The ethics of including a cut as part of a trade proposal?

Owner A has a player at $60 who is on 60 day IL and probably not going to play in 2021. He doesn’t want to keep him at $60+, but if he just cuts him, other owners will certainly scoop him up at $30+ and keep for next year. Owner A would be unable to participate in the auction since he just cut him. So, he’s sort of stuck with this salary jam.

I don’t really care about this player, but I do care about other players on Owners A’s team.

What if I proposed a trade that included this $60 player with the promise that I would immediately cut him? This would allow the owner to at least participate in the auction that will surely happen for the high priced player.

I would include this intention in the trade comments, so it would be public while other owners decide to veto or not.

Is that ethical? Against the spirit of the league?

Usually, to these questions I say, “well, if you have to ask…” But I’m curious about others’ thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Here is a conversation about this from a little bit ago:

1 Like

I say do it. It is within the rules AND you are being clear about it in the trade proposal. What is unethical about that? What can they complain about? They can veto it if they don’t like it. Make the trade and don’t look back!

1 Like

It’s a perfectly acceptable and reasonable strategy, IMHO.

EDIT: Rereading the previous thread that Niv linked to… I like the suggestion that the intent to do so be mentioned in the comment (or presented on the league message board) so that people can incorporate that information into their decision about whether to vote to veto or not.

Also, I’m surprised that in that thread that I suggested unwinding the trade. Not sure what my thought process was then, LOL.

1 Like