Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 So, I commish a 3 player keeper league in which players drafted in the first 3 rounds are unkeepable. Here's the most recent trade in my league: Team A gives up: Ladanian Tomlinson Joseph Addai Team B gives up: 2008 Draft 1st - 4th Round Picks Essentially, Team A is conceding complete defeat this year in return for EIGHT picks in the first four rounds next year. Team B will have no chance next year (not to mention the rest of us against a team with eight picks in the first four rounds). Both teams have already paid league fees for next year. What would you do? On what grounds? And more importantly, what rules can I put in place to prevent from degrading the integrity of the league this way moving forward? A trade deadline/transaction moratorium before Week 11 obviously doesn't do any good here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Put in a rule that you can't trade for future draft picks. I'd assume that Tomlinson and Addai are unkeepable. The rules of each player should follow along to the new owner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What's the league payout? Does all of it go to the SB winner? You should have payouts to divisional winners or maybe even weekly top scorers so people won't sell out like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 What's the league payout? Does all of it go to the SB winner? You should have payouts to divisional winners or maybe even weekly top scorers so people won't sell out like that. $50 to each of the three division winners $50 to the highest point total at the end of the regular season $50 to third place. $80 to second place. $200 to the league champion. The rules do follow the players. Thanks so far for your help. Please keep the ideas coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) First: Under no circumstances would I allow this trade UNLESS the team giving up the draft picks pays NOW for next year. Second: Even though it is not a "secret agreement" this smacks of collusion; i.e. I forfeit my season this year and give you my studs so you can win and next year you forfeit your studs (draft picks 1 thru 4) so I can win. [EDIT TO ADD] And I would suspect that the collusive element is that both owners could be splitting the winnings this year and next. Edited October 31, 2007 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Put in a rule that you can't trade for future draft picks. I'd never play in a keeper/dynasty league with those rules. Now as to the topic at hand, owner A is getting way too little in return for Tomlinson & Addai. I'd expect his team to suck despite having 8 picks in the first 4 rounds next year. He'll never make up losing two high 1st round picks with the additional picks - especially since one of them is very likely to be at or near the end of the round. Why is Team A giving in so easily with those 2 players on it? Is he already mathematically eliminated, or is the rest of his team so poor that he can't compete despite his RBs? If the rest of his team is that bad, why would you worry about how many draft picks he has? In any case, it would appear that owner A was willing to make moves to enhance his position next year and no one else was willing to step up & give him proper value for his RBs, so he took what he could get from owner B. What's the big deal? Both guys are trying to give themselves the best shot possible to win a championship 1 of the next 2 years. Is that a problem with you? If so, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 First: Under no circumstances would I allow this trade UNLESS the team giving up the draft picks pays NOW for next year. Second: Even though it is not a "secret agreement" this smacks of collusion; i.e. I forfeit my season this year and give you my studs so you can win and next year you forfeit your studs (draft picks 1 thru 4) so I can win. [EDIT TO ADD] And I would suspect that the collusive element is that both owners could be splitting the winnings this year and next. By your definition, every trade is collusive, since both teams in any trade (unless it actually is a collusive trade, in which case one team will not benefit) are trying to enhance their ability to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) Wow, I'm glad that I don't play with people like this. I'd quit my league if somebody did that. Expanding on what Grits said, I would make BOTH teams pay up-front for next year. [ETA: Sounds like they already did... my bad] And then I would implement a Week 6 trade deadline (just like in the real NFL) in next year's rules. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Wow, I'm glad that I don't play with people like this. I'd quit my league if somebody did that. Why? Don't you like aggressive traders in your leagues? Would you prefer passive owners who make small moves and are relegated to taking whatever lot the whims of the season throw them without fighting back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystykoekaki Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I would go eat a bologna sammich and then watch the simpsons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 By your definition, every trade is collusive, since both teams in any trade (unless it actually is a collusive trade, in which case one team will not benefit) are trying to enhance their ability to win. Clearly in dynasty/keeper leagues a valid strategy is to trade way current value for future value when your team appears to be out of contention. That is not collusive but smart. The real problem here is that LT and Addai can not be kept because of their draft position and as such have no value to a team that is out of contention ... this screams for owners that have these players