ashaway12 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 In a fourteen team fantasy league the second place team just made a trade with the team that is in second to last. While not mathmetically elimated the second to last place team is 2-8 and has little shot of making the playoffs. Should a team that far out of the playoffs be allowed to make trades that have now made this second place team the best team in the league? All things considered the trade itself isn’t too unfair as the players even out pretty well. The question is should teams that have no shot be making deadline trades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellen13 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Yes. They paid to play, let them play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I think it is bad form for teams in that position to trade (unless there is a good chance they can make money in another fashion, i.e. you pay out for total points and they are in that race). I actually reversed a trade in a league I commish this league for that specific reason (trade the day before the deadline and the guy was tied for last place and second to last in total points). I don't think it's fair to the teams battling the other team for playoff positioning. Doesn't matter to me if the trade is 'fair' or not, teams in that position shouldn't be trading at the trade deadline when there is no potential monetary benefit for them. I know some won't agree with this, but we've been running our league that way for some time. Problem is trying to actually write it in the rules (since we do have total points payouts and not just playoff payouts). I think it's bad form on both ends, the team in the playoffs should not be trying to make deals with the bottom feeders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 (edited) The second-to last team is barely hanging in. He is trading to hang on to his chance and it is an even trade. I don't see a problem here. Edited November 16, 2008 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I actually reversed a trade in a league I commish this league for that specific reason... Problem is trying to actually write it in the rules... commie. see rellen above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 You can't have it both ways. You can't whine about dead beat owners that have given up and at the same time prevent them from fully participating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 redraft, keeper, dynasty? - keeper and dynasty... definitely - redraft: debatable. -pros: if there is money to be made; if it betters their team, hence promoting competitiveness down the stretch (don't want teams playing against them to have gimmies as they are playing for playoff spots). -cons: could significantly alter the balance of power (league competitiveness); some trades may smell of collusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonedaddies Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I am against it...I am out on the big money side but still have a shot at my entry fee in the toilet bowl....I still do not feel good about trading with a contender due to my team being out. Others have too much sweat equity into the season for me to take a chance on giving one of my better players to improve my team. I would also never give up, as the spoiler role can be just as much fun..OK not as much, but still somewhat fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otis29 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 If it's a fair trade, it's a fair trade. Stay out of their business otherwise. You mention writing it in the rules, I'd love to see that language myself. Listen, every team in that league has a chance to trade with this team, and the other bottom rung teams right? If the second place team in the league does it and makes himself better, then that's on the other teams that weren't smart enough to do the same. Competitive balance is a weak excuse, as EACH TEAM has the right to try to make deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Doesn't anybody play the spoiler role anymore? Good lord. If I'm 2-8 and not allowed to make a trade to try and knock somebody out of the playoffs, I'll be seeking new company the next year. Absolutely ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KordellStewartSucks4Life Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 In my 12 team league the top 4 teams make the playoffs and the bottom 8 have a 3 week tournament called the "Toilet Bowl" where the last team standing wins $100. That keeps everyone interested even when they have been mathematicaly eliminated from playoff contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 As long as there is nothing wrong with the trade, you have no right to deny the trade. If it happened to me it would be the last time I played in the league. Trades are part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I actually reversed a trade in a league I commish this league for that specific reason (trade the day before the deadline and the guy was tied for last place and second to last in total points). I don't think it's fair to the teams battling the other team for playoff positioning. Doesn't matter to me if the trade is 'fair' or not, teams in that position shouldn't be trading at the trade deadline when there is no potential monetary benefit for them. You need to resign as commish. You have no right to do this, unless you refund leagues fees to both owners. "Fair". So you are the reigning authority on "fair"? Please publish all players stats that will be accumulated from today forward so we can all benefit from your omnipotency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Oh course they should be allowed to make trades. If you don't like it, then you need to implement a rule that specifies who can and who cannot make trades at different points in the season. But I can tell you that personally, I would never vote for such a rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 the OP did say the team was still mathematically alive....if that is the case I really cant even see how anyone could consider not allowing a trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Personally, I don't trade when I'm that far out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I think that its pretty admirable for the guy to be working to improve his team. Too many people pack it up in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 (edited) IMO next year I would change the league trading deadline.as the rules are this year you must let the trade go through. Edited November 16, 2008 by Doc Holliday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Of course the trade should be allowed. Shame on Puddy for vetoing a similar trade in his league I personally try to win each and every week regardless if I'm statistically 'in it' or not. A true winner never quits and it sounds like this guy is of the same mindset. I applaud his sticktoitiveness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Like I said, I expected people to disagree with it. There is $3,600 in the pot. Making trades at the deadline when you don't have a chance at any of it with teams who are in the hunt doesn't sit well with me. Oh and this is the league I've commished since '93. 