larry Johnson - what a rush)

I honestly don't remember. That was like 15 years ago. I forgot what I had for breakfast!

 

[Statorama]

Holy cow! I was the OP way back then. I am still The Dirty Weasels in all my leagues though.

How did that thing work out? Did he not trade any draft picks?

(Also, hearing Priest's name always makes me remember 04-06 Larry Johnson - what a rush)

I honestly don't remember. That was like 15 years ago. I forgot what I had for breakfast!

Fair enough

 

[eighsse2]

A question for the commish, if it isn't you. I'm not sure why this guy has to declare it's his swan song after two weeks. It would make me wonder if he's really done or just frustrated by the early results to this season?

If it's not an empire league, I think you really should have a pre-paid season. If you want to leave a good enough team that someone is willing to pay into immediately -or- if you're finding your own replacement, you get your refund. However, if you're leaving a junky team, then the league at least gets to offer a free rebuilding season to the next guy.

Since it's too late for that, I think you're relying on basic decency. In my opinion, if you're telling everyone that you're leaving the league following 2024, you'd come across as a horse's *** trading 2025/2026 1st rounders for win-now players. Even if they're younger veterans, it's still not right to take that selling point away from the league, when you're already making them find your replacement. If the guy is a decent dude, he should understand that.

Just for clarity, they both actually declared this is their last year before the season began.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

If I found out that the previous manager had been trading away future picks for older players after they'd already declared they were leaving the league, I wouldn't be taking their place.

 

[eighsse2]

If I found out that the previous manager had been trading away future picks for older players after they'd already declared they were leaving the league, I wouldn't be taking their place.

Yeah, I agree that seems like a messed up thing to do. But what if it's younger guys at reasonable value versus the picks? Is that totally different and acceptable, or only somewhat better?

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

A question for the commish, if it isn't you. I'm not sure why this guy has to declare it's his swan song after two weeks. It would make me wonder if he's really done or just frustrated by the early results to this season?

If it's not an empire league, I think you really should have a pre-paid season. If you want to leave a good enough team that someone is willing to pay into immediately -or- if you're finding your own replacement, you get your refund. However, if you're leaving a junky team, then the league at least gets to offer a free rebuilding season to the next guy.

Since it's too late for that, I think you're relying on basic decency. In my opinion, if you're telling everyone that you're leaving the league following 2024, you'd come across as a horse's *** trading 2025/2026 1st rounders for win-now players. Even if they're younger veterans, it's still not right to take that selling point away from the league, when you're already making them find your replacement. If the guy is a decent dude, he should understand that.

Just for clarity, they both actually declared this is their last year before the season began.

If I'm the commish, I either had 100% confidence in the character of these two owners coming into it -or- I'm making it clear to the entire the league now that they're not trading future assets for seasons that they won't be participating in.

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire, all the more reason to put a foot down to protect the returning members of the league. I was shocked how difficult it was for our league to find a replacement owner for an empire dynasty team with an empire pot that has been building since 2018.

 

[Gally]

If I found out that the previous manager had been trading away future picks for older players after they'd already declared they were leaving the league, I wouldn't be taking their place.

Yeah, I agree that seems like a messed up thing to do. But what if it's younger guys at reasonable value versus the picks? Is that totally different and acceptable, or only somewhat better?

It's why the sooner you can get a replacement identified to help give input on such things the better. Not everyone sees younger guys the same and while the trades may be reasonable if it's for guys the new owner doesn't like it can be a problem too.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

If I found out that the previous manager had been trading away future picks for older players after they'd already declared they were leaving the league, I wouldn't be taking their place.

Yeah, I agree that seems like a messed up thing to do. But what if it's younger guys at reasonable value versus the picks? Is that totally different and acceptable, or only somewhat better?

Different, better, but still unacceptable imo. You're not paying the freight for 2025, you're not trading 2025 1sts.

I get that these guys can still trade younger assets for win-now players, and that kind of sucks, but I think you're going to have to live with that if/when it happens. Can't accept future 1sts though.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

If I found out that the previous manager had been trading away future picks for older players after they'd already declared they were leaving the league, I wouldn't be taking their place.

Yeah, I agree that seems like a messed up thing to do. But what if it's younger guys at reasonable value versus the picks? Is that totally different and acceptable, or only somewhat better?

Probably have to judge it on it's individual merits but I think I'd find myself a little frustrated if trades were made on my behalf, without my involvement. If the guy wants to manage the team as a going concern then why is he leaving the league in the first place. Just leave it alone and let the person taking over make their own decisions. Having your draft picks gives you fluidity and safety that players just don't.

 

[eighsse2]

Good input, everyone. Thank you.

 

[Gally]

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire,

As commish I would throw all players/assets from these two teams into the hat and let the new owners "draft" from the assets to divide things up somewhat evenly. Not really fair if the two teams are drastically different quality wise for one guy to get the good team and one guy to get the crap team. Even them out and it probably is better for the league as a whole.

