Sign in to follow this  
stevegrab

crazy trade, allow it or not?

Recommended Posts

No this isn't another simple unfair trade that we want to over rule, it is realy wild. 5 man keeper (no limits), trade is as follows

Team A (leads his division and total points) gives up Dog Martin and Josh Gordon

Team B (out of the playoffs) gives up Adrian Peterson

 

Now here comes the crazy part, if team A wins the title, they swap rosters with team B. Both teams still hold their respsective draft slot and any draft picks they may have acquired (team A does a lot of trading and often has 2-4 extra picks).

 

I'm fine with the trade of players, but the trading the whole team if they win the title just seems wrong.

 

My co-commish (who was approached by the owners about the trade because our deadlne is tonight) told me about this and initially was more concerned about when the roster becomes final and goes to the other owner. When I brought up the trading of the whole team he said "well they could just do it 1-2 players at a a time and we cannot prevent that". I said it kind of smells like collusion, or something fishy to me. I think it is just owner of Team A saying "hey if I can win this I'll take your roster and turn it around in a few years.

 

So what do you guys think? Should we allow that?

 

Team A key players Peyton, Veereen, AndreBrown, Bernard, VJax, Gordon, Marshall, Decker, Graham,

Team B key players Eli, AP, Lacy, Bell, Hicks, Thompkins, Hartline, Austin (both WR), Gronk

 

My co-commish is going to think about it some more then get back to them. One suggestion he had was we put the trade to a league vote, because it is so special/wild. I think owner of team A will say "never mind" because he feels we all hate him and will vote against him because of that.

 

I'm concerned that a crazy trade like this could make a lot of other owners mad, and do damage to the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current trade is fine but never heard of "IF" this trade makes me a winner and then pays my league fees for the next 5 years !

 

I will in turn thanks you by giving you my current team , of course if this trade does not let me win it all then NO trade

 

WTFrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had conditional pieces in a trade in the past, often dealing with draft picks, say the pick is 4th round, but if the player I traded you is top10 at his position (in our league scoring) at end of season then its 3rd round. Or maybe the conditional part has to do with if the player is a keeper for next season.

 

The whole team swap just has me thinking it is too far out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had conditional pieces in a trade in the past, often dealing with draft picks, say the pick is 4th round, but if the player I traded you is top10 at his position (in our league scoring) at end of season then its 3rd round. Or maybe the conditional part has to do with if the player is a keeper for next season.

 

The whole team swap just has me thinking it is too far out there.

 

The whole conditional part is what I'm having a problem with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had conditional pieces in a trade in the past, often dealing with draft picks, say the pick is 4th round, but if the player I traded you is top10 at his position (in our league scoring) at end of season then its 3rd round. Or maybe the conditional part has to do with if the player is a keeper for next season.

 

The whole team swap just has me thinking it is too far out there.

Agreed

 

If they want to trade players now, fine.

If they want to swap rosters, I would say it needs to happen during the offseason and not be contingent on anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would be kicked out of my league if I made a similar trade ,Check this , in my big $ dynasty league I have already rapped up a playoff spot.Way ahead of all but one team and would really have to stub my toe not to get a 1st round bye that is worth $250 but it could happen , this week my RB1 & only starting RB is MIA Thomas , I have no Def. ( my opponent has no QB ) things workout this way sometimes when you do not manage your BB $ correctly & yes we are fined real $$ for not fielded a complete roster.

 

So if I was in your league I could trade with a bottom team, say Foster & 2014 2nd for AP , then if I lose in the super bowl the trade stands but if I win the SB we could trade back ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, almost like a fantasy football riddle. I'll have to give this a little thought, because I can see arguments for both the "let teams manage their own teams" or that it could be kind of collusion-y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll say is that putting it up to a league vote generally isn't a good idea, especially right now when teams are in the thick of the playoff hunt, they will likely vote with their own interests, not being concerned with fairness as much as how it affects them. Most leaguemates don't view things objectively like commishes are there to do.

