crazy trade, allow it or not?

[Jackass]

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.

 

 

This should absolutely not be allowed.

[Woodside Warriors]

Just due the fact that they are trying to do this, I would find 2 new owners to take the teams next year. Flip a coin for the new owners to get a team. I have a big issue with borrowing players. As commish I wouldn't stand for that crap. And if it were a league that the commish wouldn't kick them out, I'd be out next year.

[wpayers]

I'd say no. But not only is this a crazy trade but these are crazy rules. While I can see the depth they give your league is it really worth it? I can only assume there are times the complexity of the league outweighs the basic fun of FF.

[stevegrab]

Thanks for all the feedback everybody. In the end I think the two owners recognized that this was a little unethical, or at least that there was a chance the league (by vote) may not let it stand. So a different deal was struck that still envolves the key piece (team A getting AP) but without the roster trading after the season contingent on team A winning the league.

 

The new trade is AP for Doug Martin, Eric Decker and team A's 3rd round pick next year (really an 8th rounder since we keep 5 players per team).

[stevegrab]

Just due the fact that they are trying to do this, I would find 2 new owners to take the teams next year. Flip a coin for the new owners to get a team. I have a big issue with borrowing players. As commish I wouldn't stand for that crap. And if it were a league that the commish wouldn't kick them out, I'd be out next year.

 

 

We've had the same group of people for a long time now, with only one new owner in the past 10 years. Nobody is going to be booted or asked to leave the league for trying to work this trade.I really don't think they were trying to collude or share rosters. Team

A was just offering the roster swap as a safety valve for team B. "If I win it all you get my key players, and I'll take yours and rebuild again."

 

Team A who is a big trader in our league is always trying to stretch the rules and do new things with a trade. When we (the 2 co-commish) feel he is going to far we tell him. We may discuss it with others in the league or seek outside advice (like I did hear) before we do that or make a final decision. The idea that some have of booting people from the league has me wondering how often they really do it and how much turnover they have in their leagues.

 

I'd say no. But not only is this a crazy trade but these are crazy rules. While I can see the depth they give your league is it really worth it? I can only assume there are times the complexity of the league outweighs the basic fun of FF.

 

Was that directed at me and my league? Just curious what rules you think are crazy and/or complex. I never really listed our rules that much, but did talk about conditional things in a trade. Most of that comes from similarities in the NFL like conditional picks. We have a good amount of trading and like to encourage it since we have deep benches leaving less on waivers.

 

Anyway, again thanks to everybody for the feedback.

[wpayers]

We've had the same group of people for a long time now, with only one new owner in the past 10 years. Nobody is going to be booted or asked to leave the league for trying to work this trade.I really don't think they were trying to collude or share rosters. Team

A was just offering the roster swap as a safety valve for team B. "If I win it all you get my key players, and I'll take yours and rebuild again."

 

Team A who is a big trader in our league is always trying to stretch the rules and do new things with a trade. When we (the 2 co-commish) feel he is going to far we tell him. We may discuss it with others in the league or seek outside advice (like I did hear) before we do that or make a final decision. The idea that some have of booting people from the league has me wondering how often they really do it and how much turnover they have in their leagues.

 

 

Was that directed at me and my league? Just curious what rules you think are crazy and/or complex. I never really listed our rules that much, but did talk about conditional things in a trade. Most of that comes from similarities in the NFL like conditional picks. We have a good amount of trading and like to encourage it since we have deep benches leaving less on waivers.

 

Anyway, again thanks to everybody for the feedback.

 

My comment was directed at the contingency process. It sounds intriguing but on the surface sounds like it adds a layer of administrative complexity that may burden the commish(s). But also to point of this post, the contingencies may open the door to

shenanigans similar to this trade.

 

Notwithstanding I'd like to hear more about how the league operates. I am in favor of any approach that gets trade juices flowing.

[stevegrab]

This is for wpayers, some stuff on how our league operates as they affect trading. A little long winded, but that is me...

