League Issue

[Hat Trick]

I've had some time to think about it and I see I have been thinking about this the wrong way. This is akin to an NFL team that is about to lose a player due to his contract being almost done. They basically have 3 choices with that player:

 

1) Re-sign him (aka: one of your keepers)

Let his contract expire and allow him to hit the FA wire (aka: let him go into your draftable pool)

iii) Trade him to try and improve your team (aka: er.. trade him to try and improve your team)

 

Thanks for all the input guys! I have seen the light! And it burns!!!

 

Good, I just got a headache reading this thread. I couldn't understand how you dont think the players are yours after the season is over. Just curious, and don't take this the wrong way, but how long have you been playing FF and or in a keeper league?

[BiggieFries]

Good, I just got a headache reading this thread. I couldn't understand how you dont think the players are yours after the season is over. Just curious, and don't take this the wrong way, but how long have you been playing FF and or in a keeper league?

 

This is my 5th year playing. This is our first foray into a keeper league format, but I was in a dynasty league for a couple of years. I was just thinking about it the wrong way.

[keggerz]

Points well taken, but consider this scenario:

 

I am in a 3-player keeper league, and no more than one player from an position can be kept (i.e 1 QB, 1 RB, and 1 WR are usually kept).

 

Team A had two stud RBs last year (Jackson and Alexander). Team B's best RB was Kevin Jones (not keeper materiel). Team A and Team B are in different divisions, and are good friends.

 

Team B approached Team A, saying "I'll give you my 8th round draft choice for Alexander". Team A accepted the offer.

 

Everyone was outraged, and collusion was suspected, but here was their argument: If Team A had not done the deal, they would have released Alexander and gotten nothing in return. By doing the trade, at least he got a pick.

 

Team B's keepers are now Manning, Alexander and Steve Smith, making him one of the best teams in the league going into the draft. He also has a high 1st-round pick, based on his dismal performance last year.

 

Doesn't really seem fair, and the integrity of the league was tested, but nothing can be done....unless offseason trades were banned (which we are considering going forward to prevent this from happening again).

 

Biggie has a point.....

 

its really hard to legislate for stupidity.

[Big Country]

its really hard to legislate for stupidity.

 

The only stupidity would be if Team A didn't shop Alexander. If an 8th was the best offer, you take it as the alternative is get nothing (with my noted exception in a previous response if the Alexander owner somehow had the top pick in the draft)

[TheShiznit]

Not really...just impose an off-season ban on trades.

 

I agree with you, forcing owners to decalre keepers in january for the next season is not the answer...injuries, trades, free agency affects who you might keep.

 

But imposing a trade ban once the prior season ends would prevent obvious one-sided trades (like the scenario I describe above). For the most part, off-season trading is excellent and fun....but watching an owner trading a stud for dirt (or lose the stud for nothing) affects the integrity of the league. There should be a way to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Actually, to fix your scenario of and 8th rounder for alexander....you could simply state that any player that would be a projected first round pick cannot be traded for for anything less than a second round pick. An 8th rounder for Alexander is giving away a stud. Make the league rules stipulate a baseline of a 2nd rounder for a first round pick...with an option for the parties to make it a first rounder.

[Grits and Shins]

its really hard to legislate for stupidity.

 

What exactly was 'stupid' about that trade?

[Big Country]

Actually, to fix your scenario of and 8th rounder for alexander....you could simply state that any player that would be a projected first round pick cannot be traded for for anything less than a second round pick. An 8th rounder for Alexander is giving away a stud. Make the league rules stipulate a baseline of a 2nd rounder for a first round pick...with an option for the parties to make it a first rounder.

 

Projections are way too subjective. Where wil lRudi Johnson be picked. What about Manning? What about Steve Smith?

 

An 8th rounder for Alexander in the described scenario is a perfectly legitimate offer, and quite frankly smart team mangement by both owners involved. Granted, the Alexander owner should have shopped him, but it is not clear that he did not.