 

I think you commishes need to think about this, and state why you think it does or does not fit in with the spirit of the league, then discuss it with the league to hear alternative arguments before bringing it up to a vote.

 

Well, ideally anyway, you still have to go by your rules, but in a unique situation like this, I'd use your commish role to be an unbiased arbitrator if authorized to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses so far guys, I'll check in later for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll say is that putting it up to a league vote generally isn't a good idea, especially right now when teams are in the thick of the playoff hunt, they will likely vote with their own interests, not being concerned with fairness as much as how it affects them. Most leaguemates don't view things objectively like commishes are there to do.

 

I think you commishes need to think about this, and state why you think it does or does not fit in with the spirit of the league, then discuss it with the league to hear alternative arguments before bringing it up to a vote.

 

Well, ideally anyway, you still have to go by your rules, but in a unique situation like this, I'd use your commish role to be an unbiased arbitrator if authorized to do so.

 

 

+ 1000

Edited by MustOfBeenDrunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Forgive me for the stream of consiousness, but) now onto whether it's in the spirit of the league.

 

Is there any rule prohibiting contingent trades? My guess is not... I ask, because it's not uncommon for a team in a keeper/dynasty to sacrifice their future to win now. Isn't that essentially what he's doing? He is of course hedging his bet by making it contingent upon him winning, but if the other owner feels that it's a good enough deal for him, then that's not unacceptable persay...

 

I guess where the issue comes in is that this could maybe be considered borrowing players, which could be considered a type of collusion. In essence, I use them now to win, but you can have them later. Hmmm....

 

However, the players in the trade now aren't being borrowed, are they? They would still stay with the teams they're being traded to now, no?

 

Sorry that this doesn't give you a definitive answer, but these are the things I would think about. It's not clear one way or the other.... But what gives the trade more legitimacy to me is that it's a keeper, where strengthening a competing team now to strengthen your rebuilding team in the future is accepted practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the kicker is that even if the contingency doesn't happen, the rebuilding team is getting a great deal, so its not like the competing team is fleecing him.

 

(This is assuming these players won't be returned with the team swap. That would be borrowing players, whereas swapping the rest of the team would simply be an agreement to trade players they never had)

 

The more I think about it, the more I don't see a big issue with it. At worst it may be an unintended consequence of allowing contingent trades (I see you mentioned that now), but IMO more just an odd trade to wrap your head around. I don't think it's that out of line with normal competing/rebuilding swaps.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with any contingent transaction would be it obviously cant be executed immediately and therefore leaves open the door for an owner to re-neg on the deal. Owner of Team A apparently is hoping getting AP is the missing piece to his title run. So lets say they make the deal and AP does help Team A win the title. Between now and the time the teams are to be swapped, Gordon gets dinged for something and suspended for 1 yr and/or its revealed Martin's injury is not healing as expected. So Team A guy no longer wants to swap. What can be done then? If nothing else, I would INSIST both of those owners have paid their entry fee for next season before allowing that kind of deal to go down. In my dynasty league, any trades involving future draft picks require both owners be paid up for the future seasons involved. My $0.02

Edited by Delicious_bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with any contingent transaction would be it obviously cant be executed immediately and therefore leaves open the door for an owner to re-neg on the deal. Owner of Team A apparently is hoping getting AP is the missing piece to his title run. So lets say they make the deal and AP does help Team A win the title. Between now and the time the teams are to be swapped, Gordon gets dinged for something and suspended for 1 yr and/or its revealed Martin's injury is not healing as expected. So Team A guy no longer wants to swap. What can be done then? If nothing else, I would INSIST both of those owners have paid their entry fee for next season before allowing that kind of deal to go down. In my dynasty league, any trades involving future considerations require both owners be paid up for the future seasons involved. My $0.02

 

You are also in a league that allows future considerations ( non-picks I'm talking players ) ?