 

Yes the contingency stuff does add work for the commish. This is why we need to approve all trades, so we can track and verify the picks being traded. Also so we can inform the league of those details because the web site (CBS) does not (no way to trade picks, owners include in the comment of the trade offer, we see that and save it as well as adding it to trade msg).

 

First deep bench, we start 9 (QB,2RB,3WR,TE,K,D) and have 9 bench spots, so you can carry a full set of backups. That means the waviers are pretty thin, while teams may be relatively stacked. For example I protected Calvin, DemThomas & Fitz. I also have Reuben Randle (top 30WR), Boykin (45ish) and had Edelman early in the season when he had good value. I ended up not trading any of them but did have some offers and discussions. I also had 2 top kickers and turned one plus a future draft pick for Chris Ivory.

 

Second it is a 5 player keeper, every team has to protect 5, no restrictions (contracts, limits, cost of draft round or such). So we often have teams that do not have 5 players worth keeping, while others have more than 5. RB has always been a weak point on my team, and WR are strong. I was going to protect Law Firm (still wish I had) along with those WR and either Rivers or Witten. I ended up trading a 3rd round pick (8th round in redraft) for Chris Johnson to an owner that would have not been keeping him. A win-win trade, he gets something for nothing, I get something for lower than actual cost (CJ would have gone 1st round, maybe 2nd).

 

We also have a lot of owners that know each other pretty well either from working together (over half of 12 owners at one time), friends/family (one owner is BIL to another). But even with all that, we have about 4-6 teams that do the bulk of the trading, or at least originate trades with the other less active owners. Some people just don't like to trade. I myself am very cautious, it it isn't a slam dunk, I need a lot of time to think and do research to convince myself I'm not making a bad move. (Very risk averse.)

 

Oh and to the contingency bit, it isn't uncommon but probably involved in 10% or less of trades. But we do use draft picks in trade a lot, more often than contingencies/ The contingencies do make sense though, most that I recall were conditional draft picks, based in some way on how the player helps you (player performarnce ranking by pos in our scoring or if they are a keeper next year). Usually changing the pick by 1-2 rounds. The one with contingency on player kept was kind of strange, because it allows the owner control, but they're going to protect the player if they have good value or trade (that is why they specified "keeper on any roster" instead of just "kept by owner x".).

 

I do agree with your statement that the contingencies open us up to some of these strange things. We do not have an all encompassing rule book that covers everything that could happen. For example no rule against trade backs, but nobody has ever tried that AFAIK. If they did we'd probably step in and ask whats going on and stop it if we suspect shenanigans. Pretty sure they owners as a whole would back us up, we (my co-commish and I) have been running the league since it started about 20 years ago. Our owners trust us to be fair and reasonable.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Without copying & pasting the dozen times it has been used contingency trades of future draft picks are NOT contingency trades

 

Because they can be moved from one team to another at the time of the trade , so even though they are trades for something in the future , that is NOT the same as trading a player currently on your roster today but not giving the player to a team next off season.

 

We may trade 2014 picks now in one league & 2014 plus 2015 picks in another but never can we trade a currnet player but not move them to a different team until 2014 or 2015 , that's the part I can't rap my head around

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Also I would like to add I sure hope teams like yours never involve Father / Son or Husband / Wife owners that can swap players or teams like this

[stevegrab]

Without copying & pasting the dozen times it has been used contingency trades of future draft picks are NOT contingency trades

 

Because they can be moved from one team to another at the time of the trade , so even though they are trades for something in the future , that is NOT the same as trading a player currently on your roster today but not giving the player to a team next off season.

 

We may trade 2014 picks now in one league & 2014 plus 2015 picks in another but never can we trade a currnet player but not move them to a different team until 2014 or 2015 , that's the part I can't rap my head around

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding something, because we do not have the type of trades you are talking about where a player doesn't move to the team until some later time, or is allowed to move back later. This was the first such case, and both owners eventually recognized it was a shady situation that wouldn't fly in our league.

 

The only variables if you will are conditional draft picks (e.g. a 3rd if this, otherwise a 4th).

