League Issue

[Grits and Shins]

Wow...the resident moron has spoken....did your forget the meds. Better get the nurse.

 

Oh ... and it is moran ... not moron.

 

When your argument fails it is always a good strategy to start the name calling.

[Bronco Billy]

On second thought I will respond to your ignorance...even though I think you won't get it.

 

The only thing being penalized is integrity. Alexander is worth more than an eight rounder. The fact you don't get that is rather telling.

 

Talk about not getting it. If Alexander is a player that has to be dropped, he has NO value to his current owner. Therefore, ANYTHING he can get for Alexander is better than what he would get if he couldn't keep him.

 

It's quite frankly none of your business what the two owners involved in the trade determine as being fair. That both owners benefit is apparently a point that completely escapes you.

 

If one or more owners think that an 8th round pick is not enough value for Alexander, then they should have evaluated the team that has too many good keepers & made a better offer first.

 

Part of the reason of playing in a keeper league is the continuity of having players for a number of years. That requires astute ownership to acquire the most desirable keepers. That you feel it is okay if one owner is astute enough that he has acquired more than the required quota of desirable keepers but has to throw one back into the pool of draftable players goes directly against the primary principle of having keepers in tthe first place. An astute owner ought to benefit by being able trading off a desirable player to a team who doesn't have as many desirable players - whjch in turn helps balance the league by speading out the more desirable players while at the same time rewarding the astute owner with an additional mid round pick.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Azazello1313]

On second thought I will respond to your ignorance...even though I think you won't get it.

 

The only thing being penalized is integrity. Alexander is worth more than an eight rounder. The fact you don't get that is rather telling. This owner had the chance to get Alexander again as well if he picked high enough. That is called luck of the draw. It is dirty and low. And only those with no scrupals whatsoever would not see that. I don't disagree he could have been traded...but I think a consensus first rounder should grab more than an eigth rounder. Again....if this were a trade midseason you would argue collusion....SA for Santonio Holmes would and should never be approved. It is no different.

 

what you don't seem to understand with all of your "scrupals" is that this trade is not shaun alexander for santonio holmes. you have to look at what each team has, and what each team is giving up.

 

the team with alexander has in him an asset which he is about to lose for nothing. since everybody knows that, he doesn't have much to gain by trading alexander, but he doesn't have ANYTHING to lose. so getting any value for him makes sense.

 

the other team has a keeper slot he's about to use on kevin jones, and draft picks. by trading for alexander, he essentially gives up kevin jones and a later pick. a good trade for him to be sure.

 

so the trade isn't alexander for santonio holmes, the trade from team A's perspective is santonio holmes for nothing (a good deal), and the trade from team B's perspective is kevin jones and santonio holmes for shaun alexander (also a good deal). it clearly benefits both teams, and that is the only obligation these two teams have -- they have no obligation whatsoever to make sure their trade benefits the worst team in the league with the first pick in the draft.

 

now, maybe the guy with alexander could have gotten a higher pick for him. maybe one of the whiners in swami's league should have offered a higher pick instead of sitting on their hands waiting for alexander to fall into their laps in the draft. but that didn't happen, so none of them has a leg to stand on in criticizing a trade that helped both participating teams.

[Grits and Shins]

Talk about not getting it. If Alexander is a player that has to be dropped, he has NO value to his current owner. Therefore, ANYTHING he can get for Alexander is better than what he would get if he couldn't keep him.

 

It's quite frankly none of your business what the two owners involved in the trade determine as being fair. That both owners benefit is apparently a point that completely escapes you.

 

If one or more owners think that an 8th round pick is not enough value for Alexander, then they should have evaluated the team that has too many good keepers & made a better offer first.

 

Part of the reason of playing in a keeper league is the continuity of having players for a number of years. That requires astute ownership to acquire the most desirable keepers. That you feel it is okay if one owner is astute enough that he has acquired more than the required quota of desirable keepers but has to throw one back into the pool of draftable players goes directly in the primary principle of having keepers in tthe first place. An astute owner ought to benefit by being able trading off a desirable player to a team who doesn't have as many desirable players - whjch in turn helps balance the league by speading out the more desirable players while at the same time rewarding the astute owner with an additional mid round pick.

 

But ... but ... but ... that's just not fair ...

[Bronco Billy]

 

Dammit! There is almost nothing that ruins my day more than agreeing almost verbatim with Az.

