Trading a player who has played!

[Pomi4]

League is on Sleeper.
Team A has Mixon. Plays Mixon on Thursday and gets his pts. Then on Friday trades Mixon to Team B for Devante Adams.
Now Team A can play Adams on Sunday. Team A gets all the pts for Mixon and Adams this week.
Team B gers no pts for either player this week.

The Commish of the league said that is how Sleeper had it setup so it's fine.

But is it? I wanted some outside opinions.

Thanks

[j4pac]

I’m fine with it. Don’t trade for a player who has already played that week

[Pomi4]

Yeah but what about the the team that has to play the guy who gets both Adam's and Mixon this week. He essentially added Adam's for free for 1 week against him.

[BabyChark23]

There is a similar thread about trading for players that have already played over in the “Commish Corner” board. The replies there may be helpful.

My take is that there should be a written rule in place that if a player that has already played is traded, the trade does not process until after all games for that week have been completed. However, if there is not currently a written rule to that effect in place, then I think that this specific trade should be allowed and a rule should be voted on by the league to prevent this from happening in the future. If there is no current rule in place, the manager who arranged the trade made a savvy move by recognizing the possibility to gain a legal advantage by making the trade the way they did. Managers should not be shut down for finding creative ways to gain advantages, provided those creative methods are ethical and do violate the written rules.

[Pomi4]

There is a similar thread about trading for players that have already played over in the “Commish Corner” board. The replies there may be helpful.

My take is that there should be a written rule in place that if a player that has already played is traded, the trade does not process until after all games for that week have been completed. However, if there is not currently a written rule to that effect in place, then I think that this specific trade should be allowed and a rule should be voted on by the league to prevent this from happening in the future. If there is no current rule in place, the manager who arranged the trade made a savvy move by recognizing the possibility to gain a legal advantage by making the trade the way they did. Managers should not be shut down for finding creative ways to gain advantages, provided those creative methods are ethical and do violate the written rules.

So because one plauwr found a creative way to get an advantage. His opponent should suffer and play against both players?

[dynastyninja]

Stupid, shouldn't be allowed

[BabyChark23]

There is a similar thread about trading for players that have already played over in the “Commish Corner” board. The replies there may be helpful.

My take is that there should be a written rule in place that if a player that has already played is traded, the trade does not process until after all games for that week have been completed. However, if there is not currently a written rule to that effect in place, then I think that this specific trade should be allowed and a rule should be voted on by the league to prevent this from happening in the future. If there is no current rule in place, the manager who arranged the trade made a savvy move by recognizing the possibility to gain a legal advantage by making the trade the way they did. Managers should not be shut down for finding creative ways to gain advantages, provided those creative methods are ethical and do violate the written rules.

So because one plauwr found a creative way to get an advantage. His opponent should suffer and play against both players?

It’s a tough situation. I get where you’re coming from, and I understand why the guy’s opponent isn’t happy. As I said, I think there should be a rule in place making trades of this type not process until after all games that week are complete. It’s also tough retroactively applying a rule to limit a trade that already took place. The Commish could have good logic to rule to let the trade stand as is or to overturn it. Could also let both sides state their case and then do a league wide vote on whether or not to let it stand.

[ericanadian]

You need to kill something like this. It’d be pretty easy for a pair of teams (one tanking, one contending) to pull this a few times to give a team a significant advantage all while making perfectly legal and balanced trades.

[bjd5211]

Players who have already played should not be eligible to be acquired through trade or free agency until that week has ended and the next one has begun.

[Cameron Giles]

So much can go wrong with this in future games, that the commissioner needs to delay the trade until the week is over.

[Tvols]

My main league wont process a trade involving a player who already played until all games have played This type of trade should not stand or at least processed until all games are played, but as we know there are those that will do anything for an advantage.

[halfbaked88]

Trades for players who've recorded points for the week shouldn't process until Tuesday. Commissioner needs to do his job.

[meineymoe]

Players who have already played should not be eligible to be acquired through trade or free agency until that week has ended and the next one has begun.

Agreed. You don't need a rule in your league about this. It should be a default setting in your scoring software. If it isn't in Sleeper, then that is one more reason to not use it.

-oo-

[Anteaters]

Stupid, shouldn't be allowed

++
Written rule or no written rule, common sense should prevail here. The commish should not process the trade until after this week's games. It doesn't matter if Sleeper processed the trade or not - the commish can switch the players back, then process on Tuesday morning.

[Ice]

Players who have already played should not be eligible to be acquired through trade or free agency until that week has ended and the next one has begun.

This ^