 

[eighsse2]

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire,

As commish I would throw all players/assets from these two teams into the hat and let the new owners "draft" from the assets to divide things up somewhat evenly. Not really fair if the two teams are drastically different quality wise for one guy to get the good team and one guy to get the crap team. Even them out and it probably is better for the league as a whole.

I'm guessing we'll be doing it on a first come first serve basis. Fair or not.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Also, since it sounds like one of these teams is awful and the other might be okay, I would suggest pooling all of their assets at season end (including 2025 draft slots) and letting the two new owners draft against each other to establish their new teams. They will have instant equity that way, instead of just inheriting every player that the previous owner left them.

 

[Gally]

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire,

As commish I would throw all players/assets from these two teams into the hat and let the new owners "draft" from the assets to divide things up somewhat evenly. Not really fair if the two teams are drastically different quality wise for one guy to get the good team and one guy to get the crap team. Even them out and it probably is better for the league as a whole.

I'm guessing we'll be doing it on a first come first serve basis. Fair or not.

Why? You have two available slots. You need two owners. If you find one owner now let him have input on both rosters as kind of an impartial judge and run futures of both teams knowing that all assets will go into a draft. That way he can do what's best for the future for both teams as he will have a chance at all the assets he is helping build. You don't really want to play down one team so you will need two guys eventually.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire,

As commish I would throw all players/assets from these two teams into the hat and let the new owners "draft" from the assets to divide things up somewhat evenly. Not really fair if the two teams are drastically different quality wise for one guy to get the good team and one guy to get the crap team. Even them out and it probably is better for the league as a whole.

Great minds Just posted the same thing. Way better doing it this way then a straight handoff. Assuming both guys are coming in at the same time. Otherwise, instant bitterness if I'm the new guy that gets the crappy team.

 

[Gally]

Since you're looking for two replacement owners, with one of the teams already being a dumpster fire,

As commish I would throw all players/assets from these two teams into the hat and let the new owners "draft" from the assets to divide things up somewhat evenly. Not really fair if the two teams are drastically different quality wise for one guy to get the good team and one guy to get the crap team. Even them out and it probably is better for the league as a whole.

Great minds Just posted the same thing. Way better doing it this way then a straight handoff. Assuming, both guys are coming in at the same time. Otherwise, instant bitterness if I'm the new guy that gets the crappy team.

There is no negative by doing it this way. It helps bring in two "better" teams over having one doormat which is always bad for a league.

ETA: Plus it will be more appealing to new owners knowing that they will have some say in their initial roster. I mean who doesn't like a draft?

 

[eighsse2]

The pool-and-draft idea seems nice and all, but it seems, maybe, a bit arbitrary/discontinuous? What about the three teams in the division with the garbage team? Their division rival suddenly is significantly improved. I kind of like the idea of the teams remaining the way they are and not being dismantled just out of fairness. If you've got a buddy that wants to join the league, get him in the door asap to get the better team. If you're the late bird, should've been earlier.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Yeah I want the league continuity. It's a nice idea pooling the assets but it isn't a fair reflection of what has preceded and how those teams have fared. You can certainly offer the depleted, janky teams owner a discount for having adopted such a poor orphan but I wouldn't be messing with the established equilibrium in a league. The other managers have successfully participated in making that team bad and it should stay that way I think.

 

[Gally]

What about the three teams in the division with the garbage team? Their division rival suddenly is significantly improved.

Why is that a problem? What is best for the league is for all teams to be competitive. Having terrible teams in a league is a bad thing and should be avoided if it can be. Plus it will make it much easier to fill both spots which is typically a pain in the backside especially when there is a drastic difference in the teams.

I just don't see a reason why the two teams shouldn't draft between both rosters to make it their own. I just don't see a downside at all.

 

[Gally]

but it isn't a fair reflection of what has preceded and how those teams have fared.

I just don't understand this point of view. As a commish, I don't want lesser teams in the league. That has a tendency to lead to janky deals and an imbalance to the schedule and a multitude of other possible shenanigans.

The new owner is not the owner that lead to "a fair reflection of how the team fared". Punishing him for a crappy/unlucky owner is not a good way to start him off (IMO).

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

As a commish

I'm not viewing it as a commish, I'm viewing it as one of the other teams in the league, and if two bad teams were suddenly allowed to become better with what I deem to be a fairly unnatural process (with regards to how fantasy usually works) I would be somewhat bothered by it.

Frankly I do want there to be bad teams in the league. I want my team to beat bad teams and I work hard coming up with ways to make my team better and other teams worse. Feeling like I'd achieved that only for that team to be given the chance to accrue assets it hadn't really earned isn't doing it for me dude.

The new owner isn't being punished. They should be well aware of what they are taking on at the outset, having to sweeten the deal to get someone involved shouldn't mess with the current balance of power in the league with regard to team strength. At least that's how I see it.

 

[eighsse2]

What about the three teams in the division with the garbage team? Their division rival suddenly is significantly improved.

