Hypothetical rule question

As a new player to this site I am not sure what the common thought is of trading an expensive player without a loan to team for a player you will immediately release.

Example I have a $26 Calvin Biggio. Instead of cutting him and letting all the mechanics for WW play out where worst case I get a full refund when he’s picked up for $13. I just trade him to a team in 6th place for a nobody.

The team I traded with didn’t initiate to get around their WW claim however it is what would happen intentional or not. Is this just fair game for active aggressive owners or is this skirting mechanics designed to balance game?

I don’t see this as against any rule or even the spirit of the game.

I’ve advocated for a ‘designated for assignment’ option which is basically a more formalized version of this scenario. To some teams higher up the standings, it might be worth them to trade some value for a would be cut. Just because no other team offered a trade doesn’t make it unfair or against the rules.

I’d post a message to the league board letting everyone know who is about to get cut, and see if you get offered any value. Also eliminates chance at complaints.

I’ve done this in the past.

This type of trade is encouraged by the league rules. You can even trade a player for nothing in return and there is a badge you get for doing it. These are exactly the types of trades that aggressive owners are doing.

1 Like