Trade deadline violation or not? (1 Viewer)

[ryheaps]

Would like to get some opinions on if the following situation should be deemed a trade deadline violation in our league:

We have a trade deadline of 1pm on Sunday of Week 13 and are using MFL software. Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded.

A trade was processed in our league on Sunday morning that involved a player that was started by one of the teams on Thursday.

The trade was immediately reversed with a note added that the trade would be processed on Tuesday of next week (Week 14...after the deadline)

The trade has now been processed today (the two teams involved are the commissioners hence the ability to override the system)

So the trade was agreed to in week 13, but actually processed in week 14. Give the 1pm of the Sunday of week 13 deadline, it appears that the intent is that players should not be traded after they play in week 13.

What do you think? Valid trade since the players agreed to the trade in week 13 prior to the deadline. Invalid since some players in the deal have been used in week 13 already requiring system override by the commissioners to effectively process their trade in week 14.

Thanks!

 

[Skoo]

Valid, since they made the trade agreement before the deadline.

Players stay on their teams for week 13, and then change teams for week 14.

 

[rockaction]

I think it's valid. Just because they were victims of the schedule doesn't mean they should be punished for making a deal for Weeks 14 and onward.

 

[gianmarco]

If your rules state that players are locked when their games start and one of the players played on Thursday, then I don't see how the trade can go through. You're either breaking that rule or the deadline rule by putting the trade through.

 

[Squintz82]

I'm on the fence, but the rules are terrible. I run a few MFL leagues, and the deadline should be set at the start of the FIRST NFL game of that week, not Sunday.

 

[steelers1080]

Valid. Next time have the deadline be prior to the thursday night games. Our trade deadline is on a wednesday.

 

[Koya]

I'm on the fence, but the rules are terrible. I run a few MFL leagues, and the deadline should be set at the start of the FIRST NFL game of that week, not Sunday.

Considering that only gives through Thurs afternoon and many of us have jobs etc and can't devote time to trade talk until the weekend, I disagree.

That said, you should have a rule to allow or disallow a guy who has already played. My gut is that this should not go through and the fact that its two commish makes it WAY more sketchy.

The reality is that as commish, you have to err on the side of caution even if it means some small disadvantage. I'd never do something shady like that if it would not normally go through for any other teams without overriding a setting.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Valid. The players are only locked to keep the points where they were originally rostered.

The trade was transparent to the league and does not appear to be in violation of the spirit of the league.

I think you might be comparing the situation to players being locked to waivers after they have played. Since these players are already owned they are not subject to the same fair access rules that the waiver process applies to unrostered players.

 

[ryheaps]

Unfortunately the rules are vague and do not state that the players are locked after their game. That is a requirement of the software. The rules have not been updated in a while and need to be with the Thurs games now. The rules still reference Barry Sanders in an example to illustrate the lack of updating. Since the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, it seems the intent was that the trade should take place before the players play in week 13. That is my interpretation though.

Appreciate the feedback and welcome more.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Our rule is that the trade deadline is 11:59am Sunday of week 11 but players that played on Thursday night are locked and not eligible to be traded. Pretty straight forward but if your league doesn't say that then it's a valid trade.

 

[Cyclones]

As a commish, I would process this trade based on the rules as they exist.

 

[jon_mx]

There is a reason they had to override the system.

 

[Pipes]

If your rules state that players are locked when their games start and one of the players played on Thursday, then I don't see how the trade can go through. You're either breaking that rule or the deadline rule by putting the trade through.

This.

 

[SWC]

i am not a commish so i can not give you an official answer but if you decide that you need an awesome nickname you know where to find me take that to the bank brochachos

 

[kutta]

I think you have to let it go for this time, but if forced to vote, I'd probably vote invalid because I think the intent was that you can't trade players after they play for the week.

Let it go, then clean up the rules.

 

[Pipes]

Unfortunately the rules are vague and do not state that the players are locked after their game. That is a requirement of the software. The rules have not been updated in a while and need to be with the Thurs games now. The rules still reference Barry Sanders in an example to illustrate the lack of updating. Since the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, it seems the intent was that the trade should take place before the players play in week 13. That is my interpretation though.