[MonkeyOne]

I completely disagree with your take on this one. Part of the fun of keepers is to unload your junk on someone else in return for a player or players that you think are worthwhile. Not only should the trade stand, but the rules should be clarified to ensure that it stays that way in the future.

 

Another +1 for this.

[Caveman_Nick]

In my local, we instituted a 5 keeper max starting with last year's season. We have not declared our keepers as of yet, and a trade went through the other day that included a player that one of the team owners would more than likely not have kept. In my opinion this trade should be reversed as it is somewhat violating the integrity of the "5 keeper" rule.

 

To be fair and honest, there is no rule about how trading in the off season should go. However, I believe that since the league is a 5 keeper max league, it would be illogic to trade a player that you technically don't own yet. So I don't think that a "rule" would need to be established. I would think that saying "you can only keep 5 players max and 2 players min" would mean that you shouldn't trade anyone until your keepers are declared as this puts other teams at a disadvantage come draft time. Those "extra" players that should have been thrown back into the draft pool are no longer available to other drafters since they have been traded away to another team.

 

What they are doing/saying (the team that was involved in the trade and arguing that what they did is fine) is technically turning our league from a 5 player keeper to a form of dynasty league.

 

What say you? Do you believe that since it is a 5 keeper max league, that it should be understood that you cannot trade any of your players away until you have declared keepers? Or are you of the opinion that since no rule was hard coded into the league "rules", that the trade should stand and people can trade their players from their "pool" at will?

 

Only one trade has gone through so far so it wouldn't be devastating to the league if it is reversed.

 

If you need any other questions answered, just ask.

 

This is simple...

 

Unless you have a specified roster cut-down date other than the date of keeper declaration, or it;s in the rules that rosters are frozen until keeper declaration, then the trade is fine.

[keggerz]

What exactly was 'stupid' about that trade?

stupid in that he only got an 8th rounder...but if thats all he could get then good for him.

[keggerz]

The only stupidity would be if Team A didn't shop Alexander. If an 8th was the best offer, you take it as the alternative is get nothing (with my noted exception in a previous response if the Alexander owner somehow had the top pick in the draft)

of course i take it if i cant get anything else...but my guess is that he didnt even try so therefore he is STUPID for settling on an 8th rounder

[keggerz]

What exactly was 'stupid' about that trade?

and i didnt say the trade was stupid

[Caveman_Nick]

This is simple...

 

Unless you have a specified roster cut-down date other than the date of keeper declaration, or it;s in the rules that rosters are frozen until keeper declaration, then the trade is fine.

 

 

Just to clarify my stance here:

 

In one of my locals teams have to keep 2 players, and not more than one player at a position. If you have no keeper worthy players, well, then you are dumb and deserve crappy keepers.

 

In order to help the cranially challenged, however, we have a roster cut-down date in June. From the end of the season until June, you have your whole roster available to trade. In June, teams may cut themselved down to zero players, but have to cut down to at most 4 players. Cutdowns are not disclosed until after all cutdowns are final

 

 

Then, after this cut-down, we have a "supplemental draft" in which all teams with less than 4 players get to draft from the available player pool, including the rookie pool, until each team has 4 players. From the period of time between the supplemental draft and draft day, teams may trade freely with the caveat that every team has to maintain exactly four players at all times. Draft picks can be traded with players, etc..

 

On draft day, all the teams cut down to their 2 keepers by secret submission, and the keepers are not revealed until everyone has declared, and the draft is begun from the available player pool.

 

These rules were enacted because one owner in our league (me, actually) made the type of trade you are talking about here. There were too many whiney owners that could not handle the fact that someone made a trade completely in accordance with the rules, and wanted to overturn it. In response, I drafted these rules so that in the future there would be no mistaking exactly when trades could be made with what parts of a team's roster, and so that people could understand that making deals may or may not be in their best interest because of timing and the rules surrounding the supplemental draft.

[Azazello1313]

Points well taken, but consider this scenario:

 

I am in a 3-player keeper league, and no more than one player from an position can be kept (i.e 1 QB, 1 RB, and 1 WR are usually kept).

