TLDR: Should A Leaving Owner Still Be Allowed To Make Trades In DynastyFF? (3 Viewers)

[the lone star]

Nope.  Once he is eliminated and he turned in his resignation then his team is locked because he no longer has any stake in the franchise.  Time to find a new owner to take over the team ASAP.

I can see it that way, but honestly, dynasty is different from other forms of fantasy. Locking him is too harsh, but letting him freely may be too liberal. Putting his trades under particular scrutiny is probably a better idea.

 

[Gally]

I can see it that way, but honestly, dynasty is different from other forms of fantasy. Locking him is too harsh, but letting him freely may be too liberal. Putting his trades under particular scrutiny is probably a better idea.

Why is locking him too harsh?  His is not part of the league anymore.  Why let him make moves that the new owner may not have made or acquire players the new owner doesn't want?  It's not harsh to lock him from transactions as soon as he is eliminated because at that time he no longer has any interest in the franchise. 

Even if any moves are "fair" it may not be in the best interest of the prospective owner.  Bottom line is you need to find an owner right away to take over and then allow transactions for the new guy because he will be molding the team the way he wants it.  Don't let a guy that quit the league and has not future interest make any move with the franchise once the current year is over - which occurs when he is eliminated from contention. 

You are making this too difficult.

 

[garlicduck]

IMO he's paid for the year so how can you restrict his trading rights?  His only sin is that he let his intentions be known in advance.  There may be 2-3 other owners that will also quit and already know they will be leaving the league but won't tell you until the year is over.  

As long as there is no collusion suspected where he is giving away star players for junk then I don't think there is anything you should do.  I'd expect he would go all-in for this year and trade his young/unproven players and players on IR for players that can help now and I have no problem with that.  In every league I'm in you have to pay to trade future picks so that shouldn't be an issue.

I would be less concerned about this person, than the ones that basically tank.  At least you know where this person is coming from.  I've been is some leagues where I knew I was leaving but I always tried to make my team better anyway.  There are some teams that never even put in waiver claims (busy? lazy?), do you take actions against them?  

 

[Gally]

IMO he's paid for the year so how can you restrict his trading rights?  His only sin is that he let his intentions be known in advance.  There may be 2-3 other owners that will also quit and already know they will be leaving the league but won't tell you until the year is over.  

As long as there is no collusion suspected where he is giving away star players for junk then I don't think there is anything you should do.  I'd expect he would go all-in for this year and trade his young/unproven players and players on IR for players that can help now and I have no problem with that.  In every league I'm in you have to pay to trade future picks so that shouldn't be an issue.

I would be less concerned about this person, than the ones that basically tank.  At least you know where this person is coming from.  I've been is some leagues where I knew I was leaving but I always tried to make my team better anyway.  There are some teams that never even put in waiver claims (busy? lazy?), do you take actions against them?  

I agree up until the point he is eliminated from playoffs and has nothing else to play for on the year.  That means his year is over and he has already resigned for when the year ends.

Also, not everyone will try and make the team better if they are leaving like you said you would.  You also might not have the same views as the incoming team regarding player value so your better might not be seen as better by the new owner.   

 

[the lone star]

Why is locking him too harsh?  His is not part of the league anymore.  Why let him make moves that the new owner may not have made or acquire players the new owner doesn't want?  It's not harsh to lock him from transactions as soon as he is eliminated because at that time he no longer has any interest in the franchise. 

Even if any moves are "fair" it may not be in the best interest of the prospective owner.  Bottom line is you need to find an owner right away to take over and then allow transactions for the new guy because he will be molding the team the way he wants it.  Don't let a guy that quit the league and has not future interest make any move with the franchise once the current year is over - which occurs when he is eliminated from contention. 

You are making this too difficult.

Well, my issue is that in reality, he seemed tentative about leaving. Like all his communications were like "this is probably my last year" and "everybody knows this is probably my last year in the league." So with that being the case, 1.) if it's not certain he'll leave, I think it's his team. 2.) if everybody already knew of the issue, then it shouldn't matter "now" when his chances have dwindled some more. But really, I think that the fact that he paid dues for a FULL season is important and I also 100% agree with the fact that it is kinda weird that some teams make trades the season before they leave, but now that someone has "given notice" we are supposed to lock them? A heads up is a nice gesture, so we should return that by harsher and more discriminatory treatment? Just doesn't seem right to me.

But of course, I do see the other side of the argument. That him giving fair notice was a nice gesture, yes, which means he was trying to help the Commish exercise more responsibility.

 

[the lone star]

Why is locking him too harsh?  His is not part of the league anymore.  Why let him make moves that the new owner may not have made or acquire players the new owner doesn't want?  It's not harsh to lock him from transactions as soon as he is eliminated because at that time he no longer has any interest in the franchise. 

Even if any moves are "fair" it may not be in the best interest of the prospective owner.  Bottom line is you need to find an owner right away to take over and then allow transactions for the new guy because he will be molding the team the way he wants it.  Don't let a guy that quit the league and has not future interest make any move with the franchise once the current year is over - which occurs when he is eliminated from contention. 

You are making this too difficult.

Lemme know if you want a link to the whole fact pattern. I'll tell you this though, it's long AF

 

[the lone star]

Wow, 76 votes, thanks so much everyone! I love the turnout.

3 away from 100 now, wow!

 

[the lone star]

3 away from 100 now, wow!

100 on the dot! Thanks fellas!

 

[the lone star]

league-wide votes kinda suck. I've found that out the hard way in my fantasy basketball league.

 

[Birdie048]

My thoughts.....I did not vote since there was not s suitable response IMO.

Allow free trade as if normal situation & returning under the following conditions: 

1) Owner has paid for next season

2) Trade does not have significant long term negative impact (like giving up a 1st & 2nd for short term value/ older players who might retire next season)

3) Owner has actively been involved in trades with multiple franchises & not just a single team.

 

[the lone star]

My thoughts.....I did not vote since there was not s suitable response IMO.

Allow free trade as if normal situation & returning under the following conditions: 

1) Owner has paid for next season

2) Trade does not have significant long term negative impact (like giving up a 1st & 2nd for short term value/ older players who might retire next season)

3) Owner has actively been involved in trades with multiple franchises & not just a single team.

so does someone have to meet all 3 conditions or just 1 of the 3?

 

[Birdie048]

so does someone have to meet all 3 conditions or just 1 of the 3?

All 3 would be required IMO.  Not knowing the personalities limits how an outsider can provide input, but you have to protect the league first, owners 2nd and any trade last in how you handle it.

 

[the lone star]

All 3 would be required IMO.  Not knowing the personalities limits how an outsider can provide input, but you have to protect the league first, owners 2nd and any trade last in how you handle it.

The payment thing may be an issue. That could come off as discriminatory. If he has to pay, then everybody should have to pay too.

 

[Birdie048]

The payment thing may be an issue. That could come off as discriminatory. If he has to pay, then everybody should have to pay too.

This goes to the rules/by laws.... before any trades can be accepted involving next years draft picks, financial commitment must be made by all parties.  Should be simple to adopt.  All teams involved - both parties!

No trades for future picks can be accepted unless they pay the next year fee. Give the. 24 hours to pay or revoke deal.  Simple if you have it in the rules.

 

[the lone star]

This goes to the rules/by laws.... before any trades can be accepted involving next years draft picks, financial commitment must be made by all parties.  Should be simple to adopt.  All teams involved - both parties!

No trades for future picks can be accepted unless they pay the next year fee. Give the. 24 hours to pay or revoke deal.  Simple if you have it in the rules.

I gotcha. I have yet to play in a league with that kind of rule. I'm hoping I can get into one though.