 

Also as far as family members, my co-commish and another owner are child hood friends and best of buds. Another owner's wife's sister is married to a different owner. These guys (my co-commish and his friends) all grew up together and have known each other for 25-30 years or more. The rest of the owners are people we work with (presently or in the past). No shenanigans have occured between owners in the past, no matter how close they are.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

I think you're misunderstanding something, because we do not have the type of trades you are talking about where a player doesn't move to the team until some later time, or is allowed to move back later. This was the first such case, and both owners eventually recognized it was a shady situation that wouldn't fly in our league.

 

The only variables if you will are conditional draft picks (e.g. a 3rd if this, otherwise a 4th).

 

Also as far as family members, my co-commish and another owner are child hood friends and best of buds. Another owner's wife's sister is married to a different owner. These guys (my co-commish and his friends) all grew up together and have known each other for 25-30 years or more. The rest of the owners are people we work with (presently or in the past). No shenanigans have occured between owners in the past, no matter how close they are.

 

[Mike C]

I'm a little late to the party, sounds like you already have this all worked out. But I was going to say that it doesn't sound like anything malicious was going on here. I think it was just a case of Team B didn't think Martin and Gordon were enough to give up AP and Team A came up with a creative solution to get the deal done without gutting his team for the playoff run this year. This deal had the potential to be a pain to manage from a commish perspective. But I like that you were getting them to put a specific framework around how this would be handled including a set date when the players would be swapped.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

I think you're misunderstanding something, because we do not have the type of trades you are talking about where a player doesn't move to the team until some later time, or is allowed to move back later. This was the first such case, and both owners eventually recognized it was a shady situation that wouldn't fly in our league.

 

The only variables if you will are conditional draft picks (e.g. a 3rd if this, otherwise a 4th).

 

Also as far as family members, my co-commish and another owner are child hood friends and best of buds. Another owner's wife's sister is married to a different owner. These guys (my co-commish and his friends) all grew up together and have known each other for 25-30 years or more. The rest of the owners are people we work with (presently or in the past). No shenanigans have occured between owners in the past, no matter how close they are.

 

 

No for this part , I too was in such a league , started way back when as a redraft then 15 years ago we decided to make it a dynasty , new draft same owners. 6-years into the dynasty one of the owners was going thru a divorce , embarrassed at how nasty it was getting he kept most of us out of the loop , but to not disturb the league , 14 team $500 league fee , $300 real money blind bids & $30 per trade , the commish ( his father ) handled his team for him for the 2-years he was going thru his divorce.

The two teams made some lopsided trading with each other , but heck we were all very honest people , been playing together for a long time so no one questioned it. Until I sent a trade that made total sense and it was instantly declined. So I walked into his office and said whats up ? why decline that offer so fast , not even a counter ? His reply was " What are you talking about " ?

I pressed more and he opened up all the way , telling me how bad the divorce was hitting him and that he hadn't even looked at paid attention to anything FF for the last two seasons Then I realized I was in (4) other dynasty leagues with these two but one owner had been running both his and his son's team for the last two season and one or the other had won the championship (6) times out of a possible (8) ,,,, so more than one family owner in the same league makes me cautious.

[Big Country]

Didn't read every response, but those of you stating this is renting players (or anyone really), would you have a problem with the following:

 

1. The two teams make the first part of the trade as described (Gordon/Martin for AP) with no contingency.

 

2. At some point after the season, these teams make a 5 player for 5 player trade.

 

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume there had been no previous talk of any contingencies... these are just two separate transactions that the owners negotiate.

[stevegrab]

BC

 

You make a good point, and no I probably wouldn't have questioned it then. But also initial ino said it was a complete team swap, a little different than just 5 players.

 

I think I covered this in my initial post, but team A (the one trying to driving these trade talks) is a newer member, took over management of his brothers team (now just a silent partner, money man). He has pushed the rules envelope repeatedly, and generally drives the commish and other owners a little crazy. Some examples of things that many owners dislike.

 

He's annoying when he wants to trade, with requests/emails every 5 minutes. At least one owner finally agreed to a trade just to make him go away.