Appreciate the feedback and welcome more.

That would be my interpretation as well. By having the deadline at 1:00 on Sunday tells me the trade deadline was intended to be before the start of the week 13 games. If this trade is allowed to go through the deadline is really at the end of week 13 games.

 

[packer_junkie]

Violation of the deadline-- BS if you ask me

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Valid

 

[Sabertooth]

Would like to get some opinions on if the following situation should be deemed a trade deadline violation in our league:

We have a trade deadline of 1pm on Sunday of Week 13 and are using MFL software. Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded.

A trade was processed in our league on Sunday morning that involved a player that was started by one of the teams on Thursday.

The trade was immediately reversed with a note added that the trade would be processed on Tuesday of next week (Week 14...after the deadline)

The trade has now been processed today (the two teams involved are the commissioners hence the ability to override the system)

So the trade was agreed to in week 13, but actually processed in week 14. Give the 1pm of the Sunday of week 13 deadline, it appears that the intent is that players should not be traded after they play in week 13.

What do you think? Valid trade since the players agreed to the trade in week 13 prior to the deadline. Invalid since some players in the deal have been used in week 13 already requiring system override by the commissioners to effectively process their trade in week 14.

Thanks!

Clear violation of the rules. If a player is locked, he's locked. The fact that the commissioners had to override the calendar is further evidence of the douchbaggery of this trade.

 

[Sabertooth]

In fact I had a very similar situation come up this Sunday evening. Once a player is locked, he's locked. I offered and owner 2 first round picks for Peyton Manning. He replied he'd rather one first round pick and Jeremy Hill instead. I told him we couldn't because Hill had already played. It killed the deal. Which I would have done not problem (superflex league and he was out of the playoff race). But I would never pull a move like that on my league. I never even considered it and I really wanted that trade.

 

[GregR]

Let's say the same thing happened in Week 10. Would the owners have been told the trade was void and they have to resubmit it? And would one of the owners involved be able to change his mind and not be bound by the original terms or not make the trade at all?

Or would the league have accepted the trade (no re-submission needed) and the original terms would not be allowed to be altered come Tuesday?

If the same trade submitted in Week 10 would have been considered binding on first submission, then they submitted a trade ahead of your trade deadline. That your league's process for executing it delays the movement of players doesn't change the owners beat the deadline.

If the opposite is true, if in Week 10 the league would have said, "No your submitted trade is rejected and neither owner is bound by it", then there was not a valid trade submitted in advance of the trade deadline, so it should be rejected.

 

[Sabertooth]

Let's say the same thing happened in Week 10. Would the owners have been told the trade was void and they have to resubmit it? And would one of the owners involved be able to change his mind and not be bound by the original terms or not make the trade at all?

Or would the league have accepted the trade (no re-submission needed) and the original terms would not be allowed to be altered come Tuesday?

If the same trade submitted in Week 10 would have been considered binding on first submission, then they submitted a trade ahead of your trade deadline. That your league's process for executing it delays the movement of players doesn't change the owners beat the deadline.

If the opposite is true, if in Week 10 the league would have said, "No your submitted trade is rejected and neither owner is bound by it", then there was not a valid trade submitted in advance of the trade deadline, so it should be rejected.

This is what I how I would call it if that happened. A trade isn't a trade until it's executed. It's not binding until it executes as far as I'm concerned as a commish.

 

[GregR]

Let's say the same thing happened in Week 10. Would the owners have been told the trade was void and they have to resubmit it? And would one of the owners involved be able to change his mind and not be bound by the original terms or not make the trade at all?

Or would the league have accepted the trade (no re-submission needed) and the original terms would not be allowed to be altered come Tuesday?

If the same trade submitted in Week 10 would have been considered binding on first submission, then they submitted a trade ahead of your trade deadline. That your league's process for executing it delays the movement of players doesn't change the owners beat the deadline.

If the opposite is true, if in Week 10 the league would have said, "No your submitted trade is rejected and neither owner is bound by it", then there was not a valid trade submitted in advance of the trade deadline, so it should be rejected.