This just amazes me , I have been playing FF for a very long time and in every format ( I thought ) but never hear of this before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You are also in a league that allows future considerations ( non-picks I'm talking players ) ?

This just amazes me , I have been playing FF for a very long time and in every format ( I thought ) but never hear of this before

No. Only future draft picks. I worded that poorly in my post initially. Edited by Delicious_bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Forgive me for the stream of consiousness, but) now onto whether it's in the spirit of the league.

 

Is there any rule prohibiting contingent trades? My guess is not... I ask, because it's not uncommon for a team in a keeper/dynasty to sacrifice their future to win now. Isn't that essentially what he's doing? He is of course hedging his bet by making it contingent upon him winning, but if the other owner feels that it's a good enough deal for him, then that's not unacceptable persay...

 

I guess where the issue comes in is that this could maybe be considered borrowing players, which could be considered a type of collusion. In essence, I use them now to win, but you can have them later. Hmmm....

 

However, the players in the trade now aren't being borrowed, are they? They would still stay with the teams they're being traded to now, no?

 

Sorry that this doesn't give you a definitive answer, but these are the things I would think about. It's not clear one way or the other.... But what gives the trade more legitimacy to me is that it's a keeper, where strengthening a competing team now to strengthen your rebuilding team in the future is accepted practice.

Borrowing players is one thing I mentioned to my co-commish. The traded players are part of the team and could be swapped back. That means that if team A wins the league, team B would get AP back.

 

To me this seems like Team A is trying to buy the title, if he wins, team B gets his team and is pretty well stacked for next year (Peyton health is huge). If he loses he still gets AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with any contingent transaction would be it obviously cant be executed immediately and therefore leaves open the door for an owner to re-neg on the deal. Owner of Team A apparently is hoping getting AP is the missing piece to his title run. So lets say they make the deal and AP does help Team A win the title. Between now and the time the teams are to be swapped, Gordon gets dinged for something and suspended for 1 yr and/or its revealed Martin's injury is not healing as expected. So Team A guy no longer wants to swap. What can be done then? If nothing else, I would INSIST both of those owners have paid their entry fee for next season before allowing that kind of deal to go down. In my dynasty league, any trades involving future daft picks require both owners be paid up for the future seasons involved. My $0.02

We allow future draft picks to be traded regularly and have never required an owner to pay next year's fee in advance. We have also had virtually zero turnover in about 20 years, I think once an owner who was never that good or involved decided a month before the season not to play (back in the 1st 5 years).

 

If they make a trade with future considerations and then leave the league, whoever we get to replace them (we have a waiting list for new owners if you believe that) would have to take on that teams current situation. It would be made known to them before they make their decision.

 

The owners CANNOT reneg on their contingent part of the trade, as commish we would enforce that trade. But I can see that as another knock against this kind of massive trade.

 

 

Maybe a simpler question is would you allow two team to trade their entire rosters?

 

I admit I may be over thinking, or going on emotion (I don't care much for team A) which is why I asked for opinions.

Edited by stevegrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We allow future draft picks to be traded regularly and have never required an owner to pay next year's fee in advance. We have also had virtually zero turnover in about 20 years, I think once an owner who was never that good or involved decided a month before the season not to play (back in the 1st 5 years).

 

If they make a trade with future considerations and then leave the league, whoever we get to replace them (we have a waiting list for new owners if you believe that) would have to take on that teams current situation. It would be made known to them before they make their decision.

 

The owners CANNOT reneg on their contingent part of the trade, as commish we would enforce that trade. But I can see that as another knock against this kind of massive trade.

 

 

Maybe a simpler question is would you allow two team to trade their entire rosters?

 

I admit I may be over thinking, or going on emotion (I don't care much for team A) which is why I asked for opinions.