 

Team A had two stud RBs last year (Jackson and Alexander). Team B's best RB was Kevin Jones (not keeper materiel). Team A and Team B are in different divisions, and are good friends.

 

Team B approached Team A, saying "I'll give you my 8th round draft choice for Alexander". Team A accepted the offer.

 

Everyone was outraged, and collusion was suspected, but here was their argument: If Team A had not done the deal, they would have released Alexander and gotten nothing in return. By doing the trade, at least he got a pick.

 

Team B's keepers are now Manning, Alexander and Steve Smith, making him one of the best teams in the league going into the draft. He also has a high 1st-round pick, based on his dismal performance last year.

 

Doesn't really seem fair, and the integrity of the league was tested, but nothing can be done....unless offseason trades were banned (which we are considering going forward to prevent this from happening again).

 

Biggie has a point.....

 

that is stupid, what they did is perfectly legitimate, and doesn't test the integrity of anything. the trade helped both teams, and was perfectly within the rules. you and the rest of your whiny league have no leg to stand on in your "outrage".

 

a lot of people, even FF vets you'd expect to be somewhat savvy, regularly misunderstand trade value when it comes to players and picks in keeper leagues. i see it over and over again. people don't properly account for the fact that when you trade FOR a potential keeper, you're not only giving up the draft pick, you're also giving up an empty keeper slot -- which translates to either another player from your roster you could keep, or, even more commonly, an early keeper round/supplemental draft pick. because of this misperception, people on the pick side of pre-keeper trades almost always get by far the better end of the deal.

[Grits and Shins]

Just to clarify my stance here:

 

In one of my locals teams have to keep 2 players, and not more than one player at a position. If you have no keeper worthy players, well, then you are dumb and deserve crappy keepers.

 

In order to help the cranially challenged, however, we have a roster cut-down date in June. From the end of the season until June, you have your whole roster available to trade. In June, teams may cut themselved down to zero players, but have to cut down to at most 4 players. Cutdowns are not disclosed until after all cutdowns are final

Then, after this cut-down, we have a "supplemental draft" in which all teams with less than 4 players get to draft from the available player pool, including the rookie pool, until each team has 4 players. From the period of time between the supplemental draft and draft day, teams may trade freely with the caveat that every team has to maintain exactly four players at all times. Draft picks can be traded with players, etc..

 

On draft day, all the teams cut down to their 2 keepers by secret submission, and the keepers are not revealed until everyone has declared, and the draft is begun from the available player pool.

 

These rules were enacted because one owner in our league (me, actually) made the type of trade you are talking about here. There were too many whiney owners that could not handle the fact that someone made a trade completely in accordance with the rules, and wanted to overturn it. In response, I drafted these rules so that in the future there would be no mistaking exactly when trades could be made with what parts of a team's roster, and so that people could understand that making deals may or may not be in their best interest because of timing and the rules surrounding the supplemental draft.

 

Nicely done .... if you want to reign it in a bit this is a good way to do it

[Teacon]

In my local, we instituted a 5 keeper max starting with last year's season. We have not declared our keepers as of yet, and a trade went through the other day that included a player that one of the team owners would more than likely not have kept. In my opinion this trade should be reversed as it is somewhat violating the integrity of the "5 keeper" rule.

 

To be fair and honest, there is no rule about how trading in the off season should go. However, I believe that since the league is a 5 keeper max league, it would be illogic to trade a player that you technically don't own yet. So I don't think that a "rule" would need to be established. I would think that saying "you can only keep 5 players max and 2 players min" would mean that you shouldn't trade anyone until your keepers are declared as this puts other teams at a disadvantage come draft time. Those "extra" players that should have been thrown back into the draft pool are no longer available to other drafters since they have been traded away to another team.

 

What they are doing/saying (the team that was involved in the trade and arguing that what they did is fine) is technically turning our league from a 5 player keeper to a form of dynasty league.