This is what I how I would call it if that happened. A trade isn't a trade until it's executed. It's not binding until it executes as far as I'm concerned as a commish.

Just to be clear, what you said isn't what my bolded part says. I don't agree a trade isn't a trade until it's executed.

In both my scenarios, a trade is binding the moment both owners agree to it... unless the league rejects the trade for some reason (collusion, salary cap violation, etc). I am then asking whether the league actually rejects a trade in week 10, or whether they just delay execution of it but it remains binding during that time.

As an example, if a league gives a commish 2 days after submission to review trades for collusion then push them through, neither owner can decide in those 2 days to back out of the trade. So submission is the moment it becomes binding.

Judging by the OP's post where the commish said the trade's execution would be delayed, I'm guessing he'd have handled it the same way any other week. And guessing it would be binding and he wouldn't let an owner back out of it because he changed his mind.

 

[dhockster]

The original intent of the rule seems to be that players could be traded before any NFL game was played in week 13. Hence the deadline of 1 PM EST on Sunday. Note that under this rule, even if teams wanted to trade players who did not play until Monday night of week 13 after the games for that week had started, they could not do that because the deadline was set for the commencement of any NFL games for that week. That rule has obviously not been updated to account for the NFL now having Thursday night games. To stay in line with the original intent, that rule would have probably been changed to set the deadline to 8:30 PM on Thursday before the week 13 games.

In my opinion this trade is not valid because it occurred after games had commenced for week 13.

Even if you do not agree with that, they is no way a player who had already played in week 13 should be included in any trade. That clearly violates the original intent of the rule.

 

[ryheaps]

Let's say the same thing happened in Week 10. Would the owners have been told the trade was void and they have to resubmit it? And would one of the owners involved be able to change his mind and not be bound by the original terms or not make the trade at all?

Or would the league have accepted the trade (no re-submission needed) and the original terms would not be allowed to be altered come Tuesday?

If the same trade submitted in Week 10 would have been considered binding on first submission, then they submitted a trade ahead of your trade deadline. That your league's process for executing it delays the movement of players doesn't change the owners beat the deadline.

If the opposite is true, if in Week 10 the league would have said, "No your submitted trade is rejected and neither owner is bound by it", then there was not a valid trade submitted in advance of the trade deadline, so it should be rejected.

This is what I how I would call it if that happened. A trade isn't a trade until it's executed. It's not binding until it executes as far as I'm concerned as a commish.

Just to be clear, what you said isn't what my bolded part says. I don't agree a trade isn't a trade until it's executed.

In both my scenarios, a trade is binding the moment both owners agree to it... unless the league rejects the trade for some reason (collusion, salary cap violation, etc). I am then asking whether the league actually rejects a trade in week 10, or whether they just delay execution of it but it remains binding during that time.

As an example, if a league gives a commish 2 days after submission to review trades for collusion then push them through, neither owner can decide in those 2 days to back out of the trade. So submission is the moment it becomes binding.

Judging by the OP's post where the commish said the trade's execution would be delayed, I'm guessing he'd have handled it the same way any other week. And guessing it would be binding and he wouldn't let an owner back out of it because he changed his mind.

The commissioners have stated that they would have processed trades like this on other weeks using the same approach. In my mind, that means the trade is really being processed the next week. I can't say this trade should be treated like a trade from any other week in the season as this results in the trade being executed after the trade deadline. Very interesting mix of responses. I've tried to avoid biasing the discussion too much early on, but I think this is really inappropriate and violates the likely spirit of the rules when they were originally drafted.

 

[thatguy]

I'm on the fence, but the rules are terrible. I run a few MFL leagues, and the deadline should be set at the start of the FIRST NFL game of that week, not Sunday.

Considering that only gives through Thurs afternoon and many of us have jobs etc and can't devote time to trade talk until the weekend, I disagree.

That said, you should have a rule to allow or disallow a guy who has already played. My gut is that this should not go through and the fact that its two commish makes it WAY more sketchy.