 

During the offseason in a keeper or dynasty league, yeah, I suppose so. In season, I am not sure. Technically, we have no rule against it in either of my leagues (1 dynasty, 1 re-draft) but it has never come up nor even been contemplated to my knowledge.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just a quick update, the two owners would NOT swap their entire rosters. But at some set date (they're saying Jan 22) each owner would pick 5 guys from the other teams roster (essentially their 5 keepers) from the other teams roster, the rest of the roster would stay in tact (until we designate keepers 1 week before the draft).

 

Also both owners offered to pay their league fee in advance if the large scale trade happens after team A wins the league. That is admirable.

 

My co-commish (he's the lead guy) is telling them to get something done and accepted by our midnight deadline. If it involved this 5 player swap after the season, he'll put it to a vote and allow 1-2 days (may depend on Thursday player involvement) for owners to approve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the offseason in a keeper or dynasty league, yeah, I suppose so. In season, I am not sure. Technically, we have no rule against it in either of my leagues (1 dynasty, 1 re-draft) but it has never come up nor even been contemplated to my knowledge.

 

this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just a quick update, the two owners would NOT swap their entire rosters. But at some set date (they're saying Jan 22) each owner would pick 5 guys from the other teams roster (essentially their 5 keepers) from the other teams roster, the rest of the roster would stay in tact (until we designate keepers 1 week before the draft).

 

Also both owners offered to pay their league fee in advance if the large scale trade happens after team A wins the league. That is admirable.

 

My co-commish (he's the lead guy) is telling them to get something done and accepted by our midnight deadline. If it involved this 5 player swap after the season, he'll put it to a vote and allow 1-2 days (may depend on Thursday player involvement) for owners to approve.

 

 

Then no, if the players can be returned after the season, that is roster sharing and shouldn't be allowed.

 

Even if that is not their intention, it is undoubtedly what is going to happen when they take 5 players from the other team, with the only possible exception being Doug Martin if his future looks in jeopardy. AP and Gordon should clearly be going back to those owners unless things drastically change.

 

But just the possibility that these players may be traded back after the season should make this deal invalid. You cannot make a contingency that a player can be borrowed and then given back. It's roster pooling, which is collusion (albeit perhaps the innocent unknowing variety in this case).

 

So while I wouldn't go kicking them out of the league for this, the trade cannot stand nonetheless, IMO.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then no, if the players can be returned after the season, that is roster sharing and shouldn't be allowed.

 

Even if that is not their intention, it is undoubtedly what is going to happen when they take 5 players from the other team, with the only possible exception being Doug Martin if his future looks in jeopardy. AP and Gordon should clearly be going back to those owners unless things drastically change.

 

But just the possibility that these players may be traded back after the season should make this deal invalid. You cannot make a contingency that a player can be borrowed and then given back. It's roster pooling, which is collusion (albeit perhaps the innocent unknowing variety in this case).

 

So while I wouldn't go kicking them out of the league for this, the trade cannot stand nonetheless, IMO.

 

 

I agree , not much different then me owning two teams in the same league and being able to trade with myself :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if contingency trades were allowed in my leagues, as soon as I was out of the playoff hunt I'd be trading my stud players on the condition that if my trading partner won the title, he'd have to pay for a lawn service to take care of my lawn for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much can change between the end of one season and the play of the next that this isn't even worth worrying about.

 

RGIII

Doug Martin

CJ Spiller

Roddy White

Marcus Colston

Heath Miller

 

That team last year EOS would have been considered godly to trade all to someone else. How would that team fare this year? One win? Any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much can change between the end of one season and the play of the next that this isn't even worth worrying about.

 

RGIII

Doug Martin

CJ Spiller

Roddy White

Marcus Colston

Heath Miller

 

That team last year EOS would have been considered godly to trade all to someone else. How would that team fare this year? One win? Any?

 

 

I don't have a problem with that part either, but you can't have a trade where an owner is allowed to have the option to rent another player to another team to help them win and then get him back later.

 

If the players in the trade weren't involved in the contingent trade, then I saw no issue either, but they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.