[Big Country]

I agree 100%....under the current rules, the SA owner had no option but to take the best he was offered.

 

But the question remains: is this the best way to run a league, where a potential stud like SA can be had for basically nothing, or should there be parameters in place going forward to prevent theft like this from occuring in the future?

 

This is basic keeper league strategy. Others have since posted the exact reasoning and logic proving that this is not only a fair trade, but an outright steal for BOTH owners. One owner gives up nothing and gets an improved draft position. The other owner gives up a weak RB keeper and a mid round draft pick to get a much improved RB keeper. Very basic keeper league strategy within the confines of the 1 player per position keeper rule.

 

BC...I am not being rude...upfront....so you don't think I am an ass....but I disagree wholeheartedly. This is not about the guys right to improve his team. This is about fairness and value.....would you trade Shawn Alexander for say...I dunno...Santonio Holmes? Even though Holmes has been picked higher in all the huddle ladder drafts...lets for arguments sake say he is an eigth rounder. Straight up...would you think this was a good trade come week five. Forget the logic of it depends how they are playing...lets say they both are playing to their full potential...would you do it? HELL NO. The league would vote to not allow the trade and vigorously ask what the hell is going on. Same thing here....just because the guy can't get higher than an 8th don't make it right. Alexander is still a first rounder and should be treated as such...no matter when the trade happens.

 

This post of yours has been dissected and shown how your Alexander for Holmes analogy is very poor. See above, as it was nothing for a pick and a weak keepr and a mid pick for an RB. A true win-win for both owners.

 

Uh, yes, I do.

 

Most keeper leagues allow you to keep many players, with no restrictions on the number of players you can keep from any position. If our league was like this, there would be little liklihood that anyone would let a player like SA fall back into the draft.

 

But we put the three-player restriction on our league to ensure that the draft would be filled with decent players from many positions. We are allowed to keep only three players, and just one player from any one position. That is, you can only keep one RB, one WR, etc. Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate....one which our league will address at this year's draft.

 

What doesn't seem to work is having a league where a player of SA's caliber can be traded for an 8th round pick. While I agree it helps both teams in the trade, I think the damage to the balance of the league is moreso. The other 8 owners have maneuvered the entire prior year to make sure their keepers are in place for the next season, only to see another owner be able to grab a keeper-caliber player for essentially nothing.

 

We have now done is set a precedent that managing your regular-season roster is of little importance, since you can get what you need in the offseason by trading a low-round pick for a stud. It makes little sense.

 

Maybe we install a trade-deadline....maybe we bump our keeper allowance from 3 to 5...maybe we allow owners to keep multpile players from one position, so if they have two stud RBs, they don't HAVE to let one go. There are a number of options.

 

But how you can argue that the best option is status quo, and argue that a trade like this is best for the league, is a little odd to me.

 

It makes perfect sense based on your league setup. Both owners are actively attempting to improve their team. This is exactly what you want from your owners. When you set up the restrictive 1 player per position rule and set the fairly low number of keepers, you had to know that very good players would be available in the draft and based on normal league dynamics that some teams would be weak at a position, others strong.. in other words a recipe for trades that benefit both teams involved. It sets this type of trade up, it is actually a very fair trade within the confines of the league.

 

On second thought I will respond to your ignorance...even though I think you won't get it.

 

The only thing being penalized is integrity. Alexander is worth more than an eight rounder. The fact you don't get that is rather telling. This owner had the chance to get Alexander again as well if he picked high enough. That is called luck of the draw. It is dirty and low. And only those with no scrupals whatsoever would not see that. I don't disagree he could have been traded...but I think a consensus first rounder should grab more than an eigth rounder. Again....if this were a trade midseason you would argue collusion....SA for Santonio Holmes would and should never be approved. It is no different.

 

You need to separate what Alexander is worth on an "open market" compared to what he is worth in the confines of this particular leagues setup. As most keeper leagues have draft order based on previous year's finish, the owners with picks ahead of the guy that made an offer on Alexander have no one to blame but themselves for not making an offer to secure him, but as we saw, they all had decent RB keepers as it was. Perhaps the team wit hthe first pick should have used their noodle, offered a 7th for Alexander thus guaranteeing that he or the RB they were keeping would be available to pick with the #1 so that they could start the season off with 2 strong RBs. You are wanting to penalize owners for being smart and active. To me, those are two traits I want in every single one of my owners as I actually like competition.