The reality is that as commish, you have to err on the side of caution even if it means some small disadvantage. I'd never do something shady like that if it would not normally go through for any other teams without overriding a setting.

Great advice here in general. I've always run my league this way.

 

[bigbrownbag]

There is a reason they had to override the system.

100% agree with this. Not sure how you can think otherwise. Clearly the MFL software had considered those players invalid to be traded.

As the "commissioners" they should have NOT went through with the trade and cleaned up the rules for next year. Or put it up for vote.

 

[Alkahsu]

100% Valid. No question about it. The trade was accepted before the deadline.

The whole lock and untradeable thing is just so you can't trade away players that already played Thursday and gain an extra roster spot for the week.

 

[MIMN]

I would say it is invalid but probably not worth quitting the league over. Obviously, I would assume that the commish would also approve a trade involving only players that had NOT played yet (and so could be traded) to be delayed until the following week.

In the end, the spirit of the rules should prevail. As long as the spirit of the rules are retained then all should be good. To me, the spirit of a trading deadline is that once a player is locked for the week they cannot be traded. It would seem the web site agrees.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Would like to get some opinions on if the following situation should be deemed a trade deadline violation in our league:

We have a trade deadline of 1pm on Sunday of Week 13 and are using MFL software. Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded.

A trade was processed in our league on Sunday morning that involved a player that was started by one of the teams on Thursday.

The trade was immediately reversed with a note added that the trade would be processed on Tuesday of next week (Week 14...after the deadline)

The trade has now been processed today (the two teams involved are the commissioners hence the ability to override the system)

So the trade was agreed to in week 13, but actually processed in week 14. Give the 1pm of the Sunday of week 13 deadline, it appears that the intent is that players should not be traded after they play in week 13.

What do you think? Valid trade since the players agreed to the trade in week 13 prior to the deadline. Invalid since some players in the deal have been used in week 13 already requiring system override by the commissioners to effectively process their trade in week 14.

Thanks!

Clear violation of the rules. If a player is locked, he's locked. The fact that the commissioners had to override the calendar is further evidence of the douchbaggery of this trade.

It is called a override button, not "this breaks the rules" button. They overrode the settings not the rules.All the settings do is automate the rules and scoring as best they can.

 

[The Claymaker]

There is only one line in this equation that matters:

"Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded."

In any league I have ever seen or been involved with, the NFL week is from kickoff of the Thursday game to the end of the Monday game. That player was "locked" for the week from trades, doesn't matter what they agreed upon on Sunday. Since that Sunday was the trade deadline, that player can't be traded and therefore makes the entire trade invalid. Commish powers should never be used to break the leagues rules.

 

[GregR]

Let's say the same thing happened in Week 10. Would the owners have been told the trade was void and they have to resubmit it? And would one of the owners involved be able to change his mind and not be bound by the original terms or not make the trade at all?

Or would the league have accepted the trade (no re-submission needed) and the original terms would not be allowed to be altered come Tuesday?

If the same trade submitted in Week 10 would have been considered binding on first submission, then they submitted a trade ahead of your trade deadline. That your league's process for executing it delays the movement of players doesn't change the owners beat the deadline.

If the opposite is true, if in Week 10 the league would have said, "No your submitted trade is rejected and neither owner is bound by it", then there was not a valid trade submitted in advance of the trade deadline, so it should be rejected.

This is what I how I would call it if that happened. A trade isn't a trade until it's executed. It's not binding until it executes as far as I'm concerned as a commish.

Just to be clear, what you said isn't what my bolded part says. I don't agree a trade isn't a trade until it's executed.

In both my scenarios, a trade is binding the moment both owners agree to it... unless the league rejects the trade for some reason (collusion, salary cap violation, etc). I am then asking whether the league actually rejects a trade in week 10, or whether they just delay execution of it but it remains binding during that time.

As an example, if a league gives a commish 2 days after submission to review trades for collusion then push them through, neither owner can decide in those 2 days to back out of the trade. So submission is the moment it becomes binding.