80% of the guys have been in it since then. Two trades overturned in that time. Both the exact situation, last place teams making 11th hour trades with teams in the hunt. If they no longer have a dog in the race from a cash standpoint, why 'potentially' improve a team that is fighting it out with others. And for the record, my stance has been it doesn't matter who the players are in the trade, it's the position of the teams making the trade. Commishes should not be deciding the merits of the trade based on the players involved (unless collusion is suspected for some reason). I also agree that the dynamic completely changes in a keeper or dynasty league. I expect teams out of it to make trades for bettering their squad for future years. This is a complete redraft. I am interested in seeing how many folks disagree with it however. I expected it to be somewhat closer. Only one league owner spoke up against the reversal (the one in the playoff hunt this year). It's completely consistent with the other time so owners were not surprised. I agree that it's virtually impossible to legislate within the rules (especially since we payout for total points as well). It has to this point fallen under the commish (well actually there are two commishes) acting for the best interest of the league as a whole philosophy. Based on the feedback here, I'm going to ask each owner individually how they feel it should be. Given that I've never received a dissenting message, email, etc. except for the one guy this year (the newest owner in the league, 3rd year) I am assuming most agree with that stance. We'll see. Believe me, I do not like when a commish uses their authority for the sake of using it. I am like Gil, I would never trade with a bottom feeder late in the season. It simply doesn't feel right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I sent a message to all owners asking for their opinions. I'll report back their feelings after I get replies. I normally am not the "all things must run through the commish" type of guy. I much prefer to be hands off (which for the most part I am). Maybe I need to change my thinking in this regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Like I said, I expected people to disagree with it. There is $3,600 in the pot. Making trades at the deadline when you don't have a chance at any of it with teams who are in the hunt doesn't sit well with me. Oh and this is the league I've commished since '93. 80% of the guys have been in it since then. Two trades overturned in that time. Both the exact situation, last place teams making 11th hour trades with teams in the hunt. If they no longer have a dog in the race from a cash standpoint, why 'potentially' improve a team that is fighting it out with others. And for the record, my stance has been it doesn't matter who the players are in the trade, it's the position of the teams making the trade. Commishes should not be deciding the merits of the trade based on the players involved (unless collusion is suspected for some reason). I also agree that the dynamic completely changes in a keeper or dynasty league. I expect teams out of it to make trades for bettering their squad for future years. This is a complete redraft. I am interested in seeing how many folks disagree with it however. I expected it to be somewhat closer. Only one league owner spoke up against the reversal (the one in the playoff hunt this year). It's completely consistent with the other time so owners were not surprised. I agree that it's virtually impossible to legislate within the rules (especially since we payout for total points as well). It has to this point fallen under the commish (well actually there are two commishes) acting for the best interest of the league as a whole philosophy. Based on the feedback here, I'm going to ask each owner individually how they feel it should be. Given that I've never received a dissenting message, email, etc. except for the one guy this year (the newest owner in the league, 3rd year) I am assuming most agree with that stance. We'll see. Believe me, I do not like when a commish uses their authority for the sake of using it. I am like Gil, I would never trade with a bottom feeder late in the season. It simply doesn't feel right to me. So you prefer the 2-8 team to just quit then. You have no problem if he doesn't submit a lineup or has players in his lineup that are out? Do you prevent them from getting the top free agents too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) We have a 50 dollar prize every week for high points so we would allow the trade because people are always looking to be at thier best no matter what their playoff possibilities are Edited November 17, 2008 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Like I said, I expected people to disagree with it. There is $3,600 in the pot. Making trades at the deadline when you don't have a chance at any of it with teams who are in the hunt doesn't sit well with me. Oh and this is the league I've commished since '93. 80% of the guys have been in it since then. Two trades overturned in that time. Both the exact situation, last place teams making 11th hour trades with teams in the hunt. If they no longer have a dog in the race from a cash standpoint, why 'potentially' improve a team that is fighting it out with others. And for the record, my stance has been it doesn't matter who the players are in the trade, it's the position of the teams making the trade. Commishes should not be deciding the merits of the trade based on the players involved (unless collusion is suspected for some reason). I also agree that the dynamic completely changes in a keeper or dynasty league. I expect teams out of it to make trades for bettering their squad for future years. This is a complete redraft. I am interested in seeing how many folks disagree with it however. I expected it to be somewhat closer. Only one league owner spoke up against the reversal (the one in the playoff hunt this year). It's completely consistent with the other time so owners were not surprised. I agree that it's virtually impossible to legislate within the rules (especially since we payout for total points as well). It has to this point fallen under the commish (well actually there are two commishes) acting for the best interest of the league as a whole philosophy. Based on the feedback here, I'm going to ask each owner individually how they feel it should be. Given that I've never received a dissenting message, email, etc. except for the one guy this year (the newest owner in the league, 3rd year) I am assuming most agree with that stance. We'll see. Believe me, I do not like when a commish uses their authority for the sake of using it. I am like Gil, I would never trade with a bottom feeder late in the season. It simply doesn't feel right to me. Let me ask this: Was the bottom guy mathematically out of the playoff hunt? If he still had a mathematical chance then you should not have vetoed the trade IMO. If he was mathematically out and with that much money in the pot and it being a re-draft - I can see why you vetoed the trade. However, the OP said in his situation, the bottom guy was still mathematically in the hunt - so my response to you was based on that same premise. 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.