 

You apparently have no sense of "relative" value in this instance. An owner giving up a 2nd or 3rd round pick in a limited keeper to add a keeper is committing team suicide to do so. They are already essentially giving up their first round pick (their current keeper) in addition to whatever else they add in to the deal, and It is very difficult to come back from a pick down that early in a draft.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Let me first say that Az, Bronco, and Grits are absolutely, 100% correct in their analysis. No argument here whatsoever. Under the rules of our league as they exist today, the trade was a good move for both the SA owner (since he got an extra pick he wouldn't have otherwise had), and a great one for the Jones owner (who upgraded his RB keeper for a basement price). I

 

Now that we all agree 100%, let's move past that for a moment, and let me ask another question (BTW, the input and passion here is phenomenal....its what makes these Huddle boards the best of their kind). I never meant to argue whether I felt the trade should have been allowed, or whether it was fair....as I stated above, I agree with you all that it was...under our current rules and system.

 

Moreover, I really wanted more input into whether we should change the format/rules of our league so as to prevent lopsided trades from occuring.

 

As I said, our league is a 3-player keeper league. Whether you all agree with it or not, many in our league felt that what happened with the trade (though legal by every stretch of the rule) shouldn't be allowed to continue as we move into our 17th year playing together. Even the Jones owner who acquired SA felt he got something for nothing, and the SA owner felt he should have received more for SA (which he couldn't get, since all the other owners had keepers they felt were equal to, or better than, SA), so in reality, no one felt "good" about the trade. We are all good friends who have been in the league together for over a decade, so no one wants to "stick it" to someone else, unless the rules let them.

 

Our basis for deciding to do a 3-player keeper league was as follows: (1) we had always been a re-draft league, so we wanted to step into the keeper format lightly; (2) we wanted our drafts to be filled with decent players to keep it exciting; (3) since our league has some owners, though knowledgable, that don't live-and-die FFL like most of us do, we wanted to keep it simple, and not require a lot of homework.

 

That being said, by only being able to keep 3, and no more than 1 from any position, and by allowing offseason trades, we created the scenario that resulted in the SA trade. Should we adjust our format to keep as many from one position as we want? Should we keep more players? Should we bar offseason trades?

 

For those of you in keeper leagues, has this type of trade ever happened (SA for an 8th rounder)? If the answer is no, its because your league is set up differently than ours, and I'd like to adopt some of your rules into ours, so it doesn't happen again.

 

TIA

[Bronco Billy]

Moreover, I really wanted more input into whether we should change the format/rules of our league so as to prevent lopsided trades from occuring.

 

You really need to read BC's post just above yours. It is an outstanding answer and explains exactly why the trade is NOT lopsided. You need to get beyond your notion of fairness & in-season value in regard to evaluating an out-of-season trade. It's hampering your judgment badly.

 

 

For those of you in keeper leagues, has this type of trade ever happened (SA for an 8th rounder)? If the answer is no, its because your league is set up differently than ours, and I'd like to adopt some of your rules into ours, so it doesn't happen again.

 

TIA

 

IMNSHO, I think you are overreacting badly to this trade. You've set up a good keeper rule & got exactly the kind of trade that you should have expected, and in fact the trade enhances the balance of the league. If the trade would have been Alexander for say a 2nd rounder, the team that gave up Alexander would have had a superior keeper & (2) 2nd round picks - which would have given them a huge competitive edge immediately from the start of the draft that would have lasted the entire length of the draft. It also would have put the team trading for Alexander in a good spot for his keeper, but would have harmed his team for the coming season by losing that 2nd rounder. That the trade was for an 8th rounder is exactly the type of trade that your league should encourage. It provided much better distribution of strong keepers while giving a good owner a modest edge in the draft.

 

Now, if you want to change your keeper rules, that certainly is your perogative, but if you are using this "unfair" trade as an excuse to do so, you are operating on a completely false premise as well as overreacting.

[Grits and Shins]

Just last year in one of my salary cap leagues this trade went down:

 

Shaun Alexander & Maurice Morris

 

for

 

Billy Volek & Koren Robinson

[Azazello1313]

Let me first say that Az, Bronco, and Grits are absolutely, 100% correct in their analysis. No argument here whatsoever. Under the rules of our league as they exist today, the trade was a good move for both the SA owner (since he got an extra pick he wouldn't have otherwise had), and a great one for the Jones owner (who upgraded his RB keeper for a basement price). I

 

Now that we all agree 100%, let's move past that for a moment, and let me ask another question (BTW, the input and passion here is phenomenal....its what makes these Huddle boards the best of their kind). I never meant to argue whether I felt the trade should have been allowed, or whether it was fair....as I stated above, I agree with you all that it was...under our current rules and system.