 

He lives out west, we're all here locally in NE Ohio. We hold a live draft, now we have to have him on speaker phone (while he's at work), repeat the picks nice and loud so he can hear them, repeat them again sometimes before his pick because he missed them. Those in the room can just look at the draft board, or nudge the guy next to them and get the pick. So that makes our draft a little less fun. Now some other owners are saying, if we're not all here why have a live draft, lets do it online. As many here say, the draft is the best, and many of us only see each other that one time a year.

 

Another example, we keep 5 and draft 13 rounds to fill an 18 man roster. If you have too few picks we add extra rounds on the end after 13 only for those players who need them. One year he has 2-3 extra picks and asks the commish "can I trade picks in rounds 11-13. We thought about it for a while, I was against it, but other co-commish thought it was ok. We talked to some other owners and they would have assumed (like I) that those picks were not something they could trade. So we discussed it at the draft and decided to allow it starting that year. In his eyes that was an asset to use, to most of us they were picks you could not use. In the end it didn't really matter but he fought hard for this and has continued to push the envelope. He's won the total points pot (good money) a couple times but missed the playoffs. This year he starts polls on the site "should we give the last wild card to the highest point team left". A few owners said "win more games if you want to be in the playoffs".

 

Basically he's new to the league and trying to change it to suit him. That rubs most of us the wrong way. So I know I'm a little biased, anything he does gets more scrutiny from me.

 

PS Yes I know many would say "boothim from the league", and I'd simply say that isn't in our nature.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Didn't read every response, but those of you stating this is renting players (or anyone really), would you have a problem with the following:

 

1. The two teams make the first part of the trade as described (Gordon/Martin for AP) with no contingency.

 

2. At some point after the season, these teams make a 5 player for 5 player trade.

 

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume there had been no previous talk of any contingencies... these are just two separate transactions that the owners negotiate.

 

NO problem at all

[delusions of grandeur]

Didn't read every response, but those of you stating this is renting players (or anyone really), would you have a problem with the following:

 

1. The two teams make the first part of the trade as described (Gordon/Martin for AP) with no contingency.

 

2. At some point after the season, these teams make a 5 player for 5 player trade.

 

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume there had been no previous talk of any contingencies... these are just two separate transactions that the owners negotiate.

 

 

That's like me asking, if you didn't know one owner gave another a cut of the winnings to make a trade, would you have a problem with it?

 

I mean, I guess you're correct that if they really wanted to pull off something shiesty, then they shouldn't have made it public and been more sneaky.

 

(For the record, I'm not suggesting that there was malicious intent here, we can't know that and my best guess is they just weren't thinking it through, but it doesnt change that you can't trade a player with the ability to get him back later after the other player wins with him. It's roster pooling, malicious or not)

 

But really, if I saw a player get traded from one team for a playoff run and then traded back after the season, it would certainly raise my suspicions. It would just be far more difficult to prove or strongly suspect illegal activity.

[wpayers]

This is for wpayers, some stuff on how our league operates as they affect trading. A little long winded, but that is me...

 

Yes the contingency stuff does add work for the commish. This is why we need to approve all trades, so we can track and verify the picks being traded. Also so we can inform the league of those details because the web site (CBS) does not (no way to trade picks, owners include in the comment of the trade offer, we see that and save it as well as adding it to trade msg).

 

First deep bench, we start 9 (QB,2RB,3WR,TE,K,D) and have 9 bench spots, so you can carry a full set of backups. That means the waviers are pretty thin, while teams may be relatively stacked. For example I protected Calvin, DemThomas & Fitz. I also have Reuben Randle (top 30WR), Boykin (45ish) and had Edelman early in the season when he had good value. I ended up not trading any of them but did have some offers and discussions. I also had 2 top kickers and turned one plus a future draft pick for Chris Ivory.

 

Second it is a 5 player keeper, every team has to protect 5, no restrictions (contracts, limits, cost of draft round or such). So we often have teams that do not have 5 players worth keeping, while others have more than 5. RB has always been a weak point on my team, and WR are strong. I was going to protect Law Firm (still wish I had) along with those WR and either Rivers or Witten. I ended up trading a 3rd round pick (8th round in redraft) for Chris Johnson to an owner that would have not been keeping him. A win-win trade, he gets something for nothing, I get something for lower than actual cost (CJ would have gone 1st round, maybe 2nd).

