BA Baracus Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) I wanted to get some thoughts on offseason trades of keepers. I will use a hypothetical situation and I would like to get some opinions on which rule configuration makes the most sense and why. Please explain your rationale. Keeper Rules: You can keep any player one round higher than you drafted him the previous year, with the 5th round being the latest round that a keeper can be kept. You can keep a player for a second year, but they must be kept as your first round draft pick. Scenario: Team A drafted Peyton Manning in the 6th round last year, so Manning is a 5th round eligible keeper. Team B drafted SJax in the 4th round, so he is a 3rd round eligible keeper. Team A drafts near the end of the snake and team B drafts near the top. The two teams want to trade these players and there are two schools of thought as to what sort of trade can be allowed. Trade process one would have the teams trade the players as-is. Team A could then use its 3rd round pick to keep SJax and team B could use its 5th round pick to keep Manning. Trade process two would require each team to first keep their respective player in their respective round and then trade them. This trade would obviously never happen as team B would essentially be trading away a 3rd round pick for a 5th round pick. The argument against the 1st type of trade is essentially that it could result in trades that are unfair to other members of the league. For example if the team picking last had no viable running back keepers and the team picking 1st had several running back keepers, then the first team could trade away a keeper and keep their #1 overall pick, thus depleting the running back by one additional back. In theory, this screws the guy drafting 7th or 8th out of a good running back. The argument against the 2nd type of trade is that it artificially assigns value to keeper players. Manning is now assigned a value of 5.10, where he would almost certainly be taken with a higher pick than that were he thrown back in the pool. What do you think is the fairest rule? Thanks! Edited July 26, 2013 by BA Baracus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Any opinions on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Trades should take place first, with the new owner paying the price. Otherwise you'll have a team trade for Joe Awesome that the other guy paid a 2nd for, plus keep Jim Perfect and pay their own 2nd rounder for. That shouldn't be a problem for most, but someone won't get how economics works and will bitch. Don't set yourself up for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 If your league rules allow trades to take place before keepers are declared, then the first scenario should apply. If your league rules do not allow trades to happen until keepers have been declared, then the second scenario should apply. My personal preference is the first scenario, which, as you note, allows owners to determine how they value players and make moves accordingly. Proponents of the second scenario will say that it better balances teams, as the strong teams must put better players back in the pool. However, especially in leagues where you must keep a certain number of players, this forces the owners of the weaker teams to protect lesser players rather than be able to acquire better keepers, or, in the chance that they have one real stud, possibly dealing that one stud for multiple keeper quality players. Regarding your statement about trades being unfair to the rest of the league - outside of blatant collusion, there is no such thing. Every owner could make an offer on a player if they wanted. Sour grapes because another owner was willing to give up something plus use their first round pick to keep a player is on them for their lack of action. If they were not williing to give up their first round pick to keep the player, plus give up a little something to acquire the player, then how could it be unfair just because another owner was willing to give up that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Thanks for the feedback. We are debating the rule right now. To clarify, there are no forced keepers, only a limit of 2. One additional rule that I failed to mention is that you can only keep a player in the first round once, then he goes back in the pool. This helps to keep rosters turned over and make premium players accessible to everyone. 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.