to trade them for future picks or for lesser players that can be kept. No the thing that makes this trade smell bad is the fact that the team getting LT and Addai is giving up his next year. If you allow this type of strategy what is to prevent two owners from employing this strategy every year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Why? Don't you like aggressive traders in your leagues? Would you prefer passive owners who make small moves and are relegated to taking whatever lot the whims of the season throw them without fighting back? There's an enormous difference between "aggressive traders" and people who are flat-out giving up in Week 8. Giving up TWO Top 5 backs in a three-player keeper league? That's just pathetic. And if the guy who gave up his first four picks does win the jackpot, it's doubtful that he'll be around in '08 since he'll still make a massive profit, even if he's docked next year's fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'd never play in a keeper/dynasty league with those rules. Now as to the topic at hand, owner A is getting way too little in return for Tomlinson & Addai. I'd expect his team to suck despite having 8 picks in the first 4 rounds next year. He'll never make up losing two high 1st round picks with the additional picks - especially since one of them is very likely to be at or near the end of the round. Why is Team A giving in so easily with those 2 players on it? Is he already mathematically eliminated, or is the rest of his team so poor that he can't compete despite his RBs? If the rest of his team is that bad, why would you worry about how many draft picks he has? In any case, it would appear that owner A was willing to make moves to enhance his position next year and no one else was willing to step up & give him proper value for his RBs, so he took what he could get from owner B. What's the big deal? Both guys are trying to give themselves the best shot possible to win a championship 1 of the next 2 years. Is that a problem with you? If so, why? He's not mathematically eliminated. I s'pose he's just decided that he would rather give up on this season at the chance of dominating next season. Let me remind you that Addai and LT are both unkeepable and in the free agency pool again next year (as they were both drafted in the first 3 rounds this year) Pushing the trade deadline up seems like the only failsafe solution so far - although I'm not at all a fan of stifling the trading activity so early in the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) The real problem here is that LT and Addai can not be kept because of their draft position and as such have no value to a team that is out of contention ... this screams for owners that have these players to trade them for future picks or for lesser players that can be kept. Didn't realize that (haven't had my coffee yet this morning). To avoid these ridiculous fire sales in the future, I'd modify the rules so that there isn't a restriction on which players can and can't be kept for the following season. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 If you allow this type of strategy what is to prevent two owners from employing this strategy every year? Agreed. But then it's a slippery slope, isn't it? Just last week, I traded Andre Johnson/Addai away for Houshmanzadeh/2008 2nd Round Pick. At what point does it go from simply strategic to jeopardizing the integrity of the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 And if the guy who gave up his first four picks does win the jackpot, it's doubtful that he'll be around in '08 since he'll still make a massive profit, even if he's docked next year's fees. That's a pretty bold statement. How well do you know the guys in this league that you think one owner will win & run? BTW - I'm speaking from experience when it comes to these types of blockbuster trades of top players for future picks later in the season, since the league I commish sees this kind of behavior regularly. We've got very strong continuity in the league, BTW. And you'd be surprised how often these kinds of trades backfire on one, and sometimes both owners, with neither guy getting what they were initially aiming for. The difference seems to be that we don't have owners whining or threatening to quit when the trades happen. Other owners either step up & make their own trades to stay competitive, or they allow others to run their own teams as they see fit and worry about their own teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Pushing the trade deadline up seems like the only failsafe solution so far - although I'm not at all a fan of stifling the trading activity so early in the season. There is no failsafe solution. What is it about this trade that bothers you so much? That both owners are trying to win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) To avoid these ridiculous fire sales in the future, I'd modify the rules so that there isn't a restriction on which players can and can't be kept for the following season. See, now you're talking. Let the rules be less restrictive. That seems like a more feasible solution. The more control a league has over its owners, the greater problems leagues will have with owners taking greater chances to win the league. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That's a pretty bold statement. Not really. I agree with this statement... At what point does it go from simply strategic to jeopardizing the integrity of the league? The team that's tanking it halfway through the season if empowering another team to such a ridiculous extent that even the Commish thinks that it's destroying the integrity and competitiveness of the league. The only way to get rid of this ridiculous firesale problem is to allow teams to keep ANY of their picks. What's the point in having a keeper league where LT and Addai are almost worthless to a struggling owner in Week 8? IMO, that's kind of a silly rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 That's a pretty bold statement. How well do you know the guys in this league that you think one owner will win & run? BTW - I'm speaking from experience when it comes to these types of blockbuster trades of top players for future picks later in the season, since the league I commish sees this kind of behavior regularly. We've got very strong continuity in the league, BTW. And you'd be surprised how often these kinds of trades backfire on one, and sometimes both owners, with neither guy getting what they were initially aiming for. The difference seems to be that we don't have owners whining or threatening to quit when the trades happen. Other owners either step up & make their own trades to stay competitive, or they allow others to run their own teams as they see fit and worry about their own teams. The league is 12 very loyal and competitive friends of mine. Although Team B wouldn't 'win and run,' I question whether he'd be very interested or active with a team having its 1st pick of the draft in the 5th round. If there was any chance of salvaging the team moving forward, he'd basically be drafting potential keepers for future years (while depleting the 'potential keeper' pool for the rest of us who are still trying to win next year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not really. I agree with this statement...The team that's tanking it halfway through the season if empowering another team to such a ridiculous extent that even the Commish thinks that it's destroying the integrity and competitiveness of the league. There's the rub. One team isn't tanking. They are just thinking in multiple levels along temperal lines. You on the other hand are thinking only in one dimension as far as timeline. I suppose that's why you think the trade is so poor. Good owners in keeper/dynasty leagues think into the future as well as tending to the present - and that thinking makes for stronger, more competitive leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The league is 12 very loyal and competitive friends of mine. Although Team B wouldn't 'win and run,' I question whether he'd be very interested or active with a team having its 1st pick of the draft in the 5th round. If there was any chance of salvaging the team moving forward, he'd basically be drafting potential keepers for future years (while depleting the 'potential keeper' pool for the rest of us who are still trying to win next year). Have you not paid attention to the way this year has shaken out at all? An owner can conceivably have lesser draft picks than other teams & field a very competitive team. Look at the leading FF scorers this year and where they were drafted as opposed to what the 2007 1st & 2nd rounders are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Not really. I agree with this statement...The team that's tanking it halfway through the season if empowering another team to such a ridiculous extent that even the Commish thinks that it's destroying the integrity and competitiveness of the league. The only way to get rid of this ridiculous firesale problem is to allow teams to keep ANY of their picks. What's the point in having a keeper league where LT and Addai are almost worthless to a struggling owner in Week 8? IMO, that's kind of a silly rule. Again, thanks for everyone's input. The point of the rule is to keep the studs available for a more interesting and exciting draft the following year. 'Who are you gonna pick first? Addai or Gore? SJax or SA?' I think the rule has done its job in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The point of the rule is to keep the studs available for a more interesting and exciting draft the following year. 'Who are you gonna pick first? Addai or Gore? SJax or SA?' I think the rule has done its job in the past. That's well & fine. You have chosen to make your drafts more exciting by making higher caliber players available depsite wanting a keeper format. By doing that, you've also reduced the value of those higher caliber players in previous years, which in turn encourages the kinds of trades that you've posted above. That was an unintended consquence that you & your leaguemates apparently never thought through. Accept that this is the way your league works, or make rules to change the league. I will warn you that as you make your league more restrictive by adding rules that you will most likely make the league more tedious & less fun for most owners. That's another one of those bothersome unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 There's the rub. One team isn't tanking. They are just thinking in multiple levels along temperal lines. You on the other hand are thinking only in one dimension as far as timeline. I suppose that's why you think the trade is so poor. Good owners in keeper/dynasty leagues think into the future as well as tending to the present - and that thinking makes for stronger, more competitive leagues. At first, I didn't realize that the "keeper" aspect of this league didn't apply to the first three rounds (lack of morning caffeine issue). That said, I don't see how one team giving up two studs mid-season and another giving up his first FOUR picks next year "makes for a stronger, more competitive league." IMO, a league like this strongly encourages - and almost demands - bottom-feeders to hold firesales mid-season. JMO, but I wouldn't want to play in a league where studs are getting thrown around left and right to the highest bidder in Week 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.