 

Moreover, I really wanted more input into whether we should change the format/rules of our league so as to prevent lopsided trades from occuring.

 

As I said, our league is a 3-player keeper league. Whether you all agree with it or not, many in our league felt that what happened with the trade (though legal by every stretch of the rule) shouldn't be allowed to continue as we move into our 17th year playing together. Even the Jones owner who acquired SA felt he got something for nothing, and the SA owner felt he should have received more for SA (which he couldn't get, since all the other owners had keepers they felt were equal to, or better than, SA), so in reality, no one felt "good" about the trade. We are all good friends who have been in the league together for over a decade, so no one wants to "stick it" to someone else, unless the rules let them.

 

Our basis for deciding to do a 3-player keeper league was as follows: (1) we had always been a re-draft league, so we wanted to step into the keeper format lightly; (2) we wanted our drafts to be filled with decent players to keep it exciting; (3) since our league has some owners, though knowledgable, that don't live-and-die FFL like most of us do, we wanted to keep it simple, and not require a lot of homework.

 

That being said, by only being able to keep 3, and no more than 1 from any position, and by allowing offseason trades, we created the scenario that resulted in the SA trade. Should we adjust our format to keep as many from one position as we want? Should we keep more players? Should we bar offseason trades?

 

For those of you in keeper leagues, has this type of trade ever happened (SA for an 8th rounder)? If the answer is no, its because your league is set up differently than ours, and I'd like to adopt some of your rules into ours, so it doesn't happen again.

 

TIA

 

i think your league setup is fine, and i actually kinda like the idea of allowing 1 keeper per position. would definitely think about using it if i was setting up a new keeper league. i really see absolutely no problem here whatsoever

[Big Country]

That being said, by only being able to keep 3, and no more than 1 from any position, and by allowing offseason trades, we created the scenario that resulted in the SA trade. Should we adjust our format to keep as many from one position as we want? Should we keep more players? Should we bar offseason trades?

 

For those of you in keeper leagues, has this type of trade ever happened (SA for an 8th rounder)? If the answer is no, its because your league is set up differently than ours, and I'd like to adopt some of your rules into ours, so it doesn't happen again.

 

Very good questions.

 

I've played in a local that was limited keepers. We grew from 4 keepers up to keeping 15 players from a 20 man roster (no one wanted to do true dynasty, but it essentially was). The kind of trade that happened in your league happened all the time in our league as it truly is basic keeper league strategy. Teams that were weak were willing to give up picks for a keeper, or trade one stud for two good keepers, etc. As the number of keepers grew, the number of trade involving high caliber players diminished, but there were still plenty of deals when owners saw a player they wanted and would offer a pick to another owner for the player, particularly if the owner with the player had more "keeper" potential players. In this case, quite frankly, those "keeper potential" players have the exact same relative value as Shaun Alexander in your scenario. Neither is worth a whole lot in the set up of the league, but both are certainly of a keeper quality but not able to be kept by their current teams.

 

One thing we did not have was the restiction by position. Of course, you realize if you lift this that most teams will hold 2 RBs and your drafts will be very RB weak, making it all the harder for teams with weak RBs to improve there. IMO, that is one thing I like about your particular setup, is that it encourages owners to balance out the teams with these kinds of trades so that each team is heading in to the season with a decent set of keepers, and those owners that were particularly savvy the year before get to carryover a bit of reward in the form of extra earlier picks.

 

So, to your exact points:

Should you tweak to allow to keep as many as want from a position - Addressed that above. If you like to encourage more parity, then no. If you like to more heavily reward savvy owners and make it more difficult for the owners with weak RBs, then yes, make the change.

 

Should you keep more players - Again, partially addressed above. It will result in a depleted talent pool in the draft, but does reward savvy owners. You will still get the same types of trades as you have now, just with a lower caliber player, though one with the exact same "relative" value as SA has in this case.