Why is that a problem? What is best for the league is for all teams to be competitive. Having terrible teams in a league is a bad thing and should be avoided if it can be. Plus it will make it much easier to fill both spots which is typically a pain in the backside especially when there is a drastic difference in the teams.

I just don't see a reason why the two teams shouldn't draft between both rosters to make it their own. I just don't see a downside at all.

With all due respect, totally disagree. If the league organically finds itself in a state of uniform team value, that's fine, but I wouldn't want to force that. I get that is the point of reverse draft order, and that much is all well and good. But I honestly believe it is more interesting in any league to have a normal distribution of power. If the NFL typically had seasons finish with, say, one 11-6 team, three 10-7 teams, twelve 9-8 teams, twelve 8-9 teams, three 7-10 teams, and one 6-11 team, it would be borderline unwatchable in my opinion.

I get pooling two teams is not going to make our whole league equal, but it's just not the kind of thing I think should be forced.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

If it's divisional format that does change the appeal of shaking up all the assets of the two teams combined. More fair for the incoming owners. Less fair for the remaining teams that had a bad team in their division to beat up on.

But just realize there's a very good chance the league won't be able to find a sap willing to immediately pay in for a bad dynasty team, even if it still has its 1st attached.


Straight hand-off:
Team A feels like a 5 about the state of their new team, on a scale of 1 to 10.
Team B feels like a 1, and we're assuming is just happy to be in the league.

Pooling assets and disperse:
Team A feels like a 4.
Team B feels like a 4.

Okay, maybe more like a 3.5, but you get the point. Giving the new teams options and some control over how their team will look is a good thing. The new teams get to prioritize youth and draft picks vs win-now, as they see fit. They get to bypass any players they despise and prioritize any players they're bullish on. No, it's not a giant pool to select from, but it does provide some instant "buy-in" of the the non-monetary variety.

But it the owners of the teams in the one division say it's not fair to them, they kind of have a point. Especially if the owner quality level is pretty well balanced between the divisions. Just be prepared to start pooling a lot of gift cards to bribe someone to take over a bad team and pay for the previous owner's sins.

 

[Gally]

The new owner isn't being punished. They should be well aware of what they are taking on at the outset, having to sweeten the deal to get someone involved shouldn't mess with the current balance of power in the league with regard to team strength. At least that's how I see it.

It is not taking anything away from your roster. Other concessions (like awarding an added draft pick or two) will do that. In theory, the draft will be lowering the talent level on one team and raising it on another so it's not raising the level on two teams.

While I want to win every week and be the best team I also want every team to be competitive and trying to win. It's just better for everyone. There is nothing worse than needing a team to lose and they go up against a tanking team that has no shot at winning after I had to play that tanking team early in the season when they were competitive.

 

[Gally]

But I honestly believe it is more interesting in any league to have a normal distribution of power.

I have found in these instances it leads to a lot of shenanigan opportunities of borderline trades and teams tanking leading to an imbalance of schedule and other unsavory opportunities.

But I understand your point of view. No problem with differing opinions. It makes the world go round. Bottom line, it's your league so do what you think best. I am just trying to give you some ideas based on my experiences of running a dynasty league and having to backfill teams unexpectedly. It can be very difficult - especially if you have a terrible roster to sell. There is no single right way. That's what makes it interesting.

 

[eighsse2]

But I honestly believe it is more interesting in any league to have a normal distribution of power.

I have found in these instances it leads to a lot of shenanigan opportunities of borderline trades and teams tanking leading to an imbalance of schedule and other unsavory opportunities.

But I understand your point of view. No problem with differing opinions. It makes the world go round. Bottom line, it's your league so do what you think best. I am just trying to give you some ideas based on my experiences of running a dynasty league and having to backfill teams unexpectedly. It can be very difficult - especially if you have a terrible roster to sell. There is no single right way. That's what makes it interesting.

Yeah, I agree to mostly disagree on that part, and I know it's pretty much besides the point whether I like the concept or not. I asked for advice and you gave your ideas, and I appreciate it!

I might -- as "assistant commissioner" of sorts currently -- throw the idea out to the league even though I don't like it, just because they might all like it.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

It's a little silly that you would have established teams insisting on their right to keep a complete cupcake in their division at the expense of a more competitive league, and more importantly, filling both vacancies with paying owners. But no, such a situation wouldn't at all be surprising in fantasy football. As a compromise, they might be willing to accept their choice of the lesser of the two teams that's reconstructed? The product of a bad team mixed with an okay team is still going to be a pretty mediocre product. Maybe decent enough that it's not choosing to tank it's first three seasons to assemble a future nightmare team of #1 overall selections.

Obviously, pooling and dispersing is not typical, and in no way is it mandatory for the league to have success moving forward. I can tell you that we had a similar situation last year, with one average dynasty team and one that was probably the worst in the league, but not a complete wasteland. The average team overperformed and netted that owner a championship, assembled entirely by someone else. The other guy called it quits and we were once again scrambling to find a replacement before the start of this season.