 

What say you? Do you believe that since it is a 5 keeper max league, that it should be understood that you cannot trade any of your players away until you have declared keepers? Or are you of the opinion that since no rule was hard coded into the league "rules", that the trade should stand and people can trade their players from their "pool" at will?

 

Only one trade has gone through so far so it wouldn't be devastating to the league if it is reversed.

 

If you need any other questions answered, just ask.

 

I didn't read the rest of this thread, so if I'm repeating,....sorry. Not only do I not see how you can call it "understood", but we "understand" the exact opposite in our keeper league. YOU are in control of your roster in a keeper all year long and if YOU want to trade a player that you wouldn't keep for a player that you want to keep, do it. As a matter of fact, you're a fool (in our league anyway) if you DON'T try to improve your keepers because everyone else is.

[Caveman_Nick]

Nicely done .... if you want to reign it in a bit this is a good way to do it

 

 

Thanks

[TheShiznit]

Projections are way too subjective. Where wil lRudi Johnson be picked. What about Manning? What about Steve Smith?

 

An 8th rounder for Alexander in the described scenario is a perfectly legitimate offer, and quite frankly smart team mangement by both owners involved. Granted, the Alexander owner should have shopped him, but it is not clear that he did not.

 

My post wasn't a perfect science....but for arguments sake, lets say LT cracks his foot in the first game this year.....and sucks all year.....would you have a problem with a guy leting a healty LT go for an 8th rounder to a friend....I think that is underhanded....noone gives LT for and 8th rounder....and projections are subjective to a point. Are you telling me Alexander is being projected outside the first round this year....if not he is a consensus first rounder and needs to be treated as such to maintain integrity in the league. Maybe you make the baseline a third rounder...I don't care...but an 8th for Alexander should not be allowed.

[jaxfactor]

Maybe the "outrage" Biggie was referring to was because team A didn't shop SA. He chose instead to take team B's(his buddy) offer of an 8th rounder. I can actually understand this. Perhaps there was another team that would have offered a 7th, 6th, or better for SA but didn't get the chance because of the 2 buddies making the trade. Maybe they should undo the trade and team A should offer up SA to the highest bidder. Maybe then team B offers team A a higher pick and the reat of the momos don't get so hurt. The question is did team A shop him or just take his buuddy's first offer? I agree with most and especially keggers that team A is the stupid one for not getting a higher pick. Hence the rumbles of collusion.

[Bulldog96]

Lemme get this straight... if I'm in your keeper league, I could essentially Trade 10 of my players, one player per owner and get 10 extra draft picks? Assuming this is a 12 team league...

 

I would enter the draft with my 5 keepers + 10 extra picks.

 

Ten of the 12 owners would each have 5 keepers each -1 draft pick.

One owner would still have his 5 keepers. Since he didn't trade me a pick, he has all of his draft picks...

 

Is that correct?

 

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can think that's how a keeper league can successfully "work". Regardless if it's the way they're supposed to work or not. One team with 10 extra picks? Hmm... seems totally unbalanced to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I know this is an extreme example... but is that the correct way to run a keeper league?

 

 

The reason I'm asking : in my 12 team league, we keep 3 players. If you trade a player for a pick, the newly acquired draft pick counts as one of your keepers... So you'd enter the draft with 2 Keepers + 1 Draft Pick. A total of 36 players/picks is the limit pre-draft.

[AtomicCEO]

In my keeper league, the trade deadline is Week 12, or when your team is eliminated from the playoffs... until after keepers are declared.

 

But this is a rule that we made, not one that was assumed.

[Chief]

Maybe the "outrage" Biggie was referring to was because team A didn't shop SA. He chose instead to take team B's(his buddy) offer of an 8th rounder. I can actually understand this. Perhaps there was another team that would have offered a 7th, 6th, or better for SA but didn't get the chance because of the 2 buddies making the trade. Maybe they should undo the trade and team A should offer up SA to the highest bidder. Maybe then team B offers team A a higher pick and the reat of the momos don't get so hurt. The question is did team A shop him or just take his buuddy's first offer? I agree with most and especially keggers that team A is the stupid one for not getting a higher pick. Hence the rumbles of collusion.