 

Should you bar offseason trades - Up to you. I'm not a fan of it as I think allowing them certainly encourages more strategy, but, if you want ot say rosters are frozen from X point in the season until keepers are declared, that;s fine. I wouldn't enjoy it very much as it takes a big piece of strategy out of the game , but if the owners are having this much difficulty seeing that what the SA owner got for him was more than fair given the circumstances, then quite frankly, and I mean no disrespect to any of them, they may not be truly prepared for the strategic nuances of a keeper league and perhaps an offseason roster freeze is the best option.

[i_am_the_swammi]

You really need to read BC's post just above yours. It is an outstanding answer and explains exactly why the trade is NOT lopsided. You need to get beyond your notion of fairness & in-season value in regard to evaluating an out-of-season trade. It's hampering your judgment badly.

 

He must have written his post as I was writing mine...and yes, he makes some great points.

 

IMNSHO, I think you are overreacting badly to this trade. You've set up a good keeper rule & got exactly the kind of trade that you should have expected, and in fact the trade enhances the balance of the league. If the trade would have been Alexander for say a 2nd rounder, the team that gave up Alexander would have had a superior keeper & (2) 2nd round picks - which would have given them a huge competitive edge immediately from the start of the draft that would have lasted the entire length of the draft. It also would have put the team trading for Alexander in a good spot for his keeper, but would have harmed his team for the coming season by losing that 2nd rounder. That the trade was for an 8th rounder is exactly the type of trade that your league should encourage. It provided much better distribution of strong keepers while giving a good owner a modest edge in the draft.

 

Excellent points...I guess the competitor in me feels that if I draft (or use the waiver-wire) better than my competitors, end up with a superior team on paper, that the scales of balance shouldn't be tilted in their favor by allowing them to give up a low-round pick for a stud. Part of me feels that if I have a better team on paper, it should be up to them to draft better the following year (or trade something of real value) in order to regain their competitive balance...they shouldn't get it handed to them on a platter for a low-round pick. All the advantage I gained the prior year is out the window (which I guess is the net result of only being allowed to keep 3 players).

 

Good stuff for me to think about....many of these and other points made will definitely be shared on draft night as we decided what (if anything) to change going forward.

[Bronco Billy]

He must have written his post as I was writing mine...and yes, he makes some great points.

Excellent points...I guess the competitor in me feels that if I draft (or use the waiver-wire) better than my competitors, end up with a superior team on paper, that the scales of balance shouldn't be tilted in their favor by allowing them to give up a low-round pick for a stud. Part of me feels that if I have a better team on paper, it should be up to them to draft better the following year (or trade something of real value) in order to regain their competitive balance...they shouldn't get it handed to them on a platter for a low-round pick. All the advantage I gained the prior year is out the window (which I guess is the net result of only being allowed to keep 3 players).

 

Good stuff for me to think about....many of these and other points made will definitely be shared on draft night as we decided what (if anything) to change going forward.

 

You've repositioned yourself commendably here. Outstanding marks for openmindedness. I really like your keeper setup, for the same reasons BC mentioned, and I'd hate to see you change it over something like this.

[i_am_the_swammi]

One thing we did not have was the restiction by position. Of course, you realize if you lift this that most teams will hold 2 RBs and your drafts will be very RB weak, making it all the harder for teams with weak RBs to improve there. IMO, that is one thing I like about your particular setup, is that it encourages owners to balance out the teams with these kinds of trades so that each team is heading in to the season with a decent set of keepers, and those owners that were particularly savvy the year before get to carryover a bit of reward in the form of extra earlier picks.

 

So, to your exact points:

Should you tweak to allow to keep as many as want from a position - Addressed that above. If you like to encourage more parity, then no. If you like to more heavily reward savvy owners and make it more difficult for the owners with weak RBs, then yes, make the change.

 

Should you keep more players - Again, partially addressed above. It will result in a depleted talent pool in the draft, but does reward savvy owners. You will still get the same types of trades as you have now, just with a lower caliber player, though one with the exact same "relative" value as SA has in this case.

 

Should you bar offseason trades - Up to you. I'm not a fan of it as I think allowing them certainly encourages more strategy, but, if you want ot say rosters are frozen from X point in the season until keepers are declared, that;s fine. I wouldn't enjoy it very much as it takes a big piece of strategy out of the game , but if the owners are having this much difficulty seeing that what the SA owner got for him was more than fair given the circumstances, then quite frankly, and I mean no disrespect to any of them, they may not be truly prepared for the strategic nuances of a keeper league and perhaps an offseason roster freeze is the best option.