Judging by the OP's post where the commish said the trade's execution would be delayed, I'm guessing he'd have handled it the same way any other week. And guessing it would be binding and he wouldn't let an owner back out of it because he changed his mind.

The commissioners have stated that they would have processed trades like this on other weeks using the same approach. In my mind, that means the trade is really being processed the next week. I can't say this trade should be treated like a trade from any other week in the season as this results in the trade being executed after the trade deadline. Very interesting mix of responses. I've tried to avoid biasing the discussion too much early on, but I think this is really inappropriate and violates the likely spirit of the rules when they were originally drafted.

I do wholeheartedly believe if someone tries to do something that:

a) a rule is vague about, and

b) it clearly breaks the spirit, and

c) he tried to slide it through rather than get clarification from the commish first

A league needn't just let the guy rules lawyer it and get away with it. But this hasn't sounded like someone exploiting vagueness in your rule. The rule explicitly states the deadline. If it explicitly deals with the subject but didn't capture the spirit of what you wanted, the problem is in the rule. And I think since there is no need of interpreting the rule here, you stick with the rule even if it didn't capture the spirit you wanted. It would have to be a heinously badly written rule and major situation to not go with the rule.

That said, to me the spirit of a Week 13 deadline is about teams not being able to make trades AFTER seeing where Week 13 results put them in the playoff race. It would have been better to set the deadline as the start of Week 13 games, obviously, and MFL supports that.

I don't know if the spirit was even broken as I don't know the situation. I suppose a team could be out of the playoffs with a loss, and enough of his lineup and his opponent's lineup played Thursday he can see the writing on the wall. If that didn't happen though, then I don't know that the spirit of the rule is even being broken. I couldn't tell you how any of my 4 fantasy games were going to turn out after Thursday, let alone those of other teams whose result impact my playoff seeding.

I mention that as an aside. As said before, I think you need to stick with the written rule when it is explicit enough about a situation, and it was here.

 

[Tool]

There is only one line in this equation that matters:

"Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded."

In any league I have ever seen or been involved with, the NFL week is from kickoff of the Thursday game to the end of the Monday game. That player was "locked" for the week from trades, doesn't matter what they agreed upon on Sunday. Since that Sunday was the trade deadline, that player can't be traded and therefore makes the entire trade invalid. Commish powers should never be used to break the leagues rules.

Haven't read the whole thread but this exactly correct.

 

[FlapJacks]

If your rules state that players are locked when their games start and one of the players played on Thursday, then I don't see how the trade can go through. You're either breaking that rule or the deadline rule by putting the trade through.

this

 

[msudaisy26]

If the trade was accepted before the deadline then you should let it process. However, if someone gets hurt Sunday before the other team gets to use them then tough.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would like to get some opinions on if the following situation should be deemed a trade deadline violation in our league:

We have a trade deadline of 1pm on Sunday of Week 13 and are using MFL software. Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded.

A trade was processed in our league on Sunday morning that involved a player that was started by one of the teams on Thursday.

The trade was immediately reversed with a note added that the trade would be processed on Tuesday of next week (Week 14...after the deadline)

The trade has now been processed today (the two teams involved are the commissioners hence the ability to override the system)

So the trade was agreed to in week 13, but actually processed in week 14. Give the 1pm of the Sunday of week 13 deadline, it appears that the intent is that players should not be traded after they play in week 13.

What do you think? Valid trade since the players agreed to the trade in week 13 prior to the deadline. Invalid since some players in the deal have been used in week 13 already requiring system override by the commissioners to effectively process their trade in week 14.

Thanks!

since thursday games are stupid, I would allow it

 

[ghostguy123]

Plus I dont like this:

A guy can be traded if he wasnt in the other teams lineup, but not if he was??

Seems rather arbitrary. As long as the team trading the player still gets the points for the thursday game for week 13, and the team getting the player cant use him.................seems fine.

So I guess I think the rule itself is silly (since the trade availability depends on whether the player was started), but yeah I guess technically the trade should not be allowed.

 

[T J]

This trade is invalid. The guys that played Thursday were not eligible to be traded in that week and by processing it manually, the commissioners established a new deadline which is improper. I've been a commish for the last 15yrs and this would definitely NOT fly.