 

 

To me this doesn't seem right either, if you're out to get the best possible trade, an 8th rounder is hogwash. Looks like clearly buddy helping buddy, and trying to justify it. I'm sure he could have gotten a 3rd minimum had they bothered to even shop Alex at all.

[Grits and Shins]

Lemme get this straight... if I'm in your keeper league, I could essentially Trade 10 of my players, one player per owner and get 10 extra draft picks? Assuming this is a 12 team league...

 

I would enter the draft with my 5 keepers + 10 extra picks.

 

Ten of the 12 owners would each have 5 keepers each -1 draft pick.

One owner would still have his 5 keepers. Since he didn't trade me a pick, he has all of his draft picks...

 

Is that correct?

 

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can think that's how a keeper league can successfully "work". Regardless if it's the way they're supposed to work or not. One team with 10 extra picks? Hmm... seems totally unbalanced to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I know this is an extreme example... but is that the correct way to run a keeper league?

The reason I'm asking : in my 12 team league, we keep 3 players. If you trade a player for a pick, the newly acquired draft pick counts as one of your keepers... So you'd enter the draft with 2 Keepers + 1 Draft Pick. A total of 36 players/picks is the limit pre-draft.

 

If you could swing that many trades then I see no problem. However it is typical that any trade involving a draft pick requires a draft pick in return albeit often that return draft pick is a late one. Teams are required to fill out their rosters at the draft and can not draft MORE players than the rules allow for .... so having 10 extra picks buys you nothing.

 

Many owners are lazy ... often taking the path of least resistance. If nobody else calls ... then they take the deal on the table. This doesn't spell collusion.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[Qball86]

This is basically what I'm trying to say. Also, when it comes to a keeper league, I don't believe that your team (after the end of the season and before the declaration of keepers and the draft) consists of 15 players. Your team is only a subset of those 15 (up to 5 of them). So how can I, in good conscience, trade a player I only "potentially" own? My team is pretty decent (not fantastic by any stretch of the imagination) and I actually have 6 or 7 players that I wouldn't mind keeping. That's 2 more than the allowed amount. How can I trade them away when I don't really own them? I don't think I should be allowed to as it takes away potential upgrades for weaker teams in the draft.

 

I think it has to do with the fact that it just seems illogical to me, but I do agree, though, that it would be a lot more fun to do the trades before the keepers are declared.

 

Try thinking of it this way. You are not keeping 5, you're releasing the rest of your team on declaration day. Your team is still intact from last year until that time.

[Bulldog96]

If you could swing that many trades then I see no problem. However it is typical that any trade involving a draft pick requires a draft pick in return albeit often that return draft pick is a late one. Teams are required to fill out their rosters at the draft and can not draft MORE players than the rules allow for .... so having 10 extra picks buys you nothing.

 

Many owners are lazy ... often taking the path of least resistance. If nobody else calls ... then they take the deal on the table. This doesn't spell collusion.

 

I agree that in this instance, it's not collusion. But, it is kinda shady getting a potential 1st Round RB for an 8th RD price. If the rules state that it's OK for these types of deals, then so be it.

 

Good point concerning the picks... roster requirements would force you to drop say... picks 9 -15. The extra 3 picks acquired could be traded elsewhere for better players, etc. At that point, you could hypothetically have a draft that resembles : 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6 and the remaining 5 spots would be held by keepers. Realistically, it probably wouldn't happen that way but hypothetically, anything is possible.

 

I guess my point is this : should the other owners in the league be required to trade as aggressively as possible in order to stay ahead of the game, and if so, what happens when the smoke clears? Is there enough trades to go 'round for everyone? Since everyone won't have the same advantage of landing a Top 10 RB for next-to-nothing, when do the other owners say "enough is enough"... Collusion or not, leagues that allow these types of trades don't stand a chance of surviving. It's simple gambling principles where everyone wants a fair shot at the top prize. If this particular league doesn't provide that chance, another league will.