 

BC, yours might be the best, most well-thought out response I've ever received on a messge board...kudos, and thanks for your honest input.

 

In my message after your post, I argued that savvy owners might be penalized by our system, and your post thoroughly concurs. I guess this is one major point our league has to agree upon: how much carryover impact should one owner's savviness (?) have on the ensuing season? If there are truly 3-4 owners who dominate because they are flat-out better at FF, should their advantage be carried over to the next season? Since our league does have some fairly novice owners, I like your point to keep it as-is, so to keep things as even-keeled as possible entering each season.

 

I also would hate to bar offseason trades. It keeps owners interested year-round, and keeps me thinking of ways to better improve my roster. I would hate to lose both of those advantages. As this was our first "offseason" under a keeper format, I think the SA trade kind of shocked some owners...as more of these type of trades transpire, I think we all will become much more accustomed to it, and realize it is a byproduct of the way we set our league up.

 

Again, awesome input....

[Bronco Billy]

BC, yours might be the best, most well-thought out response I've ever received on a messge board...kudos, and thanks for your honest input.

 

Just another day at the office for BC. He consistently has the most well thought out answers of any person on this board, bar none - no offense intended to anyone.

[TheShiznit]

Quite clearly you should never play in a keeper league ... I mean it is simply not fair that somebody else gets to keep LT ... and it is down right not fair that in one of my leagues one owner gets to keep SJax and SAlexander and THolt and CJohnson ... he should be required to throw one of those RBs and one of those WRs back. That way I have a fair shot at them in the draft.

 

BTW ... when you have to resort to name calling that really doesn't strengthen your argument.

 

So, if the guy with LT traded him for an eigth round pick.....nevermind. You obviously are stuck on this guy being able to better his team....and I understand that....I voted with the 40. I just feel that there should be a rule that a consensus #1 should merit at least a minimal round pick of say a third rounder. Anything after that can be modified as the league sees fit. The issue isn't that the guy can't improve his team...the issue is whether it is a fair trade while adhering to the integrity of a league. I am not going to argue this point further with you. Answer this....would you tolerate SA being traded for Santonio Holmes mid season if both players where playing to their highest level? Cause best case scenario...this is what this trade accomplished.

[jaxfactor]

That being said, by only being able to keep 3, and no more than 1 from any position, and by allowing offseason trades, we created the scenario that resulted in the SA trade. Should we adjust our format to keep as many from one position as we want? Should we keep more players? Should we bar offseason trades?

 

There's your problem right there. If a team builds his roster so he's very strong at RB, he's in essence getting penalized for it in that system. I think you definately need to tweak the rules. Drop the one player from each position thing. If 2 of my best players happen to be RBs, why should I not be able to keep them. Yeah, you say you want to have a draft that still has good players involved. You can still do this by dropping the one from each position rule IMO. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Until you tweak your rules, you're always going to have these things happen.

[Caveman_Nick]

He must have written his post as I was writing mine...and yes, he makes some great points.

Excellent points...I guess the competitor in me feels that if I draft (or use the waiver-wire) better than my competitors, end up with a superior team on paper, that the scales of balance shouldn't be tilted in their favor by allowing them to give up a low-round pick for a stud. Part of me feels that if I have a better team on paper, it should be up to them to draft better the following year (or trade something of real value) in order to regain their competitive balance...they shouldn't get it handed to them on a platter for a low-round pick. All the advantage I gained the prior year is out the window (which I guess is the net result of only being allowed to keep 3 players).

 

Good stuff for me to think about....many of these and other points made will definitely be shared on draft night as we decided what (if anything) to change going forward.

 

Swammi, if your league has conflict over offseason trades and keeper issues, I highly recommend presenting to them the rules I posted earlier in the thread:

 

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.

 

 

I have tried to institute this into both of my locals, which allow for 2 keepers. In the one local, that uses the rules above, I was not able to keep both LJ and SJax going into this season. But I did manage to trade one of them for other consideration, everyone knowing the rules for player acquisition.

 

In my other local, I enter the season keeping LT and Gore. Not a guarantee at a repeat championship...but it's a nice start. I tried to enact rules that wouldn;t allow teams to do this, but was voted down. I tried to trade one of the players away, but couldn't get a bite.

 

Cest la vie...I guess I have to work with 2 top 5 players.