 

[Tau837]

If your rules state that players are locked when their games start and one of the players played on Thursday, then I don't see how the trade can go through. You're either breaking that rule or the deadline rule by putting the trade through.

This.

 

[Mario Kart]

Invalid. Rules state that if the player has played his game that week, he is off limits. The player played his game and is off limits. Thus making him in Week 14 and passed the deadline.

INVALID!

 

[ryheaps]

So looks like we have approx. 10 people that either think the trade was completely valid or should be allowed with rules fixed next year and approx 15 that think it is invalid and should not be allowed (3 or 4 were on the fence or too uncertain to put on either side)

I've shared this link with my commissioners and the league to see what they think. League members have been shockingly quiet but the only one how has addressed the situation thinks it should be invalid. The commissioners all seem to agree that the rule needs to be addressed next year, but want the trade to stand for this year (of course they are the beneficiaries of the trade).

One point of clarification though...the rules do not lock players after he played his game, the software does. The rules indicate that the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, but they were crafted before the days of Thursday Night Football. The rules are assuming that no players would have played games prior to 1pm on Sunday.

Will see where this goes...thanks to all for the comments and opinions and feel free to keep the opinions coming.

 

[gianmarco]

So looks like we have approx. 10 people that either think the trade was completely valid or should be allowed with rules fixed next year and approx 15 that think it is invalid and should not be allowed (3 or 4 were on the fence or too uncertain to put on either side)

I've shared this link with my commissioners and the league to see what they think. League members have been shockingly quiet but the only one how has addressed the situation thinks it should be invalid. The commissioners all seem to agree that the rule needs to be addressed next year, but want the trade to stand for this year (of course they are the beneficiaries of the trade).

One point of clarification though...the rules do not lock players after he played his game, the software does. The rules indicate that the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, but they were crafted before the days of Thursday Night Football. The rules are assuming that no players would have played games prior to 1pm on Sunday.

Will see where this goes...thanks to all for the comments and opinions and feel free to keep the opinions coming.

If that's the case, then the trade MAY be able to stand. Your initial post made it sound as if it was against the rules.

So, here is the major question: In earlier weeks, are players locked for trading when their games begin? If so, when do they open back up?

If the answer above is yes, then I don't think there's any way this trade should go through. If not, then I can see allowing it (as it was the final week deadline rule in software that wasn't put in correctly).

Despite that, I'd handle it one of 2 ways:

1) Immediate league vote for rule change. If unanimously passed that the spirit of the rule was 1pm Sunday on week 13, then allow it and move on. If not, it's reversed.

2) Reverse the trade and address the rule in the offseason.

 

[ryheaps]

The system locks the players from being traded at the time of their game (I believe this limited to if they are in your starting line up, but frankly I'm not sure). Any trade of that player does not get executed until the next week.

I did find another clause in our rules that states "players acquired are available for use in the lineup the week that they are picked up". So if the players in the trade are not allowed by the system to be used in week 13, that means by default that trade is actually being executed in week 14 (the first week that the players are eligible for use in a line up). Week 14 is after the trade deadline, so this seems to state that the trade should not be allowed as it is after the deadline. In my mind that actually removes some of the vagueness from this situation and further cements my view that this trade should be deemed invalid.

 

[Hoot McGoot]

I've read most of the posts. Being a commissioner in my own league, I would have to rule that it's not a trade. The rules have always been that a player that has been played will be locked and have to be traded the following week. Unfortunately, one owner chose to use a player in week 13 with, or w/o, the knowledge that you cannot trade a locked player until the following week(he likely didn't plan on making the trade until after the player was played, but that's his problem for not doing the trade earlier.)

Having already established the trade deadline, it sucks for them but that's part of having the trade deadline in the first place, to prevent people from swapping players after the playoff brackets are established,.