 

We also have a lot of owners that know each other pretty well either from working together (over half of 12 owners at one time), friends/family (one owner is BIL to another). But even with all that, we have about 4-6 teams that do the bulk of the trading, or at least originate trades with the other less active owners. Some people just don't like to trade. I myself am very cautious, it it isn't a slam dunk, I need a lot of time to think and do research to convince myself I'm not making a bad move. (Very risk averse.)

 

Oh and to the contingency bit, it isn't uncommon but probably involved in 10% or less of trades. But we do use draft picks in trade a lot, more often than contingencies/ The contingencies do make sense though, most that I recall were conditional draft picks, based in some way on how the player helps you (player performarnce ranking by pos in our scoring or if they are a keeper next year). Usually changing the pick by 1-2 rounds. The one with contingency on player kept was kind of strange, because it allows the owner control, but they're going to protect the player if they have good value or trade (that is why they specified "keeper on any roster" instead of just "kept by owner x".).

 

I do agree with your statement that the contingencies open us up to some of these strange things. We do not have an all encompassing rule book that covers everything that could happen. For example no rule against trade backs, but nobody has ever tried that AFAIK. If they did we'd probably step in and ask whats going on and stop it if we suspect shenanigans. Pretty sure they owners as a whole would back us up, we (my co-commish and I) have been running the league since it started about 20 years ago. Our owners trust us to be fair and reasonable.

 

Thanks man. I really appreciate the amount of detail.

 

I have sent a collection of your posts to my 11 league mates. We vote on new league rules just before the league championship while people are still jazzed up about the league. I found if we wait until the summer we've lost our edge and the gripes that folks have are usually forgotten. Personally, my gripe is we've stagnated with the amount and creativity of trades. Our guys either sit tight or try to fleece. But my biggest gripe is we have a shallow bench of 4 spots. Some think it makes picking your line up more challenging with "good" options but I see just the opposite. I'd rather have a thin waiver pool and promote trading.

 

I may revisit this with you in few weeks. Ever thought about being a "Fantasy Consultant"?

[Big Country]

BC

 

You make a good point, and no I probably wouldn't have questioned it then. But also initial ino said it was a complete team swap, a little different than just 5 players.

 

I think I covered this in my initial post, but team A (the one trying to driving these trade talks) is a newer member, took over management of his brothers team (now just a silent partner, money man). He has pushed the rules envelope repeatedly, and generally drives the commish and other owners a little crazy. Some examples of things that many owners dislike.

 

He's annoying when he wants to trade, with requests/emails every 5 minutes. At least one owner finally agreed to a trade just to make him go away.

 

He lives out west, we're all here locally in NE Ohio. We hold a live draft, now we have to have him on speaker phone (while he's at work), repeat the picks nice and loud so he can hear them, repeat them again sometimes before his pick because he missed them. Those in the room can just look at the draft board, or nudge the guy next to them and get the pick. So that makes our draft a little less fun. Now some other owners are saying, if we're not all here why have a live draft, lets do it online. As many here say, the draft is the best, and many of us only see each other that one time a year.

 

Another example, we keep 5 and draft 13 rounds to fill an 18 man roster. If you have too few picks we add extra rounds on the end after 13 only for those players who need them. One year he has 2-3 extra picks and asks the commish "can I trade picks in rounds 11-13. We thought about it for a while, I was against it, but other co-commish thought it was ok. We talked to some other owners and they would have assumed (like I) that those picks were not something they could trade. So we discussed it at the draft and decided to allow it starting that year. In his eyes that was an asset to use, to most of us they were picks you could not use. In the end it didn't really matter but he fought hard for this and has continued to push the envelope. He's won the total points pot (good money) a couple times but missed the playoffs. This year he starts polls on the site "should we give the last wild card to the highest point team left". A few owners said "win more games if you want to be in the playoffs".