[TheShiznit]

what you don't seem to understand with all of your "scrupals" is that this trade is not shaun alexander for santonio holmes. you have to look at what each team has, and what each team is giving up.

 

the team with alexander has in him an asset which he is about to lose for nothing. since everybody knows that, he doesn't have much to gain by trading alexander, but he doesn't have ANYTHING to lose. so getting any value for him makes sense.

 

the other team has a keeper slot he's about to use on kevin jones, and draft picks. by trading for alexander, he essentially gives up kevin jones and a later pick. a good trade for him to be sure.

 

so the trade isn't alexander for santonio holmes, the trade from team A's perspective is santonio holmes for nothing (a good deal), and the trade from team B's perspective is kevin jones and santonio holmes for shaun alexander (also a good deal). it clearly benefits both teams, and that is the only obligation these two teams have -- they have no obligation whatsoever to make sure their trade benefits the worst team in the league with the first pick in the draft.

 

now, maybe the guy with alexander could have gotten a higher pick for him. maybe one of the whiners in swami's league should have offered a higher pick instead of sitting on their hands waiting for alexander to fall into their laps in the draft. but that didn't happen, so none of them has a leg to stand on in criticizing a trade that helped both participating teams.

 

I read this after I made the response back to the grits guy...whatever his name is....and Know I understand what he was saying...when you explain it out like that. I still think the league can still institute a rule of a minimal draft pick....say 4th rounder to satisfy BB. Essentially, if the guy trading SA was to get Kevin Jones and Santonio Holmes in exchange for SA...I would agree that is a good deal and it passes the smell test. I am not trying to stay hung up on fair market value during the season versus off season....but an 8th rounder didn't pass my smell test...even though the league rules clearly permit it.

[Grits and Shins]

I read this after I made the response back to the grits guy...whatever his name is....and Know I understand what he was saying...when you explain it out like that. I still think the league can still institute a rule of a minimal draft pick....say 4th rounder to satisfy BB. Essentially, if the guy trading SA was to get Kevin Jones and Santonio Holmes in exchange for SA...I would agree that is a good deal and it passes the smell test. I am not trying to stay hung up on fair market value during the season versus off season....but an 8th rounder didn't pass my smell test...even though the league rules clearly permit it.

 

I think I read somewhere that nobody else was interested in Alexander. So if the best I can get in return for Alexander is an 8th rounder from somebody that knows I can't keep him anyway then you are telling me my only recourse is to get nothing ... because it didn't pass your smell test?

 

The nature of keeper leagues is that picks become valuable. I believe you are under-rating the value of that 8th pick in a keeper league.

 

Owners should be allowed to trade as they see fit. I simply fail to understand why so many leagues feel the need to police trades in order to keep them "fair and balanced". When I play fantasy football my goal is to dominate. When I do a trade my goal is to make my team better to enhance my ability to dominate. If I can trade away a top notch player I can't keep anyway to a team that has no top notch keeper for an 8th round pick this is a win-win trade. Both owners come out of the trade better off. How does that NOT pass the smell test? This is where YOU say "it is not fair to the rest of the league" ... who gets to decide what is fair for the league and why does their opinion carry more weight than those of the owners making the trade? I don't think it is fair that in my local league my arch rivals have won far more super bowls than I have ... but I'm not attempting to change the rules so that my team has an improved chance of winning ... I have to work harder.

 

If your league is going to manage trades why not simply have a lottery ... allocate all players accoring to the lottery ... this is the fairest of all?

[bigredhoo]

My apologies if this hasn't been mentioned before, but how about adding a rule that "keeper" trades for draft picks are limited to those picks within first two (or three) rounds? With three keepers, you are, ideally, looking at players that would be drafted in the first few rounds. The team trading the player gets a big bonus for managing his team well by having extra "keeper-worthy" players while the team trading the draft pick has to really want that player to give up a high pick.

[Grits and Shins]

My apologies if this hasn't been mentioned before, but how about adding a rule that "keeper" trades for draft picks are limited to those picks within first two (or three) rounds? With three keepers, you are, ideally, looking at players that would be drafted in the first few rounds. The team trading the player gets a big bonus for managing his team well by having extra "keeper-worthy" players while the team trading the draft pick has to really want that player to give up a high pick.

 

 

No bonuses for drafting well in the previous year. If you drafted too many good players last year you'll just have to throw 'em back and try again.