 

[Pipes]

So looks like we have approx. 10 people that either think the trade was completely valid or should be allowed with rules fixed next year and approx 15 that think it is invalid and should not be allowed (3 or 4 were on the fence or too uncertain to put on either side)

I've shared this link with my commissioners and the league to see what they think. League members have been shockingly quiet but the only one how has addressed the situation thinks it should be invalid. The commissioners all seem to agree that the rule needs to be addressed next year, but want the trade to stand for this year (of course they are the beneficiaries of the trade).

One point of clarification though...the rules do not lock players after he played his game, the software does. The rules indicate that the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, but they were crafted before the days of Thursday Night Football. The rules are assuming that no players would have played games prior to 1pm on Sunday.

Will see where this goes...thanks to all for the comments and opinions and feel free to keep the opinions coming.

Complete garbage if you ask me. What was the trade? Are both teams legitimately fight for the playoffs or is this a dynasty with one team trading for the future? If it's the later I'd raise some hell.

 

[Amused to Death]

So looks like we have approx. 10 people that either think the trade was completely valid or should be allowed with rules fixed next year and approx 15 that think it is invalid and should not be allowed (3 or 4 were on the fence or too uncertain to put on either side)

I've shared this link with my commissioners and the league to see what they think. League members have been shockingly quiet but the only one how has addressed the situation thinks it should be invalid. The commissioners all seem to agree that the rule needs to be addressed next year, but want the trade to stand for this year (of course they are the beneficiaries of the trade).

One point of clarification though...the rules do not lock players after he played his game, the software does. The rules indicate that the deadline is 1pm on Sunday of week 13, but they were crafted before the days of Thursday Night Football. The rules are assuming that no players would have played games prior to 1pm on Sunday.

Will see where this goes...thanks to all for the comments and opinions and feel free to keep the opinions coming.

Spirit of the rule was to cut off trading at the kickoff of week 13. That should be upheld and the rules updated to reflect today's NFL schedule.

 

[spodog]

Valid. The players are only locked to keep the points where they were originally rostered.

The trade was transparent to the league and does not appear to be in violation of the spirit of the league.

I think you might be comparing the situation to players being locked to waivers after they have played. Since these players are already owned they are not subject to the same fair access rules that the waiver process applies to unrostered players.

+1

 

[BassNBrew]

Would like to get some opinions on if the following situation should be deemed a trade deadline violation in our league:

We have a trade deadline of 1pm on Sunday of Week 13 and are using MFL software. Players used in starting lineups of Thursday night games are locked for the week and can't be traded.

A trade was processed in our league on Sunday morning that involved a player that was started by one of the teams on Thursday.

The trade was immediately reversed with a note added that the trade would be processed on Tuesday of next week (Week 14...after the deadline)

The trade has now been processed today (the two teams involved are the commissioners hence the ability to override the system)

So the trade was agreed to in week 13, but actually processed in week 14. Give the 1pm of the Sunday of week 13 deadline, it appears that the intent is that players should not be traded after they play in week 13.

What do you think? Valid trade since the players agreed to the trade in week 13 prior to the deadline. Invalid since some players in the deal have been used in week 13 already requiring system override by the commissioners to effectively process their trade in week 14.

Thanks!

Clear violation of the rules. If a player is locked, he's locked. The fact that the commissioners had to override the calendar is further evidence of the douchbaggery of this trade.

I tend to side with you but don't think it is "clear".

Remember when Harvin was traded to the Jets earlier in the year. The Jets had already played but MFL left him Seahawk until after their kickoff on Sunday. Technically his team had already played (NYJ) on Thursday like this situation but he wasn't locked.

 

[BigBlue_RI]

Valid. A deadline is a deadline and the trade was agreed to before it passed. Make your deadline on a Wednesday night next season.

 

[DropKick]

If your rules state that players are locked when their games start and one of the players played on Thursday, then I don't see how the trade can go through. You're either breaking that rule or the deadline rule by putting the trade through.

Agree.

I'll also agree with the post stating that the intent of your ridiculously late trade deadline was probably to allow trades up to the start of week 13 games. Since these teams actually started players on Thursday, this trade should not be allowed.

But, wow, making trades this late in the season is pretty lame. What are the trade details? I bet this will be rich!