 

Basically he's new to the league and trying to change it to suit him. That rubs most of us the wrong way. So I know I'm a little biased, anything he does gets more scrutiny from me.

 

PS Yes I know many would say "boothim from the league", and I'd simply say that isn't in our nature.

 

 

I guess I don't see anything shady here in these examples.

 

The trade requests is an annoyance - I think there is someone like that in every league. Just tell them no and it is over. Doesn't seem like a rule issue that he is pushing.

 

The draft thing is on the league for agreeing to allow him to call in. Perhaps in future it should be a live draft, and if an owner can;t be there in person, they can send a proxy. Seems like allowing the phone in is lessening the fun for everyone, so should definitely not be allowed in future, or heavily discouraged. Again, not a rules issue.

 

As for the picks, I to owould assume that they would be assets that I had at my disposal if I were that owner. Why should he not be allowed to make use of them. Any league I am in that allows the trading of future picks realizes that it is possible to head in with more (or less) picks than needed to fill the roster. You've addressed the less picks by having supplemental picks after the draft. Most leagues I am in allow the team with more picks to use them, with a rule in place of when teams must cut down to the maximum roster size. Unless you draft right before the season starts, not an issue, as the owner with extra picks then has the chance to further evaluate the players he drafted, or package them for trades. I guess I just don't see how wanting to be able to use the assets a team has is pushing the envelope for the rules.

 

 

 

Now, as to my opinion of the trade - the initial trade looks perfectly fine. I don't like the contingency piece of it, and in general am strongly oppossed to allowing contingent trades of any sort. I am a big believer that trades need to be "complete" when executed and contingencies shouldn't be allowed, but some leagues do allow it. Having to track contingencies leads to way to many headaches. As to an example earlier where a nowner gives up player X for a 4th rounder, but if the player hits a certain milestone, it is a 3rd rounder - too many complexities and potential issues. The owner giving up the pick needs to be sure to not trade any of the picks possibly involved as contingencies, and to make sure no additional contingency in other trades possibly involves any pick possibly involved in the first deal. The owner receiving the pick can't really turn around and move the pick as they don't know what it will be.

[stevegrab]

Thanks man. I really appreciate the amount of detail.

 

I have sent a collection of your posts to my 11 league mates. We vote on new league rules just before the league championship while people are still jazzed up about the league. I found if we wait until the summer we've lost our edge and the gripes that folks have are usually forgotten. Personally, my gripe is we've stagnated with the amount and creativity of trades. Our guys either sit tight or try to fleece. But my biggest gripe is we have a shallow bench of 4 spots. Some think it makes picking your line up more challenging with "good" options but I see just the opposite. I'd rather have a thin waiver pool and promote trading.

 

I may revisit this with you in few weeks. Ever thought about being a "Fantasy Consultant"?

 

 

I'd be happy to discuss it more. As far as being an FC, um no, I'm really not that experienced. Only play in one league for 20 years. Don't have the vast experience of many here with lots of different formats (redraft/keeper/dynasty/auction, IDP, PPR or not, blind bid waivers, etc.)

 

But I have no problem discussing things and offering my opinion based on my limited experience.

[stevegrab]

BC thanks for your feedback. The way our league works with 2 co-commissioners my co-commish is the easy mild mannered one, ready to agree to most things. I'm the hard ass who has to say "hmm, is that really fair". When he brought this initial trade to me (with full roster swap if team gettng AP wins the league) his biggest concern was how do we prevent them from trading any players from ther teams before that happens. I have a feeling had I not said "well aren't they kind of pooling rosters, renting players etc." he would have just let it go.

 

That is how it has gone with this owner, he was brought in by his brother to draft because that guy always had a committment the night of our draft (every year, only owner, knowing well in advance that was our draft night). Then this guy basically took over the team. He's just annoying and taking some of the fun out of it. He has gotten better, and I even made a trade with him this year without going nuts.

 

Maybe since it is our first new owner in a while its just the usual somebody questioning our long standing league rules.

 

It just feels like a child trying to push us to see what he can get away with. We're all adults (40+) including him, but he often acts like a teenager.